Топ-100 ⓘ Encyclopedia - Separation of powers - Wiki Did you know?
Back

ⓘ Encyclopedia | Separation of powers - Wiki ..




                                               

Separation of powers

The separation of powers is a representation for the governance of a state. Under this model, a states government is divided into branches, each with separate, independent powers and responsibilities so that powers of one branch are not in conflict with those of the other branches. The typical division is into three branches: a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary, which is the trias politica model. It can be contrasted with the fusion of powers in parliamentary and semi-presidential systems, where the executive and legislative branches overlap. Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of responsibilities into distinct branches of government by limiting any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent of separation of powers is to prevent the concentration of power by providing for checks and balances. The separation of powers model is often imprecisely and metonymically used interchangeably with the trias politica principle. While the trias politica model is a common type of separation, there are governments that have greater or fewer than three branches, as mentioned later in the article.

                                               

2017 Turkish constitutional referendum

A constitutional referendum was held throughout Turkey on 16 April 2017 on whether to approve 18 proposed amendments to the Turkish constitution that were brought forward by the governing Justice and Development Party and the Nationalist Movement Party. If approved, the office of the Prime Minister would be abolished and the existing parliamentary system of government would be replaced with an executive presidency and a presidential system. The number of seats in Parliament was proposed to be raised from 550 to 600 while the president was proposed to be given more control over appointments to the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors. The referendum was held under a state of emergency that was declared following a failed military coup attempt in July 2016. Early results indicated a 51–49% lead for the "Yes" vote. In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Electoral Council YSK allowed non-stamped ballots to be accepted as valid. Some opposers to the reform decried this move to be illegal, claiming that as many as 1.5 million ballots were unstamped, and refused to recognize the results. Large-scale protests erupted following the results in order to protest the YSKs decision. In subsequent reports, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe OSCE and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe PACE both criticised unfairness during the campaign and declared the YSKs decision to be illegal. An executive presidency has been a long-standing proposal of the governing AKP and its founder, the current President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In October 2016, the Nationalist Movement Party MHP announced its co-operation for producing draft proposals with the government, with the combined support of both AKP and MHP MPs being sufficient to put forward the proposals to a referendum following a parliamentary vote in January. Those in favour of a Yes vote argued that the changes were necessary for a strong and stable Turkey, arguing that an executive presidency would bring about an end to unstable coalition governments that had dominated Turkish politics since the 1960s up until 2002. The No campaign have argued that the proposals would concentrate too much power in the hands of the President, effectively dismantling the separation of powers and taking legislative authority away from Parliament. Critics argued that the proposed system would resemble an elected dictatorship with no ability to hold the executive to account, leading effectively to a democratic suicide and autocracy. Three days before the referendum, one of Erdoğans aides called for a federal system should the Yes vote prevail, causing a backlash from the pro-Yes MHP. Both sides of the campaign have been accused of using divisive and extreme rhetoric, with Erdoğan accusing all No voters of being terrorists siding with the plotters of the failed 2016 coup. The campaign was marred by allegations of state suppression against No campaigners, while the Yes campaign were able to make use of state facilities and funding to organise rallies and campaign events. Leading members of the No campaign, which included many high-profile former members of the MHP such as Meral Aksener, Umit Ozdağ, Sinan Oğan, and Yusuf Halaçoğlu were all subject to both violence and campaign restrictions. The Yes campaign were faced with campaigning restrictions by several European countries, with the German, Dutch, Danish and Swiss governments all cancelling or requesting the suspension of Yes campaign events directed at Turkish voters living abroad. The restrictions caused a sharp deterioration in diplomatic relations and caused a diplomatic crisis between Turkey and the Netherlands. Concerns were also raised about voting irregularities, with Yes voters in Germany being caught attempting to vote more than once and also being found to have been in possession of ballot papers before the overseas voting process had started. European election monitors said the vote did not meet international standards.

                                               

Amendments to the Citizenship Law (popular initiative, Latvia)

Amendments to the Citizenship Law of Latvia, suggested by a popular initiative in 2012, sought to grant citizenship of Latvia, starting in 2014, to those non-citizens who would not refuse it. The proposed amendments were rejected by the Central Election Commission. The CEC decision was contested by the proponents of the amendments, who applied to court. The court proceedings were suspended in 2013, with the Supreme Court requesting the Constitutional Court to decide on the compliance of some applicable provisions with the Constitution.

                                               

Separation of powers in Australia

The doctrine of the separation of powers in Australia divides the institutions of government into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. The legislature makes the laws; the executive put the laws into operation; and the judiciary interprets the laws. The doctrine of the separation of powers is often assumed to be one of the cornerstones of fair government. A strict separation of powers is not always evident in Australia; instead the Australian version of separation of powers combines the basic democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of responsible government and the United States version of the separation of powers. The issue of separation of powers in Australia has been a contentious one and continues to raise questions about where power lies in the Australian political system. Although it is assumed that all the branches under the separation of powers do not overlap - as in the US, for example - there is sometimes a common ground between all three levels. In Australia there is little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature. In Victorian Stevedoring & General Contracting Co Pty Ltd & Meakes v Dignan the High Court of Australia held that a strict division between these two levels was not practical and re-affirmed the Constitution to outline this German, 2012. The first three chapters of the Australian Constitution are headed respectively "The Parliament", "The Executive Government", and "The Judicature". Each of these chapters begins with a section by which the relevant "power of the Commonwealth" is "vested" in the appropriate persons or bodies. The historical context in which the Constitution was drafted suggests that these arrangements were intended to be connected with federal ideas along American lines. On the other hand, the Constitution incorporates responsible government, in which the legislature and the executive are effectively united. This incorporation is reflected in sections 44, 62 and 64 of the Constitution.

                                               

Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates

Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates is a type of magistrate courts those are situated in a division headquarter or metropolitan city, found in many countries. The presiding officers of such Courts get appointed by the High Court. The High court appoints Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for every metropolitan court. The High court may also appoint Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for an area, with all or any of the powers of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as may be directed by the High Court. Other than Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, there are also Metropolitan Magistrates also known as Magistrate of the first class who work as subordinates of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Any two or more metropolitan magistrates may, subject to the rules made by the CMM, sit together as a bench. All metropolitan magistrates including the ACMMs and benches of general magistrates are subordinate to the CMM.

                                               

Fusion of powers

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 European separation of powers 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. The term fusion of powers itself is believed to have been coined by the British constitutional expert Walter Bagehot.