Separation of Power in a Parliamentary system:
The article intends to comprehend readers on all legal as well as practical aspects of the “doctrine of Trias Politica” (Separation of Power in a Parliamentary system) with how it is being exploited and the limit.
However, it also discusses the origin and development of the doctrine.
Furthermore, it discusses on Westminster principle, Organic unity of government,
And a conclusive study in contrast to other countries and India
“Power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely”-Lord Action.
The world war two and the fall of the Soviet Union tend the countries to be a more democratic one.
Where there were monarchs people demanded the democratic government and many such British colonies (India was a colony) rebel for their
Henceforth in old Greek Doctrine of “trias politica” by Montesquieu in his book Spirit of law answered all, under this he divided political authority into three branches; legislative, executive and judicial and asserted it to be distinguished from each other, to promote liberty and to form a welfare state this principle divided the working sphere of all the three branches.
The Westminster System: Parliamentary system
As per Arend Lijphart2 democracy are of two types; The Westminster and Consensus system.
The Westminster system emphasizes more on parliamentary form rather than the committees.
Some parliamentarians are being selected by Plurality voting system (first past the post) countries like the UK, Canada, India uses this form and this form allows a great separation of power.
The Principle of the separation of powers in the Westminster system is usually regarded as the most fundamental tenets of liberal democracy. Though the Westminster countries do follow only partial Separation of power not the more pure form of separation.
Power Definition of Doctrine of Separation of Power :
Prof. Vile3 in his modern work published in England stated that “The pure form of separation of power can be achieved by liberty. it seeks to divide the government into three branches; legislative, executive and judiciary and all these three branches need to be confined to their sphere and rather not to encroach on others sphere to each of these branches do have their own identifiable work and they are incumbent to exercise the same.
Furthermore, the person who composed these three agencies must be kept separate and distinct and no such individual be allowed to be a member of two branches simultaneously.”
Critical Analysis of Doctrine of Separation of Power:
This can be comprehended by the different philosopher’s statements LASKI – The spectacle of Separation of Power is a spectacle of Confusion of
Some of the critics of Separation of Power as analyzed and figured out Firstly, Frequent deadlock and general inefficiency The Separation of Power is not possible because the Government is an organic unity and complete demarcation of power is not possible. It will rather lack unity in harmony. Secondly, I condemn Montesquieu verdict of “Separation of Power”
The Government is only responsible to deliver their Function and not Power Thirdly, The superior-inferior battle, The theory envisages that all the organs are equal and share equal power but the fact is that the Legislatures exhibits more power than other two organs and many such appointments are done by legislatures. Fourthly, Strict Separation is impractical because for a welfare state one at the time or other encroaches in the sphere of each other