The principle of separation of power is one of the oldest constitutional principles in most of the world countries. It refers to the idea that the major institutions of state should be functionally independent and that no individual should have powers that span these offices. The principal institutions are usually taken to be the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. In early accounts, such as Montesquieu’s “The Spirit of the Laws”, the separation of powers is intended to guard against tyranny and preserve liberty. It was held that the major institutions should be divided and dependent upon each other so that one power would not be able to exceed that of the other two. As mentioned earlier most countries of the world both presidential and parliamentary form of government incorporated this doctrine in their constitutions with a certain degree of disparity. American Presidential system with strict separation among the three branches of government, the oldest constitution in the world dating 227 years. On the other hand, all parliamentary systems of government including Ethiopia apply the principle with a certain fusion of power mainly among the executive and legislative organs of government. Cognizant of the above fact as background knowledge, this paper tries to explore American presidential system versus Ethiopian parliamentary system of government based on the original doctrine of montesques separation of power. Thus it is organized in to three parts. The first part deals with the original doctrine of separation of power and its goal. The second part briefly discuss and evaluates the extent to which 1) the executive and legislature; 2) the executive and judiciary; and 3) the judiciary and legislature now overlap and interact in the united state of American presidential and Ethiopian parliamentary system of governments. Last but not the least deals with modifications made by the Americans to the original principle.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1.The origin of the doctrine of separation of powers
1.1.The goal of separation of power.
2.United States Presidential system vs Ethiopia’s parliamentary system
2.1.Separation of executive and legislature
2.2.Separation between legislature and judiciary
2.3.The executive and judiciary
3.Modifications made by the Americas to the doctrine of separation of power.
Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This academic paper aims to examine and compare the application of the doctrine of "separation of powers" within the United States presidential system and the Ethiopian parliamentary system of government, while evaluating their adherence to original constitutional principles.
- Theoretical origins and goals of the separation of powers doctrine.
- Structural and functional differences between presidential and parliamentary systems.
- Interactions and overlaps between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
- The specific implementation of checks and balances in American and Ethiopian contexts.
- Evaluation of legislative supremacy versus independent judicial scrutiny.
Excerpt from the Book
1. The origin of the doctrine of separation of powers
The modern design of the doctrine of separation of powers is to be found in the constitutional theory of John Locke (1632-1704). He wrote in his second treaties of Civil Government as follows: “It may be too great a temptation for the human frailty, apt to grasp at powers, for the same persons who have power of making laws, to have also in their hands the power to execute them, whereby they may exempt themselves from the law, both in its making and execution to their own private advantage.” It is clear that he was advocating the division of government functions into legislative, executive and judicial branches of government (Taddese, 2012:21).
However, it is the French philosopher (jurist) Montesquieu (1689–1755) who is usually credited with the first formulation of the doctrine of separation of powers. He based his exposition on the British Constitution. In the pertinent chapter of his well celebrated work, The spirit of the laws (1748), he purported to describe the British Constitutional system of the 18th Century so that it might serve as an example to France of a political dispensation founded on liberty, which according to him, was the supreme objective of a political society.
Montesquieu’s analysis of the British system is generally accepted as political ideal which is worth pursuing. Montesquieu recognized the three basic pillars of state authority, which includes the executive, legislature and the judicial functions; and he added that these functions ought to vest in three distinct governmental organs with, in each instance, different office bearers. He supported his argument by saying: ‘all would be in vain if the same person, or the same body of officials, be it the nobility or the people, were to exercise these three powers: that of making laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and that of judging crimes or disputes of individuals’
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides the conceptual background of the separation of powers as a constitutional safeguard against tyranny and outlines the comparative focus of the study.
1.The origin of the doctrine of separation of powers: Traces the historical development of the doctrine through philosophers like John Locke and Montesquieu, identifying the core principles of institutional division.
1.1.The goal of separation of power.: Explains how the doctrine serves the rule of law by preventing government tyranny and ensuring the independence of the judiciary.
2.United States Presidential system vs Ethiopia’s parliamentary system: Discusses the fundamental differences between systems where the executive is elected independently versus those where the executive is a product of parliamentary majority.
2.1.Separation of executive and legislature: Analyzes the degree of integration or independence between the law-making and law-executing branches in both countries.
2.2.Separation between legislature and judiciary: Examines the constitutional protections for judicial independence and the role of the judiciary in interpreting legislation.
2.3.The executive and judiciary: Explores the mechanisms of judicial scrutiny over executive actions and the limitations of judicial independence in political systems.
3.Modifications made by the Americas to the doctrine of separation of power.: Evaluates how the U.S. system departs from rigid separation through checks and balances, such as the presidential veto and legislative investigative powers.
Conclusion: Summarizes that while a rigid separation of powers is practically impossible, the principle remains vital as a framework for checks and balances.
Keywords
Separation of Powers, Constitution, Montesquieu, Presidential System, Parliamentary System, Checks and Balances, Executive, Legislature, Judiciary, Rule of Law, Tyranny, Ethiopia, United States, Judicial Review, Governance
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper explores the application and functional reality of the separation of powers doctrine in both the American presidential system and the Ethiopian parliamentary system.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The main themes include constitutional theory, the structural differences between government systems, judicial independence, and the interplay between legislative and executive branches.
What is the research goal of this work?
The goal is to evaluate how each government system manages the separation of powers and whether they successfully uphold the original intent of the doctrine regarding the prevention of tyranny.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author employs a comparative legal and political analysis, assessing constitutional frameworks and government practices against the historical doctrine of Montesquieu.
What is the focus of the main section of the document?
The main section details the specific institutional overlaps or separations in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches within both the US and Ethiopia.
Which keywords define this academic paper?
Essential keywords include Separation of Powers, Constitution, Montesquieu, Checks and Balances, Presidential System, Parliamentary System, and Rule of Law.
How does the Ethiopian parliamentary system differ from the U.S. model regarding the executive branch?
In the Ethiopian parliamentary system, the executive is derived from and accountable to the parliament, whereas in the U.S. presidential system, the executive is elected independently of the legislature.
What does the author conclude about the "separation of powers" in modern government?
The author concludes that while a strict, rigid separation of powers is practically unattainable and potentially obstructive, the doctrine remains essential as a tool for implementing checks and balances.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Masters Degree (Federalism and Local government studies ) Wondwossen Mengistu (Autor:in), 2017, How the Doctrine of Separation of Power Works in the American Presidential System and Ethiopian Parliamentary System, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/388337
