In most cases, a democratic stateis associated with the equal existence of all its institutions. This situation was determined by the theory of separation of powers, the foundations of which were laid by a whole galaxy of outstanding philosophers. What is the essence of such a structure of the country? To give a detailed answer to this question, it is necessary not only to grasp the essence, but also to disclose its formation.
The theory of separation of powers is a historical digression
If we trace the evolution of power,it is very clear that her status has changed markedly. Whatever it was, but most of the history of mankind power was concentrated in a single source. At first it was a tribe, then a council of elders, then the elder or leader himself. With the emergence of the state as a form of organization of society, all the fullness of power went either to the monarch (as it was in Egypt) or to the collegial body (as evidenced by the examples of ancient Rome and ancient Greece). In this case, it was always about the judicial, executive and legislative branches. But even at that distant time, among the philosophers and statists, ideas of dividing them were already wandering about. This is evidenced by the work of Aristotle, Plato, Polybius.
However, these views were most widely expressedin the Renaissance, reached their heyday at the turn of the period and the Enlightenment. So, the famous scientists John Locke and Thomas Hobbes in their works laid the foundations, arguing that absolute monarchy should be limited to the people. Their ideas were supported and developed by S.-L. Montesquieu, thanks to which the modern concept of separation of powers arose.
The theory of separation of powers is a modern concept
Modern Western perception of the statesays that all its branches must be separated from each other. Those. The legislative, judicial and executive powers should cooperate with each other on the principles of independence and equality. It is this concept of the functioning of democratic countries that is advanced by the theory of the division of power.
But why stick to such a mechanismfunctioning? The answer lies in the essence of the theory in question. According to her, when separating the branches of power and the bodies that carry it out, the very possibility of concentrating more powers from a certain group is eliminated. So, there are four basic principles on which the theory of separation of powers of Montesquieu is based:
- the three specified branches of power should be designated in the basic law of the country and according to it should be managed by different bodies;
- Three authorities function in cooperation, but not in submission to each other;
- they do not have the right to interfere in each other's authority;
- strict apoliticalness of the judiciary.
It is on these principles that thethe fundamental beginning of interaction between the executive and legislative branches. The theory of separation of powers calls this mechanism as follows: checks and balances. It is used when the representatives of the two types specifically target each other's sphere of administration.
In addition to this mechanism, the theory of power sharing helps to clearly correlate which state bodies should join this or that branch.
So, the main body of legislative power is the Parliament. Depending on the country, its name can be modified. However, the essence remains the same - the development and adoption of laws.
To the executive power is includedThe government with its structural units, to the judiciary, respectively, the courts. The Constitutional Court stands apart from the latter. Due to the duality of the decisions made by him, the given body of the country is to be singled out as a separate state legal institution, which acts as an arbiter between all the structural elements of the state.
The theory of separation inherent in the Enlightenmentof the Montesquieu authorities is still the fundamental principle of the existence of most Western countries. Therefore, a clear understanding of its essence allows an objective assessment not only of the forms of government, but also of the political regime.