THE separation of powers is a political doctrine of constitutional law usually defined by the three traditional branches of government (i.e. executive, legislative, and judicial) and is designed to be a system of checks and balances, wherein each branch is given different and differentiated powers. That is the theory.
All democracies, whether mature or not, do recognise such a differentiated and separate concentration of functions of power. Non democracies are silent about these different powers of making laws, executing such laws, and the modus operandi plus interpretation of the same laws.
You and I and every other man and his dog split hair about whether it is this system called a democracy or that person called a king or that piece of paper called a constitution or that assembly called a parliament that is true and proper source of power , or what nuances and peculiarities about that system or piece of paper or person has , but at the end of the day, what is indisputable is simply this : power will be vested where the will of the people is concerntrated upon .
Usually this means that power will be aligned with the will of the majority , but this is not always. History has ample evidence of cases where the will of a minority was so superior , that it was the will of the minority that vested power.
Parliament , separation of powers , the Westminster form or whatever form , elections and what nots is not the source of power - it simply how power chooses to manifest itself . They are the cloth , not the mean. To a degree our cloths does speak of us , but our clothes do not make us. When push comes to shove, they are not even that important .
Important changes in any group only occurs when it’s people Will it with strength. Changes do occur by constitutional or judicial or parliamentary or whatever means , but these changes are just the expedient sort - they are never fundamental
Posted 5 years ago by Nehru Sathiamoorthy