Fusion of powers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fusion of powers is a feature of parliamentary democracies, wherein the executive and legislative branches are intermingled. It is often contrasted with the more strict separation of powers found in the presidential democracies. Fusion of powers exists in many, if not a majority, of democracies today, and does so by design. But the system was the result of political evolution in Britain over many centuries, as the powers of the monarch and the upper house withered away, and the lower house became dominant.[1]

The term fusion of powers is believed to have been coined by the British authority, Walter Bagehot.[2]

Advantages[edit]

One advantage of a fusion of powers, according to promoters, is that it is easier for the government to take action. There exists virtually no way for there to be a deadlock in the manner that can sometimes occur where the legislature and executive are separated,[3] but see the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis for a counterexample. Senator Eugene Forsey of Canada, a country with fusion of powers, remarks that "in Canada, the Government and the House of Commons cannot be at odds for more than a few weeks at a time. If they differ on any matter of importance, then, promptly, there is either a new government or a new House of Commons."[4]

Disadvantages[edit]

The disadvantage with a fusion of powers, paradoxically, is the power it gives to the executive, not the legislative, arm of government. In a fusion of powers, the head of government must have the confidence of a majority in the legislature. If the majority is made up of members of one's own party, the head of government can use these supporters to control the legislature's business, thus protecting the executive from being truly accountable and at the same time passing any laws expedient for the government. A revolt by members of the government's own party (or, if the government is a coalition or minority government, by supporting parties) is possible, but party discipline, along with a tendency by many electorates to vote against unstable governments, makes such a revolt unattractive and therefore rare.

Many states have responded to this by instituting or retaining multicameral legislatures, in which all houses must pass legislation in the same form. The responsible house is usually the most powerful and the only house with the actual power to terminate the government. Other houses, though, can often veto or at least delay controversial bills, perhaps until the government's performance can be judged by the electorate. They also provide additional forums for inquiry into the conduct of the executive. In addition, since the government's future is not at stake in other houses, members of the governing party or coalition in these houses can be freer to oppose particular government policies they disagree with. A second approach to curbing executive power is the election of the responsible house by some form of proportional representation, as in the case of Japan. This often, but not necessarily, leads to coalitions or minority governments. These governments have the support of the legislature when their survival is at stake but less absolute control over its proceedings.

A fusion of powers was specifically rejected by the framers of the American constitution, for fear that it would concentrate a dangerous level of power into one body. However, other countries reject the presidential system for the same reason, arguing it concentrates too much power in the hands of one person, especially if impeachment is difficult.

Examples[edit]

The United Kingdom is generally considered the country with the strongest fusion of powers. Until 2005, the Lord Chancellor was a full fusion of all branches, being speaker in the House of Lords, a government minister heading the Lord Chancellor's Department and head of the judiciary.

At the other end of the spectrum is the United States, with a strong separation of powers mandated by its constitution. But even in this system, checks and balances result in some connections between the branches. For example, the legislature may exercise the power to impeach the executive or judges, the executive may exercise the power to veto actions of the legislature, and the legislature may exercise the power to override the executive's veto.

The French Fifth Republic, a model known alternatively as a semi-presidential system or “mixed” presidential-parliamentary system, exists somewhere near the middle of the spectrum. Mixed systems are being adopted by some of the newer democracies in eastern Europe.[5]

See also[edit]

References[edit]