Fusion of powers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fusion of Powers is a feature of parliamentary democracies, wherein the executive and legislative branches are intermingled. It is viewed as the opposite of a “separation of powers” found in so-called “presidential” democracies. The term is believed to have been coined by the British authority, Walter Bagehot.[1]
The primary characteristic of a fusion of powers is that the executive—be he called a prime minister, premier, chancellor, or other term—serves simultaneously as a member of the legislature.[2] The same is true for his key advisors, or cabinet. This is something that is usually expressly forbidden in a system employing a separation of powers (where a member of the legislature who wishes to take a position in the executive must resign from the legislature in order to join the executive). But within a fusion of powers, it is an essential feature. The legislature chooses the leader of the executive, he continues to serve within the legislature, and he can be removed from his executive position at the wish of the legislature.
The legislative-executive fusion is present in all parliamentary systems, and indeed, is almost a defining feature. However, in the United Kingdom, this fusion of powers goes one step further; there exists also a legislative-judicial fusion. While the courts of Great Britain are undeniably amongst the most independent in the world[citation needed], the court-of-last-resort in the UK is the House of Lords, the upper house of Parliament. This role will actually be changing soon, due to passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which will create a new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the near future. But for the time being, all three of the traditionally defined branches of democratic governments are fused into one in Great Britain.
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.
A fusion of powers was specifically rejected by the framers of the American constitution, for fear that it tended to concentrate a dangerous level of power into one body. In modern practice, however, there does not appear to be any significant difference in the application of power between fused and separated democracies. Indeed, it may well be argued that a presidential system, in which it is nearly impossible for the legislature to remove the executive, has evolved into a more “imperial” system.
In no country does there exist a “pure” fusion or separation of powers. A pure fusion of powers would probably involve government-by-committee-of-the-whole, with no one individual in charge, no one set apart as holding executive powers. A pure separation of powers would likely devolve into total stagnation, with each branch essentially becoming a political fiefdom. In reality, the fusion and separation principles are merely opposite ends of a continuum, with the most famous examples, Britain and the United States, taking up positions near—but not at—the opposite ends. Other countries are found a various points along the continuum. Most notable perhaps is the French model, known alternatively as a semi-presidential system or “mixed” presidential-parliamentary system, which exists somewhere near the middle of the spectrum. Mixed systems are being adopted by some of the newer democracies in eastern Europe.[3]
