1.7: Three Pillars of Government

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): England’s House of Commons, the lower chamber of the British Parliament, is one of the world’s oldest and most successful democratic institutions.

As has been noted, through free elections citizens of a democracy confer powers that are defined by law upon their leaders. In a constitutional democracy, the power of government is divided so that the legislature makes the laws, the executive authority carries them out, and the judiciary operates quasi-independently. These divisions are sometimes described as a "separation of powers." In actual practice, however, such divisions are rarely neat, and in most modern democratic states these powers are overlapping and shared as much as they are separated. Legislatures may attempt to manage programs through detailed regulations; executive offices routinely engage in detailed rulemaking; and both legislators and executive officers conduct judicial-style hearings on a wide range of issues.

EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY

In constitutional democracies, executive authority is generally limited in three ways: by separation of powers, just noted, among the national government’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches, with the legislature and judiciary able to check the power of the executive branch; by the constitutional guarantees of fundamental rights; and by periodic elections.

For authoritarians and other critics, a common misapprehension is that democracies, lacking the power to oppress, also lack the authority to govern. This view is fundamentally wrong: Democracies require that their governments be limited, not that they be weak.

Executive authority in modern democracies is generally organized in one of two ways: as a parliamentary or a presidential system.

In a parliamentary system, the majority party (or a coalition of parties willing to govern together) in the legislature forms the executive branch of the government, headed by a prime minister. The legislative and executive branches are not entirely distinct from one another in a parliamentary system, since the prime minister and members of the cabinet are drawn from the parliament; even so, the prime minister is the national leader.

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): Some democracies combine elements of presidential and parliamentary systems: above, Indian President Pratibha Patil arrives at her swearing-in ceremony, 2007.

In a presidential system, by contrast, the president is usually elected separately from the members of the legislature. Both the president and the legislature have their own power bases and political constituencies, which serve to check and balance each other.

Each system has its own institutional strengths and weaknesses.

A principal claim for parliamentary systems, which today make up the majority of democracies, is their responsiveness and flexibility. Parliamentary governments, especially if elected through proportional representation, tend toward multiparty systems where even relatively small political groupings are represented in the legislature. As a result, distinct minorities can still participate in the political process at the highest levels of government. Should the governing coalition collapse or the strongest party lose its mandate, the prime minister resigns and a new government forms or new elections take place—all usually within a relatively short time.

The major drawback to parliaments is the dark side of flexibility and power sharing: instability. Multiparty coalitions may be fragile and collapse at the first sign of political crisis, resulting in governments that are in office for relatively short periods of time and unable to address difficult political issues. On the other hand, other parliamentary systems are stabilized by strong majority parties.

For presidential systems, the principal claims are direct accountability, continuity, and strength. Presidents, elected for fixed periods by the people, can claim authority deriving from direct election, whatever the standing of their political party in the Congress. By creating separate but theoretically equal branches of government, a presidential system seeks to establish strong executive and legislative institutions, each able to claim a mandate from the people and each capable of checking and balancing the other.

The weakness of separately elected presidents and legislatures is a potential stalemate. Presidents may not possess enough political allies in the legislature to cast the votes to enact the policies they want, but by employing their veto power (the right of the executive under certain circumstances to annul laws passed by the legislature), they can prevent the legislature from enacting its own legislative programs. The late political scientist Richard Neustadt described presidential power in the United States as "not the power to command, but the power to persuade." What Neustadt meant is that a U.S. president who wants Congress to enact a legislative program to his liking—or at least to avoid laws he disagrees with being passed by political opponents—must command political popularity with the public, and be able to forge effective alliances in the Congress.

THE LEGISLATIVE REALM

Elected legislatures—whether under a parliamentary or presidential system—are the principal forum for deliberating, debating, and passing laws in a representative democracy. They are not so-called rubber-stamp parliaments merely approving the decisions of an authoritarian leader.

Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\): When out of office, the "loyal opposition" criticizes and checks the government. Spain’s opposition party leader speaks to the press.

Legislators may question government officials about their actions and decisions, approve national budgets, and confirm executive appointees to courts and ministries. In some democracies, legislative committees provide lawmakers a forum for these public examinations of national issues. Legislators may support the government in power or they may serve as a loyal political opposition that offers alternative policies and programs.

Legislators have a responsibility to articulate their views as effectively as possible. But they must work within the democratic ethic of tolerance, respect, and compromise to reach agreements that will benefit the general welfare of all the people—not just their political supporters. Each legislator must alone decide on how to balance the general welfare with the needs of a local constituency.

Lacking the separation of powers characteristic of a presidential system, parliamentary systems must rely much more heavily on the internal political dynamics of the parliament itself to provide checks and balances on the power of the government. These usually take the form of a single organized opposition party that "shadows" the government, or of competition among multiple opposition parties.

AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY

Independent and professional judges are the foundation of a fair, impartial, and constitutionally guaranteed system of courts of law. This independence does not imply judges can make decisions based on personal preferences, but rather that they are free to make lawful decisions—even if those decisions contradict the government or powerful parties involved in a case.

In democracies, the protective constitutional structure and prestige of the judicial branch of government guarantee independence from political pressure. Thus, judicial rulings can be impartial, based on the facts of a case, legal arguments, and relevant laws—without restrictions or improper influence by the executive or legislative branches. These principles ensure equal legal protection for all.

The power of judges to review public laws and declare them in violation of the nation’s constitution serves as a fundamental check on potential government abuse of power—even if the government is elected by a popular majority. This power, however, requires that the courts be seen as fundamentally independent and non-partisan and able to rest their decisions upon the law, not political considerations.

Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\): The professionalism of judges is one of their best defenses against social and political pressure.

Figure \(\PageIndex{5}\): A judge leaves his bench during a criminal trial in Rome, 2005. The judge’s costume reflects centuries of legal tradition.

Whether elected or appointed, judges must have job security or tenure, guaranteed by law, in order that they can make decisions without concern for pressure or attack by those in positions of authority. To ensure their impartiality, judicial ethics require judges to step aside (or "recuse" themselves) from deciding cases in which they have a personal conflict of interest. Trust in the court system’s impartiality—in its being seen as the "non-political" branch of government—is a principal source of its strength and legitimacy.