What is Separation of Powers and Why is it Important for Good Governance?

Ladies and gentlemen welcome to the wonderful world of politics where everything is sunshine and rainbows, and the politicians always have your best interests at heart. Just kidding, of course! As law students, you are no doubt familiar with the harsh reality that politics is messy, complex, and often riddled with corruption and power struggles. But fear not, for today we will be discussing a concept that is essential for good governance: the separation of powers.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. “Separation of powers? That sounds boring!” But trust me, it’s anything but. This concept is the foundation of modern democracies and has been the subject of heated debate among philosophers, politicians, and lawyers for centuries. It is the key to preventing tyranny, ensuring accountability, and protecting individual liberties.

This article aims to provide law students with a comprehensive overview of the concept of separation of powers, its historical background and evolution, the roles of the three branches of government in maintaining it, the benefits of its application, the challenges it faces, and some case studies of countries that adhere to it. So, grab your textbooks, buckle up, and let’s dive into the fascinating world of the separation of powers.

What is the separation of power?

The concept of separation of powers is a fundamental principle of democratic governance that seeks to distribute power among different branches of government. It refers to the division of powers among the different branches of government, namely the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, to prevent the concentration of power in one individual or group and to ensure checks and balances.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, separation of powers is defined as “the constitutional principle that limits powers vested in any person or institution” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). In other words, it is a system of checks and balances that ensures no single branch of government can exercise too much power or become tyrannical.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the separation of powers is “the principle by which the powers of government are divided among separate branches, each having distinct areas of authority and responsibility” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2023). The principle is based on the idea that concentrating power in one branch of government can lead to tyranny and the abuse of individual rights and liberties.

The concept of separation of powers has its roots in ancient political philosophy, with Aristotle writing in his Politics that “it is best that the law should be supreme over all” (Aristotle, Politics, 350 BC). This idea was further developed in the writings of philosophers such as Montesquieu, who argued that the separation of powers was essential for preventing the concentration of power and the abuse of individual rights.

In his influential book The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu wrote that “there can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body of magistrates” (Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, 1748). He argued that the separation of powers should be based on three distinct branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judiciary.

What is the Rule of Law and Why is it Important in a Democratic Society?

Similarly, John Locke, in his “Two Treatises of Government” (1689), argued that the separation of powers was essential for protecting individual liberty and preventing tyranny. He believed that the legislative, executive, and judicial functions should be separated to ensure that no single branch of government could dominate the others.

The principle of separation of powers is also recognized in international human rights law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, affirms the importance of the separation of powers in Article 2, which states that “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms outlined in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or another opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or another status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made based on the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”

The separation of powers doctrine is essential for promoting the rule of law and ensuring accountability and transparency in government. As the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948).

The separation of powers doctrine is also essential for protecting individual rights and liberties. As the philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in his essay On Liberty, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859).

To illustrate the separation of powers doctrine, consider the example of the United States government. The U.S. government is divided into three branches: the legislative, executive, and judiciary. The legislative branch consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives and is responsible for creating laws. The executive branch, headed by the President, is responsible for enforcing laws. The judiciary, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts, is responsible for interpreting laws and resolving disputes.

The Three Branches of Government and Their Roles

The three branches of government are the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Each branch has distinct powers and functions, and they work together to ensure the rule of law and prevent the concentration of power in any one branch.

The legislature

The legislature is responsible for making laws and overseeing the government’s budget. It is usually made up of elected representatives who are responsible to the people they represent. The legislature serves as a check on the power of the executive by approving or rejecting the executive’s proposals and policies.

The executive

The executive branch is responsible for implementing and enforcing laws. It is usually headed by a president, prime minister, or monarch, and includes various departments and agencies responsible for specific areas of government, such as defense, foreign affairs, and law enforcement. The executive branch also has the power to veto legislation passed by the legislature.

The judiciary

The judiciary is responsible for interpreting the laws and resolving disputes. It is usually made up of judges and courts and has the power to review and declare unconstitutional any laws or executive actions that violate the Constitution. The judiciary serves as a check on the power of the legislature and executive by ensuring that they are acting within the bounds of the law and the constitution.

In practical terms, the principle of separation of powers means that each branch of government has its distinct responsibilities and powers and that no one branch should be able to exercise the powers of another branch. There are checks and balances in place to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. For example, the President can veto legislation passed by Congress, but Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote. The Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional, but Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution to overturn the Court’s decision.

Benefits of Separation of Powers

The separation of powers doctrine has several benefits for good governance. Firstly, it ensures checks and balances, which prevents any one branch of government from becoming too powerful and abusing its authority. This is important because it protects individual liberties and prevents the government from becoming tyrannical.

Secondly, separation of powers ensures that the law and the constitution are the ultimate authorities, rather than any individual or group of individuals. This promotes the rule of law, which is essential for a functioning democracy.

Finally, separation of powers promotes accountability and transparency by ensuring that each branch of government is responsible for its actions and decisions and that its decisions are subject to review and scrutiny by the other branches and the public.

Challenges to Separation of Powers

While the separation of powers doctrine has many benefits, it also faces several challenges that can undermine its effectiveness. One challenge is the politicization of the judiciary, where judges are appointed based on their political affiliations rather than their qualifications or impartiality. This undermines the judiciary’s independence and impartiality and can result in biased decisions that favor one political party over another.

Another challenge is the lack of clear separation between the executive and legislative branches, particularly in countries where the president or prime minister is also a member of the legislature. This can result in a concentration of power in the executive branch and a lack of effective checks and balances.

The erosion of the separation of powers by the executive branch, which can use its power to issue executive orders, make appointments, and control the budget undermines the independence of the other branches of government.

In some cases, the legislature may also be compromised by corruption or undue influence from powerful interest groups. This can result in legislation that favors these groups rather than the public interest.

Finally, there is the challenge of balancing the need for separation of powers with the need for efficient and effective governance. In some cases, the separation of powers can lead to gridlock and inefficiency, particularly when the different branches of government are controlled by different political parties with conflicting agendas.

Case Studies: Countries that Adhere to Separation of Powers

Several countries around the world adhere to the separation of powers doctrine and have successfully implemented it in their governance systems. One example is Germany, where the constitution establishes three branches of government and requires them to work together to ensure good governance. The German judiciary is renowned for its independence and impartiality, and the German political system is known for its stability and efficiency.

Another example is Japan, where the constitution also establishes three branches of government and provides for a system of checks and balances. The Japanese judiciary is also known for its independence and impartiality, and the Japanese political system is known for its stability and efficiency.

Bangladesh and Separation of Powers

Ah, Bangladesh – a land of glorious parliamentary democracy and enshrined separation of powers doctrine in the constitution. How wonderful! Or is it? Unfortunately, Bangladesh has faced quite a few challenges when it comes to implementing this doctrine. When we talk about the separation of powers doctrine in Bangladesh, it’s like talking about a theoretical concept that has yet to be put into practice. It seems that the application of separation of powers has been about as consistent as the weather during monsoon season.

While the judiciary is supposed to be independent and impartial, historically it has faced political pressure and interference, and the government has done a stellar job of undermining its independence. There have even been cases where the executive branch has decided to get its hands dirty and interfere in the functioning of the judiciary, such as the removal of judges or suspension of their powers. Take, for instance, the case of Chief Justice Surya Kumar Sinha, who had to flee the country in 2017 and was sentenced to 11 years in jail for “money laundering” after he refused to bow down to the government’s pressure citing threats to his life and allegations of government pressure to deliver politically motivated judgments. In his book, “A Broken Dream: Rule of Law, Human Rights, and Democracy,” Justice Sinha expressed his concerns about the state of the rule of law in Bangladesh, stating that “the judiciary is not free, fair, impartial, and independent.” However, who needs impartiality when you have politicians who know what’s best, am I right?

The International Commission of Jurists has noted in 2018 that the “judiciary has been subjected to interference, intimidation, and harassment, and judges have been removed or transferred for political reasons.” And if that wasn’t enough, the government’s influence over the judiciary was further highlighted in the case of journalist Shahidul Alam. He was arrested for speaking out against the government and only granted bail after the government decided to loosen its grip on his case. Who needs an independent judiciary when you can just have politicians decide what’s right and wrong?

And speaking of politicians, let’s talk about the executive branch. The judiciary isn’t the only branch of government that has faced criticism for its lack of independence and accountability. They have been criticized for their concentration of power and lack of effective checks and balances. Prime Minister and her cronies have been accused of authoritarianism and suppressing opposition voices. But hey, who needs opposing views when you can just have one party making all the decisions? It’s not like democracy requires a diversity of opinions, right?

What is the State? What are its constituent elements?

And let’s not forget about the legislative branch. They have also been criticized for their lack of independence and accountability. The ruling party has a majority in the legislature and has been accused of passing legislation that favors their interests rather than the public interest. Who needs representation when you can just have politicians vote in their interests? It’s not like the public matters, right?

So, there you have it, folks. Bangladesh may have a constitution that enshrines the separation of powers doctrine, but it seems that in practice, it’s about as effective as a screen door on a submarine. As the country continues to grapple with issues of corruption and political interference, it’s important to remember that good governance requires a strong and independent judiciary, executive, and legislature. Without it, democracy in Bangladesh will continue to be nothing more than a facade.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the separation of powers doctrine is essential for good governance and the protection of individual liberties. It ensures checks and balances, promotes the rule of law, and fosters accountability and transparency. However, the effectiveness of the separation of powers doctrine depends on its consistent application and the independence and impartiality of the three branches of government.

Bangladesh faces significant challenges in maintaining the effectiveness of the separation of powers doctrine. The judiciary, executive, and legislative branches all face political pressure and interference, which undermines their independence and impartiality. To strengthen the separation of powers in Bangladesh, there needs to be a concerted effort to ensure the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, strengthen the accountability of the executive and legislative branches, and promote transparency and public scrutiny of government actions and decisions.

As the philosopher, John Locke famously wrote, “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins” (John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 1689). The separation of powers doctrine is essential for preventing tyranny and ensuring good governance. It is up to the citizens and leaders of Bangladesh, and all democratic nations, to uphold and strengthen this fundamental principle.