Theory Of Separation Of Powers

1815 Words 7 Pages
The theory of separation of powers is an idea that leads us back to ancient Greek times. It is a doctrine which represents a way of analysing government and the extent to which a state organises the distribution of power in its different branches. The ancient Greeks in their wisdom looked at the government as being formed by three separate functions. Moreover, the political philosopher Montesquieu reached the threshold of a more meaningful explanation of the doctrine by saying that ‘there can be no liberty if the legislative, executive and judicial powers of government were to be exercised by the same person or authority’.
In the UK context, the three branches within which the power of the state is exercised are represented by the legislature,
…show more content…
It is sovereign and supreme and it has the role to produce the legislation of the state. The UK’s Parliament is bicameral, formed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The former consists of elected members and has the majority of seats being held by the elected government, while the latter has unelected members and consists of House of Lords’ Appellate Committee and House of Lords’legislative chamber. One one hand, this format makes it harder to establish whether or not there is a definite separation of powers in UK where visible overlaps are found. On the other hand, an essential aspect concerning the UK constitution is the concept of ministerial responsibility which asserts the fact that the head people in the executive should be members either of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. The UK Parliament is empowered to ‘enact primary legislation, to authorise secondary legislation and to scrutinise the actions of the government, acting as a checks and balances mechanisms’ on it, being the body providing legal power to the executive. Considering the strong relationship between them, the UK executive and legislative ‘are far from being separated’. A strong relevance in this sense has the fact that the Prime Minister could be leader of executive and of majority party in the legislative. In addition, the Parliament can also enforce the Government with the power to draft delegated …show more content…
The government runs the country by using the legislature enacted by the Parliament and in accordance to the royal prerogative. Thus, it cannot act beyond its legal boundaries because doing so would offend the rule of law. The royal prerogative is a power specific to the Crown which allows the Queen to act and ensures immediate action on certain matters. The prerogative can be domestic and used for appointments with Ministers, removing and dissoluting of parliament, or it can be foreign, regarding the power to enter into treaties. In the majority of circumstances the royal prerogative is exercised by the Prime Minister and other ministers on behalf of the Queen. There is control though over the enforcement of the prerogative which limits its use. It is asserted that the Queen ‘has no power to act judicially’ and she has ‘only the power that the law allows her’. Quite notably Dicey has noted that royal prerogative can be ‘every act that government can do without an Act’. Arguably, Yardley denotes that ‘we consider the royal prerogative with the term “royal” is in fact misleading’. It is noticeable how the overlap between branches appears again as regards to the mechanism of judicial review upon the acts of the executive. It is the rol of judiciary to ensure whether the government

Related Documents