Fusion of powers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search
Fusion of powers is a feature of some parliamentary forms of government, especially
those following the Westminster system, where the executive and legislative
branches of government are intermingled. It is contrasted with the more rigorous
separation of powers[1] found in presidential and semi-presidential forms of
government where the legislative and executive powers are in origin separated by
popular vote. Fusion of powers exists in many, if not a majority of, parliamentary
democracies, and does so by design. However, in all modern democratic polities the
judicial branch of government is independent of the legislative and executive
branches.

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.
[2] The term fusion of powers itself is believed to have been coined by the British
constitutional expert Walter Bagehot.[3]

Contents
1 Examples
1.1 Australia
1.2 Canada
1.3 France
1.4 Israel
1.5 United Kingdom
1.6 Sweden
2 Advantages
3 Disadvantages
4 See also
5 References
Examples
Australia
As Australia has a partially Westminster-derived parliamentary system, the
executive branch is entirely composed of members of the legislative branch.[4]

Canada
Senator Eugene Forsey of Canada 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."[5]

France
The current French Fifth Republic provides an example of the fusion of powers from
a country which does not follow the Westminster system. Rather France follows a
model known alternatively as a semi-presidential system or 'mixed presidential-
parliamentary' system, which exists somewhere between parliamentary democracies and
presidential democracies.

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 in practice. By law, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister
must be members of Knesset.[6]

United Kingdom
The United Kingdom is generally considered the country with the strongest fusion of
powers. 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.

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.[7]

Advantages
One advantage of a fusion of powers, according to promoters, is that it is easier
for the government to take action. There exists virtually no way for there to be a
deadlock in the manner that can sometimes occur where the legislature and executive
are separated,[8] but see the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis for a counter-
example (regarding the dual executive nature of some parliamentary systems).

Disadvantages

This section may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help
improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical
details. (April 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The disadvantage with a fusion of powers, paradoxically, is the power it gives to
the executive, not the legislative, arm of government. In a fusion of powers, the
head of government must have the confidence of a majority in the legislature. If
the majority is made up of members of one's own party, the head of government can
use these supporters to control the legislature's business, thus protecting the
executive from being truly accountable and at the same time passing any laws
expedient for the government. A revolt by members of the government's own party
(or, if the government is a coalition or minority government, by supporting
parties) is possible, but party discipline, along with a tendency by many
electorates to vote against unstable governments, makes such a revolt unattractive
and therefore rare.

Many states have responded to this by instituting or retaining multicameral

legislatures, in which all houses must pass legislation in the same form. The
responsible house is usually the most powerful and the only house with the actual
power to terminate the government. Other houses, though, can often veto or at least
delay controversial bills, perhaps until the government's performance can be judged
by the electorate. They also provide additional forums for inquiry into the conduct
of the executive. In addition, since the government's future is not at stake in
other houses, members of the governing party or coalition in these houses can be
freer to oppose particular government policies they disagree with. A second
approach to curbing executive power is the election of the responsible house by
some form of proportional representation, as in the case of Japan. This often, but
not necessarily, leads to coalitions or minority governments. These governments
have the support of the legislature when their survival is at stake but less
absolute control over its proceedings.

A fusion of powers was specifically rejected by the framers of the American

constitution, for fear that it would concentrate a dangerous level of power into
one body. However, other countries reject the presidential system for the same
reason, arguing it concentrates too much power in the hands of one person,
especially if impeachment is difficult.

See also
Constitutionalism
Constitutional economics
Mixed government
Rule according to higher law
Responsible government
Separation of powers
References
Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws
Martin C. Needler (1991). The Concepts of Comparative Politics. Greenwood
Publishing Group. p. 116. ISBN 978-0-275-93653-2.
The Harmonious Constitution
"Chapter 2". Parliament of Australia. Retrieved 2 October 2017.
"How Canadians Govern Themselves". Library of Parliament, Canada.
"Basic Law: The Government (2001)".
http://www.riksdagen.se/en/Documents-and-laws/Laws/The-Constitution/
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/6-lap9a.htm
vte
Separation of powers
vte
Constitution of Canada
Categories: Constitution of the United KingdomPolitical science
terminologyConstitutional lawSeparation of powers
Navigation menu
Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView
historySearch

Search Wikipedia
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Espa�ol
Nederlands
Polski
??????????
??
??
Edit links
This page was last edited on 3 January 2019, at 02:49 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and
Privacy Policy. Wikipedia� is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersCookie
statementMobile viewWikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki