The Hindu Business Line : Because absolute power corrupts absolutely

"The premise behind the separation of powers is that when a single person or group has a large amount of power, they can become dangerous to citizens."

In King Richard II, a determined gardener says, "I will go root away the noisome weeds, which without profit suck the soil's fertility from wholesome flowers."

One may say that of the current noise about `office of profit' too. That it is all noisome words, only sucking, without profit, everybody's time and attention. Yet, before rooting it away, let us delve into its foundation: The concept of `separation of power.'

Separation of power is a method of removing the amount of power in any group's hands, making it more difficult to abuse, states www.importanceofphilosophy.com. "The premise behind the separation of powers is that when a single person or group has a large amount of power, they can become dangerous to citizens." For, as Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Wikipedia informs that separation of powers (or trias politica, a term coined by French political thinker Baron de Montesquieu) is a model for the governance of the state. The analogous phrase in the non-political context is `separation of duties'. An example is the segregation of accounting and custodial functions, which is the core of internal control, as emphasised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.

"Montesquieu (1689-1755) proposed division of political power between an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary," says http://en.wikipedia.org. "Under this model, each branch has separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility; however, each branch may also be able to place limits on the power exerted by the other branches." Montesquieu is also credited for the phrase `checks and balances'.

The US Constitution provides for the three branches. "First, the Legislative branch makes the law. Second, the Executive branch executes the law. Last, the Judicial branch interprets the law. Each branch has an effect on the other," explains www.usconstitution.net.

The site provides many examples of checks and balances. Such as: "The President appoints judges and departmental secretaries. But these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The Congress can pass a law, but the President can veto it. The Supreme Court can rule a law to be unconstitutional, but the Congress, with the States, can amend the Constitution."

One also learns from the site that the concept can be traced to: Ancient Greece; Aristotle who thought of `a mixed government composed of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy' because none was ideal; James Harrington's Oceana (1656); and John Locke's Civil Government (1690).

Bearing on Federalism

Separation of power is ingrained in the Indian Constitution too. "This doctrine has got not only relevance to the question of separation of judiciary from the legislature and the executive, it has got a vital bearing upon the whole question of federalism," said Brajeshwar Prasad on May 30, 1949, participating in the Constituent Assembly's discussion on Article 129.

In recent times, though, one reads about this bewailing by Suresh Prabhu in Lok Sabha (http://parliamentofindia.nic.in) on August 28, 1997 that, owing to separation of power, the Executive executes legislation passed by Parliament in a different fashion, even as the Judiciary tries to interpret the same in a different manner. "If in 1947 we went in for the separation of power between these three different organs, in 1997, can we not think about unity of action between these three different organs so that ultimately all the three organs try to serve the common man whose benefit all these three organs are supposed to operate and not as a sort of counterbalance to defeat each other and try to find fault with each other's action?" he asked. Wonder if the idea has any takers.

In the UK, the concept is not so clear, says www.historylearningsite.co.uk. "The legislative aspect is Parliament where laws are passed; the executive (which plans prospective laws and formulates policy) is the cabinet of the government and the judiciary is the Law Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council who have a final say on legal issues (the European Court excluded)." There is thus a merging of roles.

The Westminster System

"Under the Westminster System — the parliamentary system of government Australia adopted and adapted from England — this separation does not fully exist," concedes www.parliament.nsw.gov.au. "Since the ministry (executive) is drawn from and responsible to the parliament (legislature) there is a great deal of interconnection in both personnel and actions," explains the site.

"Israel has given the US only two weeks to take the nukes out. After that, they'll do whatever it takes to destroy the weapons themselves." Thus reads a teaser of Vince Flynn's thriller, Separation of Power, on www.diesel-ebooks.com. "With the haunting spectre of World War III looming, Rapp races against time and impossible odds — navigating the deadly alleys of Baghdad, tearing through the corruption-riddled streets of Washington, DC, and taking drastic measures against anyone who gets in his way... " Almost matching with the cliffhanger suspense closer home!

ZeroBase@TheHindu.co.in

D. Murali