In order for a democratic state not to turn into a single-government form, it is important that all power is not concentrated in one hand, but should be evenly distributed among state structures. This is the so-called principle of separation, when individual branches of government are independent from each other and none of them occupies a leading position. This is a system of balances and checks. We’ll talk about it today.
Definition of a concept
The system of balances and checks is legislatively fixed measures that do not allow all power to be concentrated in the same hands - the President, legislative, executive or judicial branches. Moreover, if one of the structures allows itself to go beyond its authority, others have the right to apply decisive measures in order to ensure democratic legality and balance of power.
The system of checks and balances of the branches of power is usually spelled out in full detail in the constitutions of states, in legislative acts responsible for regulating the rights and obligations of each region - judicial, parliamentary, executive. An important role in this system is assigned to the Constitutional Court and the President - they have the right to veto legislative acts that violate the harmony of the principle of separation of powers.
System principles
The main principle of the system of balances and checks is that all three branches of power at the same time are kept in harmonious balance and control each other. Their independence is manifested only in their area of competence. In all other respects, they are interdependent.
The principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances are connected in that the former exists on paper, and the latter is obliged to translate it into real life. As history has taught us , power cannot be effective if it is concentrated in the same hands.
The embodiment of the principle of the system in the Russian Federation
The system of checks and balances is embodied in reality as follows:
- Executive - legislative power: the state government proposes to the parliament draft laws that the latter is obliged to consider.
- The executive branch is the President: the head of state may not sign the approved bill and return it for reconsideration. This is an embodiment of the veto.
- Legislature - President: By repeating the vote for the approval of the legislative act, Parliament overcomes the President’s veto. In our country, for example, for the adoption of the bill in this case, 2/3 of the "from" the entire meeting of deputies are necessary.
- The executive is the judiciary: if the bill is contrary to the Constitution of the state, then the government is competent to challenge it in the Constitutional Court.
- Legislative - judicial power: if, in the opinion of the parliament, the government allows activities that are illegal and contrary to the basic law of the country, then representatives of the legislative branch can challenge this fact in the Constitutional Court.
The right of parliament is to impeach, as a result of which the President will resign. Deputies may also express no confidence in the government, as a result of which the head of state will have to dismiss the government. But among the rights of the President there is the authority to dissolve the parliament. This is how the system of checks and balances is expressed in real-life examples.
Origin of the concept
The theoretical substantiation of the subject of our conversation is the merit of the English philosopher John Locke. It happened in the second half of the XVII century. In widespread use, the term "system of counterweights and checks" appeared at the beginning of the 18th century thanks to the renowned contemporary of D. Locke - the French writer and philosopher Sh. de Montesquieu.
It is worth noting that the beginnings of the principle of separation of powers existed in the VI-IV centuries. BC. An example is the Persian state of Ahmedin, in which the military leaders did not have administrative power, and the troops did not report directly to the emperor. Some principles of the system were also characteristic of the later eras of the Roman Empire.
The very principle of separation of powers (then only legislative and executive) was first formed by the thinker of the medieval era, Marsilius of Padua. He noted that the best opposition to usurpation would be the creation of conditions under which it would be impossible to concentrate all power in one hand.
System features
Features of the principles of the system of checks and balances are as follows:
- The entirety of state functions is distributed between the branches of government. Parliament proposes and develops draft laws initiatives, the executive branch implements lawmaking, and the judiciary monitors the proper implementation of laws.
- The main task is to prevent a situation in which all power will be concentrated in one person or authority.
Modern system view
All progressive democracies are examples of the implementation of the principles of a system of checks and balances between branches of government.
The stability of the system today is given by constant competition between political parties for the votes. Conducting regular parliamentary elections, the activity of political life leads to the appearance of more and more elected representatives who replace the old ones, without letting anyone feel the helm of power in their own right.
It is important to note that in the modern world the principle of separation of powers has begun to erode - for example, two branches of government can have a number of similar functions. You also know about the emergence of the fourth unofficial branch - the media, which also contributes to the system of balances and checks in the Russian Federation and other countries.
System flaws
Initially, the principle of separation of powers seemed to thinkers a panacea for all forms of usurpation of power. I must agree that this train of thought was relevant for the times of monarchical empires. Today, it is not so much the branches of power that have a considerable share of influence, as intergovernmental and international organizations, against which the system of balances and checks is powerless.
This modern situation is also evident: in many authoritarian, totalitarian countries of the world, a system of balances exists, but only formally, in documents. In reality, all powers are concentrated in one person and her entourage. Legislative and judicial powers are puppets that create the appearance of independent branches and the appearance of democracy.
Thus, the system needs a specific “sharpening” under the realities of modernity, in order, as before, to ensure a fair distribution of power among all who can influence the affairs of the state today.
USA: an example of a system of checks and balances
Many researchers believe that the most ideal system of checks is formed in the United States. In this state, it has been worked out to the smallest detail, taking into account all exceptional cases:
- The change of elected representatives occurs gradually, and not as a result of a single election.
- Different terms of service for representatives of each of the authorities.
- Fundamentally different schemes for the formation of branches of government.
- All together, the branches of power control the powers and work of the President, who at any time can be removed from office as a result of impeachment.
System outlook
A system of checks and balances was once one of the key democratic principles. But nothing lasts forever: although its role is still not diminished, it does not seem so ideal and comprehensive anymore.
Summing up, we note once again that the system of balances and checks must be reconstructed today to cover in its entirety all associations and organizations that have influence on the state. However, it remains indispensable - neither in the past nor in the present, the focus of all power in one hand was not a worthy example to follow.