Inadequacy of tria politica divison of power

Inadequacy of tria politica-the divison of power
the system of divison of power in the traditional democratic model of most western countries that separate the power into three or two branches is I think the most of peoples invention concerning politics. the cheques and balances system which is functioning allows all of the three branches to stop the other one or two and at the same time does not give it a full power. I would agree that the three branches model is more or less practical and less corruptable than the two branches. Naturally, with more people in power, more burreacracy emerges. If we take the executive, legislative and judiciary power we see that the executiva and legislative (sometimes merged into just one) have a similar content, they differ in the form mostly. What strikes me as inadequate is the content. In my country as in most other democratic countries functioning under this system the government is formed from the executive branch. The executive branch is divided into lower and higher chamber-house of deputies and the senate. The government is formed from the parties that gain above 5 percent in the lower chamber and which form the coalition together. Here I come to the key problem as I see it. The executive should be separate form the legislative but once the governement (executive) is formed from the house of deputies-lower house (legislative) then there is only a fine line between these two. There are the same people in the governement-in executing power and in creating laws-legistlative proces. I think that this merger could be avoided when either the government would not be formed from the same people or if they had to leave their former positing in the legislature, or if the legislative proces would be left to the senate only-which is chosen in different time than the house of deputies. we must also always bear in mind that the system is created by people and that even the best system of cheques and balances can be corrupt. We must always come back to the nature of man. To get the best of us we need to talk-talk with the aim of creating bonum comuned, talk dialectically, lead a dialogue that is constructive and not egoistical. Here we come to the interpelation issue. I think that the milestone of any system is that the one who takes too much power can be stopped and asked to explain ones steps. This is what interpelation is about. I think that it stems from the common sense and also chart of rights and liberties. The right to ask and require an answer for actions pursued by the politicians we chose. Interpelation should be considered a tool to create and construct and inhibit evil thoughts and actions. The first sign that someone wants to wield more power than one is allowed to is the fear of interpelationl. Once one avoids questions by senate, press or other instituions then we should be on guard against the one. This happened in my coutnry where the prime minister is charged by police for stealing money in grants for his farm. The first sign that something is not correct was when he started avoiding questions about it. A great mechanism of interpelation is that the more one hides the truth, the more is one conspicuious and the more questions one receives. If we do not let ourselves be deceived by inadequate answers or devoured by the system to also avoid interpelation, then we may be sure that the dialogue that must be satisfying all our questions will be followed.

—
Používam Rychlý zápisník

Advertisement