What is separation of powers?
Arguments in favor of separation of powers.
Arguments against separation of powers.
.png)
Separation of powers:-
Separation of powers is one of the elements of the modern state system. The principle of separation of powers is considered one of the conditions for protecting modern democracy. The principle of separation of powers is the complete separation of the three main branches of government - law, administration and judiciary. According to the principle of separation of powers, the three main branches of government - law, administration and judiciary can work independently and one branch will not interfere in the work of another branch in any way.
The main proponent of the principle of separation of powers is Montesquieu. In addition, the English philosopher Blackstone can also be called a proponent of the principle of separation of powers. A detailed description of the principle of separation of powers is found in Montesquieu's book ‘’The Spirit of the Laws’’ published in 1748. Montesquieu spoke about the need for separation of powers to protect individual freedom.
Arguments in favor of separation of powers:-
1. Montesquieu's opinion: -
According to Montesquieu, separation of powers is absolutely essential to prevent arbitrariness of the three branches of government. If the principle of separation of powers is accepted, no branch will be able to interfere in the work of another branch. As a result, each branch will be able to work independently. Moreover, if the legal and administrative power is concentrated in one hand, then abuse of power is very much possible.
2. Macedon's opinion: -
Macedon was one of the drafters of the Constitution of the United States. According to him, if the powers of these three branches - law, administration and justice - are not separated, the emergence of tyranny is inevitable. Therefore, separation of powers is absolutely essential to protect individual freedom.
3. Blackstone's opinion: -
English political scientist Blackstone, in his book ‘’Commentaries on the Laws of England’’, he said in favor of separation of powers - separation of powers on the one hand maintains the independence of the branches of government and on the other hand increases the efficiency of the branches of government.
4. Prevention of tyranny: -
According to the principle of separation of powers, the departments of the government cannot interfere in each other's work and the three departments can enjoy their own independence independently. As a result, the possibility of any one department becoming dictatorial is eliminated.
5. Increase in efficiency: -
According to the principle of separation of powers, the three departments of the government can work independently. As a result, on the one hand, the departments of the government can work independently, on the other hand, the mentality of interdependence between the departments is eliminated. In this way, the principle of separation of powers increases the efficiency and effectiveness of the three departments of the government.
6. Departmental independence: -
The principle of separation of powers keeps the powers and functions of each department independent, as a result, one department cannot interfere in the work of another department in any way. As a result, if the principle of separation of powers is accepted, the independent existence of these three departments - law, administration and judiciary - can be observed.
Arguments against separation of powers: -
1. Complete separation of powers is not possible:-
In modern complex governance, complete separation of powers is not possible. At present, in various states, the departments of the government are run on the basis of mutual cooperation. For example, although the policy of complete separation of powers has been adopted in the US system of governance, the US President appoints judges. Again, in a federal structure like India, the President is a member of both the legislative and executive and he appoints the judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court. Therefore, the practical implementation of the policy of complete separation of powers is not possible in any way.
2. Complete implementation is not appropriate:-
To successfully run the departments of the government, mutual cooperation between the departments is necessary. Therefore, John Stuart Mill, Lasky and others have expressed their opinion against the complete implementation of separation of powers. According to them, if the policy of complete separation of powers is implemented, hostility will arise between the departments of the government instead of cooperation.
3. Not suitable for individual freedom:-
As a result of the policy of separation of powers, the three departments of the government cannot interfere in each other's work. Because, if the legislative branch introduces a law against the public interest, then no one has the power to prevent that law. Again, even if the executive branch becomes autocratic, no one has the power to prevent it. Therefore, separation of powers cannot be a safeguard for individual freedom in any way.
4. The powers of the three branches are not equal in reality:-
In modern democratic states, the legislative branch is considered more powerful than the other two branches. Because, the executive branch has to be legally responsible, while the judiciary conducts judicial work through the laws made by the legislative branch. Therefore, even if the principle of separation of powers is followed, democracy does not benefit.
5. Not in accordance with organic theory:-
Organic theorists such as Blountsley have criticized the principle of separation of powers. Proponents of organic theory believe that the state and the living body have the same characteristics. Just as organs cannot be separated from the living body, the attempt to separate the departments of the state is just a fantasy.
6. Criticism of Marxists:-
Marxists have also criticized the policy of separation of powers. According to Marxists, the state is an instrument of class exploitation. Therefore, in this case, all the departments of the government are always active to protect the interests of the privileged class. Therefore, unless socialism is established in the true sense, following the policy of separation of powers is meaningless.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
