Does a SEPARATION OF POWERS really exist IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM ?

Dear Friends,

The Textbook Definition of our Democracy says that it has THREE PILLARS - The Legislative, The Executive, and The Judiciary.

The Legislative is the Parliament...

The Executive stands for the President, Prime Minister and his Cabinet...

The Judiciary is the Justice System

Now, theoretically, our system is said to have a Separation of Powers...which simply means that the Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary are COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of Each Other.

But I feel I find a Contradiction...The Prime Minister can both be an MP and the Prime Minister (ok, here's the pun - both MP and PM)...i.e. he's both in the Legislative and the Executive...and same for the Cabinet.

So where is the Separation of Powers...?

In my opinion, a True Separation would Exist Only if No Member of Parliament Could Become the Prime Minister or Part of the Cabinet, i.e. the Parliament should be capable only of making laws, and the Cabinet only of Implementing them. Powers should not overlap.

How to do that ? Give the President the Power of Nominating the Prime Minister and the Cabinet from among Non-Parliamentarians. And make the Election of the President direct from the People. Don't keep the Post merely a Titular one.

Today the President's position seems to me to be one of Great Power Theoretically, but little Practically.

True, that might sound like changing the Parliamentary nature of today's government to a more Presidential one, but that's the only way we can get the Separation of Powers realized, and hence a better governance.

All that we've seen in the last 65 years leads me to think that wherever a Democracy is a Federation or Union, the Presidential Form of Govt. is better than the Parliamentary. (Seventy Years ago, i.e. 5 years before even our Independence came by, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose had suggested that India adopt a Presidential form of Govt than a Parliamentary one. Today I'm just amazed at the Far-Sightedness and Brilliance of that Man...Wonderful...!!!)

But As Of Now the Cabinet is a Sub-Set of the Parliament....

Even the Theory seems to be Flawed....let alone the Practice...

Whaddya say ?

Summit.

Dear friend,

Ur post is loaded with heavy dose of theory, about what is written in constitution,the way things were envisaged when it was written. And comparing with it u find prez from of govt. better.
But my friend, the ultimate question is where the power lies, u want it to be with prez, constitution wants it to be with PM.
Now the question is, in the present system where the power lies?

It lies with the chairperson of Governing alliance(UPA), a totally extraconstitutional authority. I dont want to go into the details of how that happened and why? Why oppsition didn't cry foul?
Now that consigns all theoretical talk to dustbins.It is the powerful who rules,he defines everything the way he wants, the way that suits him.
anyway I liked ur post very much!!

good bye for now

thanks
Prakash

Dear frndz,

u may remember PM's satement,
....me mazbur hun....(matlab I am not the boss)
...on demand's of resignation,he says..
oye itna be mazbur nahin hun (yane mujhe pm jisne banaya hai vo jab tak chahenge me pm rahunga,kisi ke kehne se hatne ki mazburi nahin hai)
that makes it ample clear where the power lies.
thanks
Prakash Tiwari

1. "Ur post is loaded with heavy dose of theory, about what is written in constitution,the way things were envisaged when it was written..."

True. That was exactly what I intended to do. For without it, I couldn't think of a way to show how the system sets itself up for a farce. If you yearn for a Separation of Powers, but fail to provide it even in theory (let alone practice...that's a 65-year long slugfest), then by all means you seem waiting to invite the Corrupt to come in and pronounce - Veni, Vidi, Vici.

2. "It lies with the chairperson of Governing alliance(UPA), a totally extraconstitutional authority..."

Nothing could be closer to the truth. We've turned Parliamentary Democracy on its head. No more Separation of Powers; rather Congregation of Powers. All are invited. Fine-Print : You need to be in the Club.

When the theory doesn't provide safeguards, where will the practice lead you ?

3. "Now that consigns all theoretical talk to dustbins..."

NO it doesn't. Simply because - it doesn't need to. Our Politicians have already done it for us. Practicals dumped into bins, theories have pretty much turned Jurassic. Why bother ? Fossils don't even stink.

4. "It is the powerful who rules,he defines everything the way he wants, the way that suits him..."

Absolutely. A Classic case for a publication - "Experiments with Democracy : Transforming into a Pluto-Monarchy".

Genre : A Political "How To" Book.

But then, they also do it because we let them - isn't it ?

Get to me.

Summit.

But then, they also do it because we let them - isn't it ?

Yes, so the message of Vivekananda in one word is Jagriti or jagrat raho (be awakened).
If u r awakened then

1.u will make the system work!!
(be it prez form or PM form, to blame the system is a old game fault lies somewhere else within US, but admitting that pains and is quite boring ).

2.and remain vigilant all the time without slack!!
thanks

Absolutely...Fully Agree...

However, have to state that at certain times certain types of governance fare better. India, at the time of its Independence, as well as now, is in a situation where a Presidential Government would do better. Reasons below -

(1) Given the Educational level of many Indians, the Parliamentary form of govt. with its Party-Based system opens out more avenues of exploitation than benefit, because of the "Party-Based" Protection it offers to the Corrupt. A Party because of its Network of Wealth and Muscle is able to spread that effect nationwide.

(2) Party-Politics often leads to Coalition Politics. Then the interests of the Party start mattering more than the interests of the General Public.

(3) The so-called head of the state becomes a Titular ruler, with the real power going to the PM and Cabinet, and the ruling political Party. This creates the typical situation of "passing the buck around". You really can't grab hold of anyone in particular. So, get rid of this, create just one head who has the powers, and grab him if he doesn't perform.

(4) Without the concept of Senate, you don't have the option of rotating the representatives. One Person can enter Parliament at 20 and not leave until he's 100. The seeds of Dynastic Rule and Sticky-Seats.

There are many more. A point-by-point comparison can show us the advantages.

However, the correct-most sentence is what you said -

"If u r awakened then u will make the system work!!......to blame the system is a old game fault lies somewhere else within US......remain vigilant all the time without slack"

Without the above virtues of Education, Alertness and Bravery in the People, any system can be taken for a ride.

Thanks,

Summit.

I am in consonance.

Hope the Lokpal can do something about the lacunae and pitfalls of this system...

Like this -

CONVERTING a DEMOCRACY from a AUTO-RICKSHAW to a FOUR-WHEELER - and MAKING IT MORE STABLE ...

Thanks,

Summit.