In most cases, a democratic stateassociated with the equal existence of all its institutions. This situation was caused by the theory of separation of powers, the foundations of which were laid by a whole galaxy of prominent philosophers. What is the essence of such a device of the country? To give a detailed answer to this question, it is necessary not only to assimilate the essence, but also to reveal its formation.
Theory of separation of powers - a historical excursion
If you trace the evolution of power, it willIt is very clear that her status has changed noticeably. Be that as it may, but for 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 an elder or leader himself. With the emergence of the state as a form of organization of society, all power was transferred 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, ideas about dividing them wandered among philosophers and statesmen. This is evidenced by the work of Aristotle, Plato, Polybius.
However, most widely given viewsin the Renaissance, reached its peak on the change of the specified period and the Enlightenment. Thus, the famous scholars John Locke and Thomas Hobbes laid the foundation for their work, arguing that absolute monarchy should be limited to the people. Their ideas were supported and developed by S.-L. Montesquieu, through which emerged the modern concept of separation of powers.
The theory of separation of powers - a modern concept
Modern Western perception of the statestates that all its branches must be separated from each other. Those. legislative, judicial and executive powers must cooperate with each other on the principles of independence and equality. It is this concept of the functioning of democratic countries that the theory of the division of power advances.
However, why stick to such a mechanism?functioning? The answer is contained in the essence of the theory under consideration. According to her, the separation of the branches of government and its bodies eliminates the very possibility of concentrating more powers from a certain group. So, there are four basic principles on which the theory of separation of powers of Montesquieu is based:
- these three branches of government should be designated in the basic law of the country and, according to it, be governed by different bodies;
- the three authorities operate in cooperation, but not subordinate to each other;
- they have no right to interfere with the powers of each other;
- strict apoliticality of the judiciary.
It is on these principles basedthe 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 in cases where representatives of these two types purposefully violate the scope of administration of each other.
In addition to this mechanism, the theory of separation of power helps to clearly correlate which government agencies should join a particular branch.
So, the main legislative body is the Parliament. Depending on the country, its name may vary. However, the essence remains the same - the development and adoption of laws.
The executive is rankedThe government with its structural divisions, to the judicial, respectively, the courts. The Constitutional Court stands apart against the latter. Due to the duality of the decisions taken by him, it is customary to single out this country’s body as a separate state law institution, which acts as an arbiter between all structural elements of the state.
Founded in the Enlightenment theory of separationMontesquieu’s authorities are still the fundamental principle of the existence of the majority of 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.
