Fusion of powers
Feature of some forms of government
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fusion of powers is a feature of some forms of government, where some branches of government are integrated or in a hierarchical relationship, instead of separated.[1] In particular, the term is used to describe the relationship of the legislative and executive branches in parliamentary systems, especially the Westminster system.[2]
In the Westminster system, members of the executive must come from the legislature.[3] The system first arose as a result of political evolution in the United Kingdom over many centuries, as the powers of the monarch became constrained by Parliament.[4] The term fusion of powers itself is believed to have been coined by the British constitutional expert Walter Bagehot.[5]
Fusion is contrasted with the separation of powers[6] found in presidential systems and to some degree in semi-presidential governments. Fusion of legislative and executive branches exists in parliamentary democracies by design. In modern democratic polities the judiciary is not fused with either the legislative, or the executive branch.[a]
Examples for legislature and executive
Canada
Canada, like other parliamentary countries using the Westminster system,[7] has a fusion between the executive and the legislative branches, following the principle of responsible government.[8] The Prime Minister and other Cabinet ministers are members of Parliament. Senator Eugene Forsey remarked 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."[9]
However, the two branches have distinct roles, and in certain instances can come into conflict with each other. For example, in June 2021, the Speaker of the House of Commons directed a member of the public service to comply with an order of the House of Commons to share certain documents with the Commons, and the public servant refused to do so. The federal government announced that it would challenge the Speaker's ruling in the Federal Court,[10] but dropped the lawsuit in August when Parliament was dissolved for a federal election.[11]
Denmark
The Danish government relies on the confidence of the parliament, Folketinget, to stay in power. If there is a successful motion of no confidence against the government, it collapses and either a new government is formed or new elections are called. The executive branch thus relies on the legislative branch, similarly to the Westminster system.
India
India operates under a parliamentary system derived from the Westminster model, which features a partial fusion of powers between the executive and legislative branches.[12] Under the Constitution of India, the executive branch is drawn directly from the legislature. According to Article 75, the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers must be members of Parliament (either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha); if a minister is not a member of Parliament upon appointment, they must be elected to either house within six months.[13]
Despite this executive-legislative fusion, India maintains a strict separation of powers regarding its judiciary. Unlike the parliamentary sovereignty found in the United Kingdom, India follows constitutional supremacy. The Supreme Court of India exercises robust powers of judicial review and has established in landmark rulings, such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, that the separation of powers among the executive, legislature, and judiciary is a fundamental component of the "basic structure" of the Constitution, which cannot be amended or abolished by Parliament.[14]
Israel
Israel has a Westminster-derived parliamentary system, in which the Government is generally made up of members of the Knesset, Israel's parliament. It is legally possible in Israel to appoint ministers who are not members of Knesset, but that is usually not done. By law, the Prime Minister (and, in an alternation government, also the Alternate Prime Minister) must be members of the Knesset.[15]
Sweden
The parliamentary system in Sweden has since its new constitution in 1974 instituted a fusion of powers whereby the principle of "popular sovereignty" serves as the guiding light of principle of government and forms the first line of the constitution.[16]
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom is generally considered the country with the strongest fusion of powers. Government ministers are even required to be members of parliament under the principle of monism.
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.
Hybrids of fusion and separation
Some forms of government combine fusion and separation of executive powers in different ways.
In an assembly-independent republic, the executive is elected by the legislature (fusion) but, once in office, is not politically accountable to it and cannot be removed through a vote of no confidence (separation). In comparative politics, this institutional arrangement is commonly described as assembly-independent government, referring to systems that combine legislative election of the executive with its independence from parliamentary dismissal.[17][18][19] They may or may not also hold a seat in the legislature.
In a semi-presidential republic a president exists alongside a prime minister and a cabinet, with the latter two being responsible to the legislature (fusion). It differs from a parliamentary system in that it has an executive president independent from the legislature (separation); and from the presidential system in that the cabinet, although named by the president, is responsible to the legislature, which may force the cabinet to resign through a motion of no confidence.[20][21][22][23]
A semi-parliamentary system is a system of government in which the legislature is split into two parts that are both directly elected – the first chamber has the power to select and remove the members of the executive by a vote of no confidence (fusion), while the second chamber does not (separation).[24]
Under dualistic parliamentary forms of government, where the membership of the legislative and executive powers cannot overlap, however, as part of the parliamentary structure, fusion is still the dominant relation between the two branches.
Australia
Australia has a partially Westminster-derived variation on the parliamentary system in which the executive branch is entirely composed of members of the legislative branch (monism).[25] Government ministers are required to be members of parliament, which is an element of fusion — but the federal judiciary strictly guards its independence from the other two branches.[26] However, the system can be described as semi-parliamentary in that only the House of Representatives has confidence powers (fusion), while the Senate represents and aspect of separation of powers.[24] The system has also been named a "Washminster" variation for this reason.
France
The current French Fifth Republic provides an example of the fusion of powers from a country that does not follow the Westminster system. Rather France follows a model known alternatively as a semi-presidential system[20] or 'mixed presidential-parliamentary' system, which is a variation on parliamentary democracy and with a significant role played by the president in the executive branch.[22]
Japan
Under the Constitution of Japan, a majority of cabinet ministers, including the prime minister, must be members of the National Diet. The system can be described as semi-parliamentary in that only the House of Representatives has confidence powers (fusion), while the House of Councillors represents and aspect of separation of powers.[24]
See also
- Parliamentary sovereignty
- Unified power - similar principle in communist states
- Responsible government
- Constitutionalism
- Constitutional economics
- Mixed government
- Rule according to higher law
- Elective dictatorship
Notes
- However, the independence of a judicial organ is not absolute, nor is there any guarantee that a judicial organ of a state will remain, or has the right to be, independent, as in many states with a sovereign legislature the legislature has the right to alter or abolish any of the judicial organs of that state. See Judicial functions of the House of Lords as an example.