Confederation and Federation are both forms of government that involve the association of different states or regions, but they differ in significant ways.

A Confederation is a political system in which a group of independent states or regions come together and agree to delegate some of their powers to a central government, while retaining their sovereignty and independence. The central government is usually limited in its powers and can only act on behalf of the member states when authorized to do so. Examples of Confederations include the European Union and the Confederacy of Independent States (CIS).

On the other hand, a Federation is a political system in which a central government shares powers with constituent states or regions. The central government has authority over certain matters such as foreign policy, national defense, and currency, while the constituent states retain their powers over other matters such as education, healthcare, and local laws. Examples of Federations include the United States, Canada, and Australia.

In summary, a Confederation involves the delegation of some powers from the member states to the central government, while a Federation involves the sharing of powers between the central government and the constituent states.

The book “The Spirit of Laws” was written by the French political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu. It was first published anonymously in 1748 and quickly became a widely influential work in political theory. In “The Spirit of Laws,” Montesquieu proposes the idea of the separation of powers, which became a fundamental principle in modern constitutional theory. The book also explores various forms of government, the relationship between climate and politics, and the role of laws and institutions in maintaining a stable society.

Constitution and constitutionalism are related concepts, but they have distinct meanings.

A Constitution is a written document that outlines the fundamental principles, institutions, and procedures of a government. It establishes the structure of the government, defines the powers of its different branches, and sets out the rights and freedoms of the people. A Constitution is usually considered the supreme law of a country, and all other laws and policies must be consistent with its provisions.

Constitutionalism, on the other hand, is the belief in the importance of having a government that operates within the bounds of a constitution. It is a political and legal philosophy that emphasizes the principles of limited government, the rule of law, and the protection of individual rights and freedoms. Constitutionalism holds that the powers of government should be constrained by a constitution, and that the people should have a voice in shaping and amending that constitution.

In summary, a Constitution is a written document that sets out the rules and structure of a government, while constitutionalism is the idea that governments should be constrained by a constitution and that individual rights and freedoms should be protected.

Examples of Constitutions include:

• The United States Constitution, which was written in 1787 and is the supreme law of the United States.
• The Constitution of India, which was adopted in 1950 and outlines the framework for the Indian government.
• The Constitution of South Africa, which was adopted in 1996 and is known for its emphasis on protecting human rights and promoting equality.

Examples of Constitutionalism include:

• The Magna Carta, which was signed in 1215 and is considered a foundational document in the development of constitutionalism. It limited the power of the English monarch and established the principle that everyone, including the king, was subject to the law.
• The American Revolution and the subsequent creation of the United States Constitution, which were driven in part by the belief in the importance of limited government and the protection of individual rights.
• The adoption of constitutional reforms in many countries around the world over the past several decades, as part of a broader movement towards democratization and the protection of human rights.

Aristotle (c. 384 BCE–c. 322 BCE) has sometimes been credited with being the “father” of political science, and attributed with being one of the first to use comparative methodologies for analyzing competing Greek city-states.

Origin

• • Concept of Rule of Law originated with Chief Justice Edward Coke of England, emphasizing that the King is subject to law.
  • Developed further by A.V. Dicey in his 1885 work “The Law and the Constitution”.

History Of Rule Of Law

• The rule of law has a long history. Around 350 BC, Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle addressed the notion of the rule of law.
• Sir Edward Coke, the Chief Justice during James I’s reign, invented the notion of the rule of law.
• The rule of law in England originated in approximately 1215 when King John of England signed the Magna Carta.
• The signing of the Magna Carta represented the Monarchy of England’s permission to be subject to the law and for the law to be supreme.
• Prof. Albert Venn Dicey evaluated the concept of the Rule of Law, and as per his theory rule of law is based on various principles.

Meaning and Scope

• • Supremacy of Law: Law has absolute dominance, excluding arbitrary government actions.
    • No individual can be punished except by due process of law.
  • Equality before Law: All individuals, regardless of class, are subject to the same law administered by ordinary courts.
    • Exemption of civil servants from ordinary courts violates this principle.
  • Judge-made Constitution: In England, fundamental rights are results of judicial decisions rather than a written constitution.

Rule of Law in the Indian Constitution

• • The Preamble of the Constitution emphasizes Justice, Liberty, and Equality.
  • These concepts are enforceable through Part III (Fundamental Rights).
  • The Judiciary, Legislature, and Executive are bound by the Constitution.
  • Judicial review allows courts to enforce fundamental rights and quash illegal executive actions.
  • In Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab v. Om Prakash, the Supreme Court highlighted the authority of law courts to test the legality of administrative actions.

Exceptions to the Rule of Law

• • Private citizens vs. public officials: Public officials (e.g. police) have certain powers not available to private citizens.
  • Special rules for certain classes: Armed forces and professionals (e.g. lawyers, doctors) follow specific regulations.
  • Discretionary powers: Ministers and executive bodies have discretionary powers under statutes.

Conclusion

• • The Constitution of India ensures the Rule of Law by protecting rights, promoting equality, and checking arbitrariness.
  • Challenges like outdated laws and overcrowded courts are being addressed by bodies like the Law Commission of India to ensure the effective operation of the Rule of Law.

IN 1925, Charles E. Merriam wrote the book new aspects of politics in which he criticized the contemporary political science for its lack of scientific rigour and deprecated the work of historians as they had ignored the role of psychological, sociological and economic factors in human affairs.

The theory of Separation of Powers was first introduced by the French political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu in his book “The Spirit of the Laws” (1748). Montesquieu argued that the best way to prevent tyranny and abuse of power by the government is to divide its functions and responsibilities among different branches or organs of the state. He proposed that the state should be divided into three separate branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.

Montesquieu’s theory of Separation of Powers has since been adopted by many democratic countries and enshrined in their constitutions as a fundamental principle. In the United States, for example, the Separation of Powers is a cornerstone of the Constitution, with the legislative branch (Congress), executive branch (the President), and the judicial branch (the Supreme Court) all given distinct and separate powers and responsibilities.

In political science, a political system means the form of political organization that can be observed, recognised or otherwise declared by a society or state.

It defines the process for making official government decisions. It usually comprizes the governmental legal and economic system, social and cultural system, and other state and government specific systems. However, this is a very simplified view of a much more complex system of categories involving the questions of who should have authority and what the government influence on its people and economy should be.

Along with a basic sociological and socio-anthropological classification, political systems can be classified on a social-cultural axis relative to the liberal values prevalent in the Western world, where the spectrum is represented as a continuum between political systems recognized as democracies, totalitarian regimes and, sitting between these two, authoritarian regimes, with a variety of hybrid regimes; and monarchies may be also included as a standalone entity or as a hybrid system of the main three.

Definition

According to David Easton, “A political system can be designated as the interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated for a society”. Political system refers broadly to the process by which laws are made and public resources allocated in a society, and to the relationships among those involved in making these decisions.

Comparative politics is a subfield of political science that focuses on the study of different political systems, their institutions, and their interactions. Over time, there have been significant changes in the way scholars approach comparative politics, with traditional approaches giving way to modern approaches. 

1. Theoretical focus

Traditional approaches to comparative politics tend to focus on formal political institutions, such as constitutions, laws, and formal decision-making processes. This approach is grounded in a positivist framework, which emphasizes empirical research and the use of quantitative methods to study large datasets and test hypotheses. Traditional approaches assume that political institutions are the primary determinants of political outcomes and that their design and function are crucial to understanding political systems.

Modern approaches, on the other hand, take a broader perspective and consider a wider range of factors that shape politics, such as social movements, cultural norms, and informal power structures. Modern approaches draw on a range of theoretical frameworks, including post-positivist, critical, and interpretive approaches, which emphasize the importance of context, meaning, and power in shaping political outcomes.

2. Methodology

Traditional approaches to comparative politics rely heavily on quantitative research methods, such as statistical analysis, to study large datasets and test hypotheses. This approach is based on the assumption that social phenomena can be measured and studied using objective methods, and that empirical data can be used to generate theories about political systems.

Modern approaches, by contrast, place a greater emphasis on qualitative research methods, such as case studies and ethnography, to gain a deeper understanding of political phenomena and the experiences of people affected by political processes. Modern approaches recognize that political phenomena are often complex and multifaceted, and that quantitative methods may not capture the nuances of political interactions and the experiences of individuals and communities.

3. Scope of analysis

Traditional approaches to comparative politics tend to focus on the formal structures of government and their role in shaping political outcomes. This approach tends to ignore informal power structures, such as patronage networks and social norms, which can have a significant impact on political behavior and outcomes.

Modern approaches, by contrast, take a broader perspective and consider a wider range of factors that shape politics, such as social movements, cultural norms, and informal power structures. Modern approaches recognize that political phenomena are often complex and multifaceted, and that understanding these phenomena requires an analysis of the social, cultural, and historical context in which they occur.

4. Power and agency

Traditional approaches to comparative politics tend to view power as concentrated in formal political institutions, such as the state, and assume that these institutions are the primary sources of political agency. This approach tends to overlook the role of social movements, civil society, and other non-state actors in shaping political outcomes.

Modern approaches, by contrast, recognize that power is diffuse and that political agency is distributed across a range of actors and institutions, including non-state actors such as civil society organizations and social movements. Modern approaches also recognize that power is not simply exercised by elites but is also contested and negotiated by ordinary people in their daily lives.

5. Epistemology

Traditional approaches to comparative politics are grounded in a positivist epistemology, which assumes that objective knowledge can be generated through the use of scientific methods and that this knowledge can be used to inform policy decisions. This approach tends to prioritize empirical data over other forms of knowledge and assumes that knowledge is value-free and apolitical.

Modern approaches, by contrast, challenge the assumptions of positivism and adopt a more critical approach to knowledge production. Modern approaches recognize that all knowledge is situated within particular social, cultural, and historical contexts and that knowledge is shaped by power relations. Modern approaches also recognize that the production of knowledge is inherently political and that the ways in which knowledge is produced and disseminated can have important political implications.

6. Normative orientation

Traditional approaches to comparative politics tend to be relatively value-neutral and aim to generate objective knowledge about political systems. This approach tends to prioritize empirical research and the use of scientific methods to study political phenomena.

Modern approaches, by contrast, are often more explicitly normative in their orientation and seek to promote social justice and equality. Modern approaches recognize that political systems are embedded in broader social and economic structures, and that the study of politics must be connected to broader debates about social justice and equity.

In summary, the differences between traditional and modern approaches to comparative politics can be seen in their theoretical focus, methodology, scope of analysis, understanding of power and agency, epistemology, and normative orientation. While traditional approaches tend to prioritize empirical research and quantitative methods, modern approaches take a more critical and contextual approach and consider a wider range of factors that shape political outcomes. Modern approaches also recognize that political systems are embedded in broader social and economic structures and that the study of politics must be connected to broader debates about social justice and equity.

David Easton has written the book ‘The Political System‘. It was published in 1953 and is considered a seminal work in the field of political science, particularly in the subfield of political systems theory. The book introduced the concept of the political system as a way to understand the structures, processes, and functions of political systems. Easton argued that the political system was a way to analyze and understand how societies make decisions and allocate resources, and that it was essential to understanding how societies functioned as a whole. The book has had a lasting impact on the study of political science and is still widely read and cited today.

Behaviouralism (or behavioralism) is an approach in political science that emerged in the 1930s in the United States. It represented a sharp break from previous approaches in emphasizing an objective, quantified approach to explain and predict political behaviour. It is associated with the rise of the behavioural sciences, modeled after the natural sciences. Behaviouralism claims it can explain political behaviour from an unbiased, neutral point of view.

Behaviouralists seek to examine the behaviour, actions, and acts of individuals – rather than the characteristics of institutions such as legislatures, executives, and judiciaries – and groups in different social settings and explain this behavior as it relates to the political system.

Origins

From 1942 through the 1970s, behaviouralism gained support. It was probably Dwight Waldo who coined the term for the first time in a book called “Political Science in the United States” which was released in 1956. It was David Easton however who popularized the term. It was the site of discussion between traditionalist and new emerging approaches to political science. The origins of behaviouralism is often attributed to the work of University of Chicago professor Charles Merriam, who in the 1920s and 1930s emphasized the importance of examining political behaviour of individuals and groups rather than only considering how they abide by legal or formal rules.

As a political approach

Prior to the “behaviouralist revolution”, political science being a science at all was disputed. Critics saw the study of politics as being primarily qualitative and normative, and claimed that it lacked a scientific method necessary to be deemed a science. Behaviouralists used strict methodology and empirical research to validate their study as a social science. The behaviouralist approach was innovative because it changed the attitude of the purpose of inquiry. It moved toward research that was supported by verifiable facts. In the period of 1954-63, Gabriel Almond spread behaviouralism to comparative politics by creation of a committee in SSRC. During its rise in popularity in the 1960s and ’70s, behaviouralism challenged the realist and liberal approaches, which the behaviouralists called “traditionalism”, and other studies of political behaviour that was not based on fact.

To understand political behaviour, behaviouralism uses the following methods: sampling, interviewing, scoring and scaling, and statistical analysis.

Behaviouralism studies how individuals behave in group positions realistically rather than how they should behave. For example, a study of the United States Congress might include a consideration of how members of Congress behave in their positions. The subject of interest is how Congress becomes an ‘arena of actions’ and the surrounding formal and informal spheres of power.

Meaning of the term

David Easton was the first to differentiate behaviouralism from behaviourism in the 1950s (behaviourism is the term mostly associated with psychology). In the early 1940s, behaviourism itself was referred to as a behavioural science and later referred to as behaviourism. However, Easton sought to differentiate between the two disciplines:

Behavioralism was not a clearly defined movement for those who were thought to be behavioralists. It was more clearly definable by those who were opposed to it, because they were describing it in terms of the things within the newer trends that they found objectionable. So some would define behavioralism as an attempt to apply the methods of natural sciences to human behavior. Others would define it as an excessive emphasis upon quantification. Others as individualistic reductionism. From the inside, the practitioners were of different minds as what it was that constituted behavioralism. […] And few of us were in agreement.

With this in mind, behaviouralism resisted a single definition. Dwight Waldo emphasized that behaviouralism itself is unclear, calling it “complicated” and “obscure.” Easton agreed, stating, “every man puts his own emphasis and thereby becomes his own behaviouralist” and attempts to completely define behaviouralism are fruitless. From the beginning, behaviouralism was a political, not a scientific concept. Moreover, since behaviouralism is not a research tradition, but a political movement, definitions of behaviouralism follow what behaviouralists wanted. Therefore, most introductions to the subject emphasize value-free research. This is evidenced by Easton’s eight “intellectual foundation stones” of behaviouralism:

• Regularities – The generalization and explanation of regularities.
• Commitment to Verification – The ability to verify ones generalizations.
• Techniques – An experimental attitude toward techniques.
• Quantification – Express results as numbers where possible or meaningful.
• Values – Keeping ethical assessment and empirical explanations distinct.
• Systemization – Considering the importance of theory in research.
• Pure Science – Deferring to pure science rather than applied science.
• Integration – Integrating social sciences and value.

Subsequently, much of the behavioralist approach has been challenged by the emergence of postpositivism in political (particularly international relations) theory.

Objectivity and value-neutrality

According to David Easton, behaviouralism sought to be “analytic, not substantive, general rather than particular, and explanatory rather than ethical.” In this, the theory seeks to evaluate political behaviour without “introducing any ethical evaluations.” Rodger Beehler cites this as “their insistence on distinguishing between facts and values.”

Criticism

The approach has come under fire from both conservatives and radicals for the purported value-neutrality. Conservatives see the distinction between values and facts as a way of undermining the possibility of political philosophy. Neal Riemer believes behaviouralism dismisses “the task of ethical recommendation” because behaviouralists believe “truth or falsity of values (democracy, equality, and freedom, etc.) cannot be established scientifically and are beyond the scope of legitimate inquiry.”

Christian Bay believed behaviouralism was a pseudopolitical science and that it did not represent “genuine” political research. Bay objected to empirical consideration taking precedence over normative and moral examination of politics.

Behaviouralism initially represented a movement away from “naive empiricism”, but as an approach has been criticized for “naive scientism”. Additionally, radical critics believe that the separation of fact from value makes the empirical study of politics impossible.

Crick's critique

British scholar Bernard Crick in The American Science of Politics (1959), attacked the behavioural approach to politics, which was dominant in the United States, but little known in Britain. He identified and rejected six basic premises and in each case argued the traditional approach was superior to behaviouralism:

1. research can discover uniformities in human behaviour,
2. these uniformities could be confirmed by empirical tests and measurements,
3. quantitative data was of the highest quality, and should be analyzed statistically,
4. political science should be empirical and predictive, downplaying the philosophical and historical dimensions,
5. value-free research was the ideal, and
6. social scientists should search for a macro theory covering all the social sciences, as opposed to applied issues of practical reform.

A constitution is the aggregate of fundamental principles or established precedents that constitute the legal basis of a polity, organization or other type of entity, and commonly determines how that entity is to be governed.

When these principles are written down into a single document or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to embody a written constitution; if they are encompassed in a single comprehensive document, it is said to embody a codified constitution. The Constitution of the United Kingdom is a notable example of an uncodified constitution; it is instead written in numerous fundamental acts of a legislature, court cases, and treaties.

Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign countries to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty that establishes an international organization is also its constitution, in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially codified constitutions, also act as limiters of state power, by establishing lines which a state’s rulers cannot cross, such as fundamental rights. Changes to constitutions frequently require consensus or supermajority.

The Constitution of India is the longest written constitution of any country in the world, with 146,385 words in its English-language version, while the Constitution of Monaco is the shortest written constitution with 3,814 words. The Constitution of San Marino might be the world’s oldest active written constitution, since some of its core documents have been in operation since 1600, while the Constitution of the United States is the oldest active codified constitution. The historical life expectancy of a constitution since 1789 is approximately 19 years.

Etymology

The term constitution comes through French from the Latin word constitutio, used for regulations and orders, such as the imperial enactments (constitutiones principis: edicta, mandata, decreta, rescripta). Later, the term was widely used in canon law for an important determination, especially a decree issued by the Pope, now referred to as an apostolic constitution.

William Blackstone used the term for significant and egregious violations of public trust, of a nature and extent that the transgression would justify a revolutionary response. The term as used by Blackstone was not for a legal text, nor did he intend to include the later American concept of judicial review: “for that were to set the judicial power above that of the legislature, which would be subversive of all government”.

The philosophical approach in the study of comparative politics involves examining political systems and concepts through a philosophical lens. This approach aims to identify and analyze the underlying philosophical assumptions and values that shape political systems and influence political behavior.

The philosophical approach seeks to answer questions such as: What is the proper role of government? What are the rights and responsibilities of citizens? What is the nature of power? What is the ideal society? How can we achieve justice and equality?

Philosophers have contributed to the study of comparative politics by developing theories and concepts that are still relevant today. For example, political philosopher Aristotle argued that the best political system is one that balances the interests of the ruling elite and the common people, while philosopher John Rawls developed the concept of “justice as fairness” as a way to assess political institutions and policies.

In addition, the philosophical approach to comparative politics recognizes the importance of cultural and historical context in shaping political systems and ideas. It also acknowledges the subjective nature of political beliefs and values, and the need for critical reflection and dialogue in the study of political systems.

Socrates is known as father of philosophy. He has given the ‘theory of knowledge’. According to him, the real knowledge is the knowledge of ideas. And the mode of learning this knowledge is logic. Socrates prescribed dialectics. Why this knowledge is superior? Physical world is a world of change. Hence, there cannot be a permanent knowledge. Whereas the world of idea is a world of permanence. Hence this knowledge is of permanent nature, subject to the condition, it is a product of logical reasoning.

Plato: Plato is called as father of political philosophy. He has suggested that it is not enough to understand the features of existing states, it is more important to understand the ‘idea of state’. The purpose of existence of the state.

When we understand the idea, we can mould the existing states which are bound to be imperfect towards perfection. Thus besides the advantage of getting the foundational or permanent knowledge, philosophy can help in making our lives better. Plato emphasised that the knowledge of philosopher is not just for his betterment but for the betterment of the society. Thus philosophy has a huge utility for making our lives better.

Philosophical approach is the oldest approach present in political science. Political science started as a sub discipline of philosophy. Classical scholars dealt with philosophical issues or normative issues like justice, equality, rights, liberties.

Philosophical approach remained dominant approach till second world war. Major development happened in western Europe. Philosophical approach came under criticism by behavioralists. Behavioralists wanted to make political science ‘pure science’. Hence they rejected the study of normative issues. They advocated the study of facts. Lord Bryce held that “we need facts, facts and facts.”

Philosophical theories were criticised as ‘armchair theories’. They do not constitute verifiable and thus are not reliable source of knowledge. They also are inherently biased and divorced from the reality. However scholars like John Rawls, Leo Strauss, Isaiah Berlin, Dante Germino believe that the philosophical approach is most suitable for the discipline of political science.

Comparative Political Institutions refers to the study of different political systems across various countries, and the institutions that comprise these systems. These institutions include executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, as well as other institutions such as political parties, interest groups, and civil society organizations.

Nature:

1. Comparative Political Institutions are Multidisciplinary: Comparative political institutions draw upon a range of disciplines, including political science, sociology, history, law, and economics. As such, it is an interdisciplinary field of study that seeks to understand the complex interactions between formal institutions of government and other social and economic factors.

2. Comparative Political Institutions are Context-Specific: Comparative political institutions recognize the importance of context in shaping political institutions. Different political systems are influenced by a range of historical, cultural, economic, and social factors. Therefore, comparative political institutions require an in-depth understanding of the specific context in which political institutions operate.

3. Comparative Political Institutions are Comparative: Comparative political institutions are a comparative field of study. This means that scholars compare political institutions across different countries or regions to identify similarities and differences. By comparing political institutions, scholars aim to identify patterns and trends in political development and to evaluate the effectiveness of different political systems.

4. Comparative Political Institutions are Normative: Comparative political institutions have a normative dimension. Scholars in this field are not only interested in describing political institutions but also evaluating them. Scholars may ask questions such as: What makes a political institution effective? What values should a political institution embody? What are the conditions necessary for a democratic system to function effectively?

5. Comparative Political Institutions are Dynamic: Comparative political institutions recognize that political institutions are dynamic and subject to change over time. Changes in social, economic, and political conditions can lead to changes in political institutions. As such, scholars in this field study how political institutions adapt to changing circumstances and the factors that drive institutional change.

6. Comparative Political Institutions are Quantitative: Comparative political institutions employ quantitative methods of analysis to identify patterns and trends in political development. Scholars in this field may use statistical methods to compare political systems across different countries or regions. By using quantitative methods, scholars can identify correlations between political institutions and other social and economic factors.

Key Features of Comparative Political Institutions:

1. Cross-country comparisons: The nature of Comparative Political Institutions involves comparing and analyzing political institutions across different countries. This approach allows for a better understanding of how political institutions function in different contexts and how they impact political outcomes.

2. Institutional analysis: Comparative Political Institutions also involves analyzing the different institutions that make up political systems. This includes the formal institutions, such as the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, as well as informal institutions such as political parties, interest groups, and civil society organizations.

3. Historical and cultural context: The nature of Comparative Political Institutions recognizes the importance of historical and cultural context in shaping political institutions. Political systems are shaped by a variety of factors such as culture, history, and geography, and Comparative Political Institutions seeks to understand the impact of these factors on political institutions and outcomes.

4. Comparative methodology: The nature of Comparative Political Institutions involves using comparative methodology to identify similarities and differences across political systems. This approach allows for the identification of patterns and trends across different countries, which can inform policy decisions and promote cross-country learning.

Approaches to Comparative Political Institutions:

1. Institutional approach: The institutional approach to Comparative Political Institutions focuses on analyzing the formal institutions that make up political systems, such as the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Scholars using this approach seek to understand how these institutions function, how they interact with each other, and how they impact political outcomes.

2. Historical approach: The historical approach to Comparative Political Institutions focuses on analyzing the historical context in which political institutions have evolved. Scholars using this approach seek to understand how historical events and processes have shaped political institutions, and how this has impacted political outcomes.

3. Cultural approach: The cultural approach to Comparative Political Institutions focuses on analyzing the cultural context in which political institutions have evolved. Scholars using this approach seek to understand how cultural factors such as language, religion, and values shape political institutions and impact political outcomes.

4. Rational choice approach: The rational choice approach to Comparative Political Institutions focuses on analyzing the decision-making processes of individuals and institutions within political systems. Scholars using this approach seek to understand how individuals and institutions make decisions and how this impacts political outcomes.

Contributions made by prominent scholars:

1. Robert Dahl: Robert Dahl, a prominent political scientist, contributed to the study of Comparative Political Institutions by developing the concept of polyarchy, which refers to a system of governance in which power is dispersed among multiple groups and individuals.

2. Samuel Huntington: Samuel Huntington, another prominent political scientist, contributed to the study of Comparative Political Institutions by developing the concept of political development, which refers to the process by which political systems evolve and become more complex over time.

3. Juan Linz: Juan Linz, a Spanish political scientist, contributed to the study of Comparative Political Institutions by developing the concept of authoritarianism, which refers to a system of governance in which power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of individuals or institutions.

4. Seymour Martin Lipset: Seymour Martin Lipset, an American political scientist, contributed to the study of Comparative Political Institutions by analyzing the impact of culture on political systems. Lipset argued that certain cultural values, such as individualism and trust, are important for the functioning of democratic institutions.

The scope of comparative political institutions refers to the extent of the areas that are covered when studying the political institutions of different countries. It is a vast field that encompasses various political systems, structures, and functions of institutions in different countries, and how they interact with each other. The following are some of the aspects that are covered under the scope of comparative political institutions:

1. Comparative analysis of government structures: This involves comparing the structures of government in different countries. It includes the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government, as well as the levels of government, such as national, regional, and local.

2. Political parties and electoral systems: This involves the study of political parties and electoral systems in different countries. It includes the types of electoral systems used, such as first-past-the-post or proportional representation, as well as the role of political parties in the government and their ideologies.

3. Comparative study of political cultures: This involves studying the political culture and values of different countries. It includes the attitudes and beliefs of citizens towards the government, their participation in political processes, and their expectations from the government.

4. Comparative analysis of public policies: This involves the study of the policies implemented by governments in different countries. It includes the policies related to social welfare, economic development, and foreign affairs.

5. Comparative analysis of constitutional and legal systems: This involves comparing the constitutional and legal systems of different countries. It includes the sources of law, such as common law or civil law, as well as the interpretation and enforcement of laws by the judiciary.

6. Comparative study of international relations: This involves studying the interactions between countries and their foreign policies. It includes the role of international organizations, such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, in shaping international relations.

Prominent scholars in comparative politics, such as Gabriel Almond, Robert Dahl, and Arend Lijphart, have contributed significantly to the scope of comparative political institutions. For instance, Gabriel Almond, in his work “Comparative Political Systems,” emphasized the importance of studying the political culture of different countries in understanding their political institutions. Robert Dahl, in his work “Polyarchy,” focused on the study of democratic institutions and their effectiveness in promoting democratic governance. Arend Lijphart, in his work “Patterns of Democracy,” emphasized the comparative analysis of electoral systems and their impact on democracy.

In conclusion, the scope of comparative political institutions is vast and covers a range of topics, including government structures, political parties, electoral systems, political culture, public policies, constitutional and legal systems, and international relations. Understanding the scope of comparative political institutions is essential for gaining insights into the similarities and differences in political systems across countries, and how they influence the functioning of democratic institutions.

Introduction

The separation of powers is imitable for the administration of federative and democratic states. Under this rule the state is divided into three different branches- legislative, executive and judiciary each having different independent power and responsibility on them so that one branch may not interfere with the working of the others two branches. Basically, it is the rule which every state government should follow in order to enact, implement the law, apply to specific case appropriately.  If this principle is not followed then there will be more chances of misuse of power and corruption If this doctrine is followed then there will be less chance of enacting a tyrannical law as they will know that it will be checked by another branch. It aims at the strict demarcation of power and tries to bring the exclusiveness in the functioning of each organ.

In India, functions are separated from powers rather than the other way around. The idea of the separation of powers is not properly followed in India, unlike in the US. The court has the authority to overturn any unlawful legislation that the legislature passes thanks to a system of checks and balances that has been put in place.

Because it is unworkable, the majority of constitutional systems today do not have a tight division of powers among the several organs in the traditional sense. Although the theory of separation of powers is not expressly recognised in the Constitution in its absolute form, the Constitution does provide provisions for a fair division of duties and authority among the three branches of government.

Background

The term “separation of powers” or “trias–politica “ was initiated by Charles de Montesquieu. For the first time, it was accepted by Greece and then it was widely used by the Roman Republic as the Constitution of the Roman Republic. Its root is traceable in  Aristotle and Plato when this doctrine became a segment of their marvels. In 16th and 17th-century British politicians Locke and Justice Bodin, a French philosopher also expressed their opinion regarding this doctrine. Montesquieu was the first one who articulated this principle scientifically, accurately and systemically n his book  “ Esprit des Lois” (The Spirit Of Laws) which was published in the year 1785.

Montesquieu, a French scientist, originally proposed the doctrine of separation of powers in his book “Espirit des Louis” published in 1747. (The spirit of the laws). Montesquieu discovered that when power is concentrated in the hands of a single person or a group of people, a despotic government emerges. To avoid this predicament and to limit the government’s arbitrary nature, he argued that the three organs of the state, the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary, should have a clear distribution of power.

Montesquieu went on to clarify the idea in his own words: 

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body or magistrates, there can be no liberty. Again, there is no liberty if the judicial power is not separated from the legislative and executive powers. Where it joined with the legislative power, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the Judge would then be the legislator. Where it joined with the executive power, the Judge might behave with violence and oppression. There would be an end of everything, were the same man or same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.”

Wade and Phillips provide three definitions of the separation of powers:

1. That one branch of government should not carry out the duties of another, such as giving ministers legislative authority;
2. That one branch of the government should not exert control over or interfere with another branch’s performance of its duties, such as when the judiciary is separate from the executive branch or when ministers are not answerable to Parliament;
3. That the same individuals should not serve in more than one of the three branches of government, such as sitting as Ministers in Parliament.

Three formulations of structural classification of governmental powers are included in the separation of powers theory:

• A single person should not serve in more than one of the government’s three branches. Ministers, for instance, should not be allowed to sit in the House of Commons.
• A government organ should not be allowed to meddle with another government organ.
• The functions of one organ of government should not be performed by another.

Meaning

The definition of separation of power is given by different authors.  But in general, the meaning of separation of power can be categorized into three features:

• A person forming a part of one organ should not form part of another organ.
• One organ should not interfere with the functioning of the other organs.
• One organ should not exercise the function belonging to another organ.

The separation of power is based on the concept of triaspolitica. This principle visualizes a tripartite system where the powers are delegated and distributed among three organs outlining their jurisdiction each.

To know more about the separation of powers and its relevance in brief, please refer to the video below:

Three-tier machinery of state government

It is impossible for any of the organs to perform all the functions systematically and appropriately. So for the proper functioning of the powers, the powers are distributed among the legislature, executive and judiciary. Now let’s go into the further details of the functioning of each organ.

Legislative

The main function of the legislature is to enact a law. Enacting a law expresses the will of the State and it also acts as the wain to the autonomy of the State. It is the basis for the functioning of executive and judiciary. It is spotted as the first place among the three organs because until and unless the law is framed the functioning of implementing and applying the law can be exercised. The judiciary act as the advisory body which means that it can give the suggestions to the legislature about the framing of new laws and amendment of certain legislation but cannot function it.

Executive

It is the organs which are responsible for implementing, carrying out or enforcing the will of the state as explicit by the constituent assembly and the legislature. The executive is the administrative head of the government. It is called as the mainspring of the government because if the executive crack-up, the government exhaust as it gets imbalanced. In the limited sense, executive includes head of the minister, advisors, departmental head and his ministers.

Judiciary

It refers to those public officers whose responsibility is to apply the law framed by the legislature to individual cases by taking into consideration the principle of natural justice, fairness.

Significance

As it is a very well known fact that whenever a large power is given in the hand of any administering authority there are higher chances of maladministration, corruption and misuse of power. This doctrine helps prevent the abuse of power.  This doctrine protects the individual from the arbitrary rule. The government is the violator and also protects individual liberty.

Summarily, the importance can be encapsulated in the following points:

• Ending the autocracy, it protects the liberty of the individual.
• It not only safeguards the liberty of the individual but also maintains the efficiency of the administration.
• Focus on the requirement of independence of the judiciary
• Prevent the legislature from enacting an arbitrary rule.

Constitutional status of separation of power in India

Going through the provisions of Constitution of India one may be ready to say that it has been accepted in India. Under the Indian Constitution:

The Parliament is competent enough to make any law subject to the conditions of Constitution and there are no restrictions on its law-making powers. The president power and functions are given in the Constitution itself (Article  62 to Article 72).  The judiciary is self –dependent in its field and there is no obstruction with its judicial functions either by Legislature or the Executive. The High Court under Article 226 and Article 227  and Supreme Court under Article 32 and Article 136 of Constitution are given the power of judicial review and any law passed by the legislature can be declared void by the judiciary if it is inconsistent with Fundamental Rights (Article 13). By going through such provisions many jurists are of opinion that doctrine of separation of powers is accepted in India.

Before looking into the case laws, let us understand what the meaning of the doctrine of separation of power is in a strict and broad sense.

The doctrine of separation of power in a rigid sense means that when there is a proper distinction between three organs and their functions and also there should be a system of check and balance.

The doctrine of separation of power in a broad sense means that when there is no proper distinction between three organs and their functions.

In the case of  I.C  Golakhnath vs  State of Punjab,  the Constitution brings in actuality the distinct constitutional entities i.e namely, the Union territories, Union and State. It also has three major instruments namely, judiciary, executive and legislature. It demarcates their jurisdiction minutely and expects them to exercise their function without interfering with others functions. They should function within their scope.

If we go through the constitutional provision, we can find that the doctrine of separation of power has not been accepted in a rigid sense in India. There is personnel overlapping along with the functional overlapping. The Supreme Court can declare any law framed by the legislature and executive void if they violate the provisions of the Constitution.

Executive also has an impact on the functioning of the judiciary as they appoint the judges and Chief justice. The list is so exhaustive.

In the case of  Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain, the court held that  In our Constitution the doctrine of separation of power has been accepted in a broader sense. Just like in American and Australia Constitution where a rigid sense of separation of power applies is not applicable in India.

Justice Chandrachud also expressed his views by stating:

“The political purpose of the doctrine of separation of power is not widely recognized. No provision can be properly implemented without a check and balance system. This is the principle of restraining which has in its precept, innate in the prudence of self- preservation that discretion is better than its valor.”

In Ram Jawaya vs The  State of Punjab, Justice Mukherjee observed:

“In India, this doctrine has been not be accepted in its rigid sense but the functions of all three organs have been differentiated and it can be said that our constitution has not been a deliberate assumption that functions of one organ belong to the another. It can be said through this that this practice is accepted in India but not in a strict sense. There is no provision in Constitution which talks about the separation of powers except Article 50 which talks about the separation of the executive from the judiciary but this doctrine is in practice in India. All three organs interfere with each other functions whenever necessary.”

Although, there is an explicit provision in Constitution just like American Constitution that executive power is vested in President under Article 53(1) and in Governor under Article 154(1) but there is no provision which talks about the vesting of legislative and judiciary power in any organ.  We can conclude that there is no rigid separation of power.

At the first instance, it appears that our Constitution is based on this doctrine itself as the judiciary is self-sufficient and there is no interference either by executive or legislature. Court also prohibits the administration of judiciary is not to be discussed in the parliament. Power of judicial review and to declare any law as void is given to the Supreme Court. The judges of Supreme Court is appointed by President in consultation. Chief Minister and judges of the supreme court. The Supreme court make the rules and regulations for the effective conduct of business.

However, Article 50 of the Constitution of India talks about the separation of the executive from the judiciary as being a Directive Principle of State Policy it is not enforceable. Certain privileges, power, immunities are given to the Member of Parliament under Article 105. This provision makes the legislature independent. The executive power is conferred on President and Governor they are being exempted from civil and criminal liabilities.

But, if we read carefully it is clear that doctrine is not accepted in a rigid sense. The executive is a portion of the legislature and the executive is accountable for its conduct to the legislature and also its derive its authority from the legislature. Since India has a parliamentary form of government should a mutual connection and coordination between the legislature and executive. As executive power is vested in the president but in actuality, the real head is Prime Minister of India along with Council of Minister and president is only a nominal head. Article 74(1) talks that executive head has to conduct in conformity with the aid and advice of Cabinet.

Ordinarily, all the legislative power is vested in the legislature but in certain circumstances, the president may be empowered to exercise the legislative power. For example, the president can issue ordinance under Article 123 when the parliament is not in session, making the rules when there is an emergency. Sometimes the president may also exercise judiciary power. When a president is being impeached, both houses take active participation and finalize the charges.

Judiciary also performs the administrative actions while formulating the regulations  and giving guidance for the subordinate court as well as perform legislative powers by framing the rules regulating their own procedure

So it is presumed from the provisions of the constitution that India being a parliamentary form of government does not follow the absolute separation there is an amalgamation of the powers where the connections between the different wings are inevitable and it can be drawn from the constitution itself. Every organ performs all types of functions in one or other form subject to the check and balance by other organs. All three organs are interdependent because India has a Parliamentary democracy. This does not mean that it is not accepted in India it has been accepted up to a certain extent.

But when it is expressly provided that one organ shall not perform functions of the other, then it is prohibited. In the Delhi laws case, it was stated that the legislature should exercise all the powers of legislation only in extraordinary circumstances like when parliament is not in session or emergency. We can say that the legislature is created by the Constitution to enact the laws.

In India, there is no separation of power but there is a separation of powers. Hence, in India, the people are not stuck by the principle by its rigidity. For example, the cabinet minister exercises both the executive and administrative functions. Article 74(1) states that it is mandatory for the executive head to comply with the advice of the cabinet ministers. In Ram Jawaya vs the State of Punjab, it was held that the executive is a part of the legislature and is accountable.

If we talk about the amending power of the Parliament under Article 368, it has been subject to the concept of the basic structure held in case of  Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala.

In this case, it was held that the Parliament couldn’t amend the provision in such a way that violated the basic structure.

And if it is made in violation of basic structure then such amendment will be declared as unconstitutional null and void.

Going through this case law regarding the Supreme court judgment it can be observed that the basic structure cannot be amended and strict applicability of doctrine can be seen.

Although strict separation of power is not followed in India like the American Constitution, the system of check and balance is followed. However, no organs are to take over the essential functions of other organs which is the part of the basic structure, not even by amending and if it is amended, such amendment will be declared as unconstitutional.

Impact of the doctrine of separation of powers on democracy 

The doctrine of separation of powers seeks to protect the centralization of power in one hand; as history has repeatedly demonstrated, centralisation of power in one or a few hands can lead to disastrous outcomes. The application of this principle makes the government liable, accountable, and answerable to its citizens for its actions, thereby aiding in the promotion and protection of human rights. This eliminates one of the most serious weaknesses of other forms of administration, such as monarchy or dictatorship, in which the king is not accountable to his people. When applied, the principle creates a balance of powers inside the government, in which each of the government’s bodies’ functions are kept in check by the others while remaining independent of one another. This assures that the laws are just, fair, and adhere to the natural justice ideal. Furthermore, because it is independent of the other departments, the court can administer equitable justice. Democracy is flawed without Separation of Power.

Global perspective

Separation of power has been accepted and adopted across the globe. The United States has one of the most initially established versions of this doctrine, which finds its origin in its constitution.  The theory of separation of powers in various aspects has been included in certain other constitutions around the world. The Australian Constitution favours the devolution of legislative functions to the executive rather than judicial institutions. This idea is also believed to be the foundation of the Sri Lankan Constitution. France is another country where this doctrine has an effect, and this doctrine flows out of the French constitution. The United Kingdom too has a separation of powers concept on an informal note. Some of the prominent  countries that have adopted this concept are as follows:

United States

The concept of separation of powers is quite specifically stated in the US Constitution. It gives Congress, which consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives, legislative authority. The President has executive authority, and the Supreme Court and any further Federal Courts that Congress may establish have judicial authority. The Constitution specifically outlines the President’s powers, and he is elected in a separate election for a fixed term of four years. He is tasked by the Constitution with ensuring that the country’s laws are faithfully carried out. The President has the authority to nominate and dismiss the executive officers known as the Cabinet, who are in charge of the major state departments. This is done to maintain the separation between the executive and legislative branches of government. Neither the President nor any of his secretaries may be members of the Congress, and any member of the Congress may join the government only after resigning from his membership. The President is normally irremovable from office, but the Senate has the power to remove him through the process of impeachment if he commits high crimes and misdemeanours such as bribery or treason. The after-effects of the Watergate scandal of 1972 on the President act as a prominent illustration of this. Once nominated, the Supreme Court’s judges are not subject to the authority of either Congress or the President. But they too could be impeached and forced out of their positions. 

The Supreme Court’s authority was created in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 when it ruled that the President’s acts and the Acts of the legislature were both in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court also found that any significant delegation of legislative authority by Congress to executive agencies was in violation of the Constitution’s tenet of the separation of powers. 

United Kingdom

Unlike the United States, the United Kingdom does have a separation of powers concept and it exists in the country more on an informal note. The United Kingdom benefits more from Black Stone’s “mixed government” with checks and balances doctrine. The U.K. Constitution does not have separation of powers as an essential or defining principle. Because there is no formal division of powers in the United Kingdom due to the lack of a written constitution, any Act of Parliament that grants any power in violation of the concept may be deemed unconstitutional. The Parliament continues to have undisputed authority, and as a result, the Crown rules through ministers who are elected by and answerable to the Parliament. The Act of Settlement, 1700, effectively cemented the judiciary’s independence. The Supreme Court operates with its powers separated from those of Parliament. The Constitutional Reforms Act of 2005‘s Section 61 outlines the structure for judicial appointments. Commission responsible for choosing judges for the Supreme Court and the court of appeals. Thus, the Constitutional Reforms Act of 2005 has generally ensured the independence of the court.  

The three branches continue to significantly overlap and are not properly divided. Administrative tribunals rather than regular courts handle many issues that emerge during the course of government. However, by preserving key components of “fair judicial procedure“, the impartiality of the tribunals is kept intact. Senior justices have frequently stated that a division of powers is the foundation of the British Constitution. It cannot be emphasised enough how deeply rooted in the separation of powers the British Constitution is while being mostly unwritten. Parliament makes the laws, and the judiciary interprets them.

Australia

The separation of powers in Australia is achieved by the partition of the Australian organs of government into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. According to this theory, laws are created by the legislative, implemented by the executive branch, and then interpreted by the court. The word and its use in Australia are a result of the Australian Constitution’s language and structure, which draws its inspiration from democratic ideas ingrained in the Westminster system, the idea of a ‘responsible government’, and the American interpretation of the separation of powers. 

The Australian political system does not always exhibit a strong separation of powers, however, as a result of the Westminster system’s norms. The executive is required to be chosen from the legislative and must uphold its trust, resulting in a fusion between the two. 

The Parliament, the executive government, and the judiciary are the respective headings of the first three chapters of the Australian Constitution. Parliaments serve as the legislative branch of government. Ministers and the departments and agencies they oversee make up the executive branch. Judges and courts make up the judicial branch of government. Each of these chapters starts with a section that vests the applicable power of the Commonwealth to the proper people or organisations. On the other hand, responsible governance, in which the legislative and the administration are essentially one, is a feature of the Constitution. However, there is a lot of overlap in terms of both individuals and activities because the ministry (executive) is chosen from and answerable to the parliament (legislature). The distinction between the judiciary’s divisions is clearer.

Canada

According to the Constitution Act of 1867, there shall be a legislative branch, an executive branch, and a judicial branch. The monarch of Canada, working through their representative, the Governor General of Canada, is granted executive authority at the federal level. The Canadian Parliament, which consists of the monarch, the Senate, and the House of Commons, is given the responsibility of passing laws. Although Parliament approved provisions for the establishment of federal courts, the judicial authority is generally delegated to the provincial superior courts. The Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada are currently considered to be federal courts.

The Prime Minister and other Cabinet ministers are members of Parliament, and Canada, like other parliamentary nations utilising the Westminster system, combines the executive and legislative departments. The two branches, however, play different roles and occasionally even clash with one another. The judicial branch and the elected legislative and executive branches fall under a considerably stricter definition of the separation of powers. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitution of Canada’s core value is judicial independence. When it comes to carrying out their responsibilities and making decisions, the courts are separate from the elected branches. Similar institutional features, such as the sharp division between the judicial and elected institutions, also apply to provincial and territorial governments.

French

Despite the fact that France is credited with creating the theory of separation of powers, its Constitution recognises it in a flexible way. The legislative branch is defined as distinct from the executive branch in Articles 1 and 2 of the French constitution. Its dual court system is a crucial element that preserves the separation of powers.

In France, there are two different types of courts: one handles all civil cases, while the other handles administrative ones. The legislative, the executive branch, and the judiciary are the other three separate branches that make up the French government. The laws are made by the legislature. These laws are carried out by the executive branch. The executive branch can, however, use its veto power to block the passage of a particular statute. This is a method of controlling the legislature. Additionally, the judiciary has the authority to judge whether a law approved by the legislature is constitutional. If a president or judge isn’t carrying out their responsibilities properly, the legislative branch has the authority to have them removed. The legislative branch gives its approval to the judges chosen by the executive branch.

Norway

The Montesquieu principle was included in the original Constitution of 1814, and the people of the time shared the same distrust of political parties that the American founding fathers and the French revolutionaries did. Additionally, no one actually desired the overthrow of the king and the Council of State. The idea of a king and council was well-known, something that people had experienced for a while and, for the most part, were at ease with. The Treaty of Kiel, in particular, and other outside factors led to the creation of the constitution in 1814.  As in the United States and France, there was no revolt against the ruling elite.

No organised political parties emerged until the 1880s since there was no election for the administration and the king exercised absolute independence in choosing the members of the Council of State. The assembly’s impeachment of the whole Council of State in 1884 marked the culmination of a struggle between the executive and legislative that had begun to emerge in the 1870s and so the government changed to a parliamentary one. Even though the system of parliamentary sovereignty where the Montesquieu principle of separation of powers is no longer in effect in Norway, the three branches are still significant institutions.

This does not imply that there are no safeguards in place. Political parties began to emerge shortly after the parliamentary system was established, which prompted calls for electoral reform due to the peculiarity of the Norwegian electoral system, it is quite challenging for one party to win an absolute majority. A popular uproar about having few enough parties and a general sense of lack of representation led to the creation of the multiparty system, which in turn, still serves as a perfectly adequate system of checks and balances. Hence, there isn’t a lot written on checks and balances or the separation of powers in contemporary Norwegian political science publications.

Sri Lanka

Since becoming independent in 1972, Ceylon and subsequent Sri Lanka have allegedly been operating according to the trias politica (three organs of the government) paradigm. However, many would contest the level of independence that each branch of the government has enjoyed since 1972. The effectiveness of the checks and balances in place to preserve this independence and the separation of powers is likewise a topic of contention.

Both the legislature’s independence and its commitment to the Lincolnian ideal of “government by the people, for the people”, are under doubt. Indeed, the rigid workings of the legislature and the party structures and constitutions are signs of parliamentary autocracy. The executive and the judiciary are similarly facing threats to their independent functioning in contemporary times.

Merits of separation of power

The theory of separation of powers in its strictest form is considered undesirable and unworkable. As a result, it is not entirely acknowledged in any nation on earth. However, its importance resides in emphasising the checks and balances that are required to avoid abuse of the vast executive powers.

Creating a system of checks and balances

One aspect of the theory of separation of powers is checks and balances. According to this characteristic, each organ has certain checking abilities over the other two organs in addition to its own power. The inter-organ relationships are governed by a system of checks and balances during the process.

The separation of powers thesis was good in principle. When it was attempted to be utilised in actual life circumstances, however, various flaws became apparent in practice.

Protection of liberty and rights

According to the doctrine of the separation of powers, an individual’s freedoms and rights are protected, and they are shielded from various types of dictatorship and oppression.

Improvement in government efficiency

As authority is divided across government agencies, these agencies learn in-depth information about the issues they are responsible for and improve their effectiveness. The tasks required in governance are sometimes too many for one branch of the government to handle. Therefore, the division of powers aids in lightening the strain on each individual branch of government.

Encourages order in governance

Each of the three branches of the government is given a certain set of responsibilities. Each person would have to do their part solely if the concept were to be strictly followed. This guarantees that the state is run in an orderly manner.

Prevents abuse of authority

The separation of powers is an excellent safeguard against the abuse and haughtiness of power. Because various departments are given varying degrees of authority, the emergence of a dictatorship is prevented. The idea is sound in that it can restrain tyranny on the part of those in authority. The idea makes sure that too much authority is not centralised in one branch of the government. By doing this, the desire to misuse authority is avoided.

Achieves judicial independence

The idea of judicial independence holds that the judiciary ought to be separate from the other arms of the government. In practically every constitution, the judiciary is granted the authority to decide all constitutional problems and the authority to deem the actions of the other branches of government null and invalid. The idea of the separation of powers contributes to bolstering the judiciary’s independence in carrying out its duties.

Demerits of separation of power

Although most nations have adopted this approach, it has not been without criticism. It has been decried as undesirable in addition to being impossible. “Montes was guilty of oversimplification. He united his theory to a hasty and superficial analysis of the constitutional principles of liberty.” Sabine said. According to Finer, it is useless to rigorously apply the doctrine of the division of powers to contemporary circumstances. The following arguments have been used to refute the separation of powers doctrine.

Misreading of the British system 

The Cabinet system of government existed at the time Montesquieu formed his thesis on the division of powers. At the time, Britain lacked a clear division of authorities. Instead, there was a focus on who was responsible for what. Montesquieu incorrectly assumed that there was a division of powers in Britain after seeing the British people enjoy their freedom. He had the politics of Britain wrong.

Unhistorical

The British Constitution during the first half of the eighteenth century, as he understood it, served as inspiration for Montesquieu. In actuality, the English Constitution did not have a division of powers. This theory was never included in the British Constitution.

The idea is predicated on the false premise that the three branches of government—legislative, judicial, and executive—are distinct from one another. In the current welfare state model, these three roles overlap. The government could become more effective as a result of this division.

Not in favour of the welfare state idea

The welfare state of today must address several intricate sociopolitical economic issues facing a nation. It is impossible to follow this concept in the current situation.

Unrealistic in and of itself

It hasn’t been discovered that concentrating one sort of power in one organ alone is conceivable in practice. In addition to being a body that makes laws, the legislature also has oversight responsibilities for the executive, which is an administrative entity. The judiciary has some rule-making authority in addition to performing judicial duties.

Deadlocks and inefficiencies can result from the separation of powers:

The division of powers might result in impasses and ineffective government operations. It could lead to circumstances where each organ engages in combat and becomes stuck with the other two organs.

Not completely achievable 

This notion is not entirely achievable. The legislature also has some judicial duties, while the executive plays a little part in rulemaking. The legislature, for instance, carries out judicial actions like impeachment.

Separation of powers causes administrative challenges, which is number three. Making the government’s organs cooperate, coordinate, and live in harmony becomes challenging. Modern governments must “coordinate” their powers rather than strictly separate them in order to function effectively.

Could cause confusion and deadlock

The division of powers can occasionally cause rivalry, mistrust, and conflict amongst the several branches of government. It might cripple the government while causing discord and uncertainty. As a result, even in times of emergency, the government frequently makes poor judgments. The principle of the separation of powers, in Finer’s words, “throws governments into alternate phases of coma and convulsion.” According to a different academic, “division of powers equals confusion of powers.”

Power inequality

Although this theory is founded on the equality of powers assumption, this premise has flaws. While the administration is most powerful under a presidential system, the legislature, which represents the people, is most powerful in a parliamentary one.

Separation of powers is one of the factors that contribute to liberty, but it is not the only one. Liberty also heavily depends on people’s minds, perspectives, political awareness, customs and traditions, basic rights, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, economic equality, and other factors.

Could upset the balance of power

As it carries out several crucial tasks, the government has become stronger. It is necessary to offer welfare to the people in addition to solving problems and managing crises. All of this has increased the executive’s authority and thrown off the balance between the three branches of government. Not so much the “division” of authorities as their “fusion” is necessary for planning, security, and welfare.

As a result, the theory of separation of powers in its strictest definition is seen undesirable and unworkable. As a result, it is not entirely acknowledged in any nation on earth. However, its importance resides in emphasising the checks and balances that are required to avoid abuse of the vast executive powers.

Merits of federal governance

1. Nationality, Unity and local autonomy: 

In federal government, there exist double merits of national unity and local autonomy. Its organization has unity. Small states, by clubbing together, can form a big state. 

2. Coordination of centralization and decentralization: 

Federal government coordinates with centralization and decentralization. In such type of system of government, the subjects of national importance are centralized and those having local importance are decentralized. 

3. Administrative Efficiency: 

In this form of government, due to power division, all powers are not centralized at one place. These are divided among states. Because of this, the burden on central government lessens and its administrative efficiency is enhanced. 

4. Process to make weak states powerful: 

In federal government, many small states, by clubbing together, make a strong state, so that they become strong and powerful in themselves. 

5. Specially suitable for huge states: 

Federal system is especially suitable for huge states, where the people of different languages, religions and cultures live and they have diversities in their interests. National unity is to be established in such states having diversities, and this is possible only through a federal system. 

6. Governance does not become autocratic: 

In federal form of government, due to division of governance between center and states, government cannot become autocratic. 

7. Saving of time and money: 

Because of power division in federal system, burden of central government reduces, and as a result, red tap-ism drops, resulting in saving of time. The’federal form of government is also economically beneficial. 

8. Political Awareness: 

Federal form of government provides its citizens the best political training. Local selfgoverning institutions get more powers. These institutions infuse awareness in citizens towards political problems. As a result, there develops political awareness in them. 

9. Step towards world union: 

By way of forming big states by joining small states, human outlook gets wider and liberal. In this way, a big (union) state is a step forward in the direction of formation of world union. 

10. Repute in International field: 

A federal state, by the amalgamation of different states, becomes strong and powerful, hence its importance and glory is enhanced in international sphere. 

11. Favourable to democracy: 

Federal system is favourable to democracy. This system has done many important works in the direction of making democracy popular.

Demerits of Federal government

1. Unskilled system of government: 

The main defect of federal government is that, due to different governments at the centre and in states, it efficiency reduces. As a result, taking governance-related decisions becomes a lengthy process. 

2. To develop a situation of struggle and rebellion: 

In this form of government, there is a possibility of conflict and rebellion between union government and states governments. 

3. Weak system of government: 

Federal government is a weak system. Because of decentralization and separation of powers, a strong government cannot be established. 

4. Danger to national unity: 

In federal form of government, there is not only division of legal and administrative powers between central and state governments, but also of financial resources. Sometimes, tension prevails on any subject. There is always a fear that a state could rise in rebellion. In the event of provincial feelings going hyper, there arises a danger to the national interest and unity. 

5. Improper in Emergency: 

In emergency times, federal form of government is regarded unsuitable. In the event of war or any other crisis, quick decisions need to be taken, which are not possible in federal government. 

6. Weakness in international field: 

In federal government, state is weak in international field. If the pacts and contracts inked with foreign governments are not accepted by the states, decision may suffer delay. By this, repute of state gets harmed in foreign countries. 

7. Apprehension of states getting separated: 

In federal form of government, in case of lack of strong and skilled leadership of union, there remains a possibility of states of union getting ‘separated’. 

8. Conservatism of Judiciary: 

In federal government, judiciary is the guardian of the constitution. Judiciary has rights to declare ‘unconstitutional’ any laws formed by the legislature. Sometimes, this orthodoxy of judiciary becomes a hindrance in the development of the country and in making progressive changes.

The doctrine of separation of powers traces its origins to the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, particularly in his work The Spirit of the Laws. Montesquieu argued for a government divided into three distinct branches—Legislative, Executive, and Judicial—each with clearly defined powers that would check and balance the others to prevent any one branch from gaining too much control. This philosophy strongly influenced the drafting of the United States Constitution, where a system of checks and balances was embedded to maintain the division of powers between these branches.

During the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers like Montesquieu supported the separation of powers, while others, like Thomas Hobbes, opposed it. Montesquieu’s ideas were especially impactful on the Founding Fathers of the United States, including Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who were instrumental in drafting the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

However, not all U.S. states adhered strictly to the separation of powers during the 18th century. For instance, in New Jersey, the governor also served as a member of the state’s highest court and presided over one house of the legislature. In Delaware, the president was a member of the Court of Appeals, and the presiding officers of the legislature were also involved in the executive branch. Similarly, in Pennsylvania, members of the executive council served as judges. Conversely, several southern states, such as Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia, explicitly maintained clear separation between the branches of government.

Legislative Power

The United States Congress holds the exclusive power to legislate. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress cannot delegate its lawmaking duties to any other entity. This was affirmed in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York, where the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not grant the President a “line-item veto,” as it would violate the constitutional separation of powers.

Although strict in some cases, the Court has been lenient in allowing Congress to delegate minor functions. For instance, in Wayman v. Southard (1825), Congress delegated the power to set judicial procedures, and Chief Justice John Marshall distinguished between significant legislative functions and administrative details. The Supreme Court first ruled a delegation of authority unconstitutional in the 1935 A.L.A. Schechter Poultry case, where it held that Congress could not authorize the president to create codes of “fair competition” without providing clear standards.

Executive Power

The President of the United States holds executive power, subject to constitutional constraints. As Commander in Chief, the president oversees the military and has the authority to make treaties and appointments with the Senate’s advice and consent. The president is responsible for ensuring that laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed, though subordinate officers typically carry out these duties.

Congress has the power to limit the president’s authority, as illustrated in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha (1983). The Supreme Court held that legislation must follow a clear procedure laid out in the Constitution, and both the House and Senate must pass bills that are then presented to the president for approval or veto. Congress can override a presidential veto only with a two-thirds majority in both houses.

Judicial Power

Judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and lower courts established by Congress. Judges are appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and serve for life unless impeached. Their salaries cannot be reduced during their tenure, ensuring judicial independence.

However, the judiciary is dependent on Congress in several ways. While the Constitution creates the Supreme Court, it is Congress that determines the structure, size, and jurisdiction of lower federal courts. Additionally, while courts have the power to issue final judgments, they rely on the executive branch for enforcement. Congress can also establish “legislative courts” with members who do not enjoy the same tenure or salary protections as constitutional judges. These courts, as the Supreme Court held in Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. (1856), may only adjudicate cases involving public rights, such as disputes between the government and individuals. Legislative courts cannot decide cases that are inherently judicial in nature, such as those involving common law, equity, or admiralty.

In summary, the separation of powers ensures that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the U.S. government operate independently while maintaining a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.

American federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a national (federal) government and state governments. It is a defining feature of the U.S. Constitution and has evolved over time. The following are the main features of American federalism:

Division of Powers

• Enumerated Powers: The U.S. Constitution grants specific powers to the federal government, such as regulating interstate commerce, coining money, maintaining armed forces, declaring war, and conducting foreign relations. These are known as enumerated or delegated powers.
• Reserved Powers: Powers that are not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. These include authority over local issues such as public education, local law enforcement, and health and safety regulations.
• Concurrent Powers: Both state and federal governments share some powers, such as the power to tax, build roads, and establish courts. These concurrent powers allow both levels to function simultaneously on some matters.

Supremacy Clause

• The U.S. Constitution establishes the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), which asserts that federal law is the “supreme law of the land.” In cases of conflict between federal and state laws, federal law prevails. This principle ensures the dominance of national laws in areas where the federal government has authority.

Bicameral Legislature with State Representation

• The U.S. Congress is a bicameral legislature with two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the Senate, states are represented equally (two senators per state), regardless of population. In the House, representation is based on population size, ensuring both the states and the people are represented in the legislative process.

Interstate Relations

• The U.S. Constitution outlines specific provisions governing the relations between states. These include the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1), which requires each state to recognize the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states. The Privileges and Immunities Clause ensures that citizens of each state are entitled to the same fundamental rights as citizens of other states.

Dual Federalism vs. Cooperative Federalism

• Dual Federalism (Layer-Cake Federalism): In the early years of the republic, federalism was characterized by clear, distinct roles for both federal and state governments. The two levels of government operated independently in their respective areas of influence.
• Cooperative Federalism (Marble-Cake Federalism): Over time, especially after the New Deal era, the distinction between federal and state responsibilities became blurred. The federal government began collaborating with states on various policy areas, such as transportation, education, and social welfare programs. This cooperation is facilitated through grants-in-aid and federal funding.

Grants-in-Aid and Fiscal Federalism

• The federal government provides financial assistance to state and local governments through grants-in-aid, which can be categorical (for specific purposes) or block grants (for general purposes). This is an essential part of fiscal federalism, where federal financial resources influence state policies. States often rely on federal funding to implement national programs at the state level, but these grants often come with conditions attached, allowing the federal government to exercise influence over state policies.

Judicial Interpretation

• The role of the U.S. Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution has had a profound impact on the nature of federalism. Court rulings have shifted the balance of power between the federal and state governments. Landmark cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) expanded federal authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause. Conversely, cases such as United States v. Lopez (1995) limited the reach of federal power in favor of states’ rights.

Evolving Nature of Federalism

• American federalism has evolved to meet the changing needs of the country. For instance:
  • New Deal Federalism: During the Great Depression, the federal government expanded its role in economic regulation and social welfare, marking a significant shift towards cooperative federalism.
  • Civil Rights Era: Federal power was used to enforce civil rights laws in states that resisted integration and equal treatment, thus asserting federal supremacy over state resistance.
  • Devolution: Since the 1980s, there has been a push for devolution, transferring more powers back to the states in areas such as welfare and education. This trend seeks to reduce federal oversight and give states more flexibility in managing their own affairs.

Checks and Balances

• Federalism in the U.S. operates within a broader system of checks and balances. Each branch of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) exercises checks over the other branches, ensuring that no single entity becomes too powerful. This principle also applies to the relationship between federal and state governments, as both levels are subject to checks through judicial review and constitutional amendments.

Contemporary Issues in Federalism

• • In recent decades, federalism has been at the center of debates on issues such as healthcare (e.g., the Affordable Care Act), environmental regulation, immigration, and education. Conflicts arise when states challenge federal mandates, leading to ongoing discussions about the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

If you have studied our constitution carefully, you will see it calls India a “Union of States”. This statement is what gives our country a federal structure.

What is Federalism?

Federalism is compound mode of two governments. That is, in one system there will be a mixture of two governments – state government with central government. In India, we can describe federalism as a distribution of authority around local, national, and state governments. This is similar to Canadian model of political organization.

Federalism is at its core a system where the dual machinery of government functions. Generally, under federalism, there are two levels of government. One is a central authority which looks after the major affairs of the country. The other is more of a local government which looks after the day to day functioning and activities of their particular region.

For example, our Indian Constitution says that India too is a federal country. As you know we have two levels of parliament, the at center the Union government and at State level, we have the individual State governments.

Features of Federalism

The best way to comprehensively understand the federal system is to learn about its features. These characteristics combined to reflect the true essence of federalism. Let us study them.

1. The essential feature, which is the definition of federalism is that there are two levels of governance in the country at least. There can even be more. But the entire power is not concentrated with one government.
2. All levels of governance will govern the same citizens, but their jurisdiction will be different. This means that each level of government will have a specific power to form laws, legislate and execute these laws. Both of the governments will have clearly marked jurisdiction. It will not be that one of the government is just a figurehead government.
3. Another important feature is that the constitution must guarantee this federal system of government. Which means the powers and duties of both or all governments must be listed down in the constitution of that country hence guaranteeing a federal system of governance.
4. As stated above the federalism of a country must be prescribed by the constitution. But it is also important that just one level of government cannot make unilateral changes or amendments to the important and essential provisions of the constitution. Such changes must be approved by all the levels of the government to be carried through.
5. Now there are two levels of government with separate jurisdictions and separate duties. Yet there is still a possibility that a conflict may arise between the two. Well in a federal state, it will fall upon the courts or rather the judiciary to resolve this conflict. The courts must have the power to interfere in such a situation and reach a resolution.
6. While there is power sharing between the two levels of government, there should also be a system in place for revenue sharing. Both levels of government should have their own autonomous revenue streams. Because if one such government depends on the other for funds to carry out its functions, it really is not autonomous in its true nature.

India – A Federal State

India is a federal country. But not once in the constitution is the word “federation” ever mentioned. Instead what is said is that India is a “Union of States’.Actually many historians believe that India is a quasi-federal country. It means it is a federal state with some features of a unitary government. Let us see the reasons.

The constitution of India has essentially prescribed a federal state of government. As you already know we have several levels of government, The Government at the center, which id the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. Then the various state governments, the Vidhan Sabhas, and the Vidhan Parishad. And finally, we have the Municipal Corporations and the Panchayats, which are forms of local governance.

Our constitution makes a clear demarcation about legislative powers and jurisdictions. It is done through the three lists.

• Union List: This includes subjects that carry national importance, like defense, finance, railways, banking etc. So such subjects only the Central Government is allowed to make laws.
• State List: Includes all matters important to the functioning of a particular trade like transport, Trade, Commerce, agriculture etc. The state government is the deciding authority for framing laws on these subjects
• Concurrent List: This list includes topics on which both the Union and the state government can make laws. These are related to education, forests, trade unions etc. One point to be noted is if the two governments are in conflict with these laws, the decision of the Union Government will prevail, It is the final authority,

Constitutionalism refers to the principle that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law or constitution. It emphasizes the rule of law, adherence to constitutional limits, and respect for individual rights and liberties. It is a framework that ensures the government operates within defined legal constraints to protect citizens from arbitrary rule and maintain a balance of power.

Nature of Constitutionalism

1. Limited Government: Constitutionalism asserts that government powers are not absolute. The constitution provides a legal framework that limits what the government can do, ensuring that its powers are confined by law.

2. Rule of Law: A key aspect is the supremacy of law, where both the government and citizens are subject to the same laws. No one, including those in power, is above the law.

3. Separation of Powers: Constitutionalism often involves dividing the government into different branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) to prevent the concentration of power in any one branch. This principle ensures checks and balances between branches.

4. Protection of Fundamental Rights: Constitutions typically enshrine individual rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech, equality before the law, and personal freedoms. Constitutionalism ensures these rights are protected from governmental infringement.

5. Democratic Governance: In many systems, constitutionalism supports democratic principles, where the government is accountable to the people through regular elections, and political authority is based on the consent of the governed.

6. Judicial Review: Constitutionalism includes mechanisms like judicial review, allowing courts to interpret the constitution and strike down laws or actions that violate constitutional principles.

Determining Factors of Constitutionalism

1. Historical Context: The historical development of a country’s legal and political system influences its form of constitutionalism. For example, British constitutionalism evolved through the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, and the establishment of parliamentary sovereignty.

2. Political Culture: Societal values and attitudes towards authority, democracy, and individual rights affect how constitutionalism is practiced. In societies with a strong culture of democratic participation, constitutionalism tends to be more robust.

3. Legal Tradition: Different legal traditions, such as common law, civil law, or religious law, shape the structure and interpretation of constitutionalism. These legal systems influence how constitutions are drafted and enforced.

4. Social and Economic Conditions: The level of economic development and social inequality can impact the effectiveness of constitutionalism. Stable economic conditions and a strong middle class often support the rule of law and constitutional governance.

5. Institutional Framework: The effectiveness of constitutionalism depends on the strength and independence of institutions like the judiciary, legislature, and electoral bodies. Strong institutions ensure the constitution is upheld and prevent authoritarianism.

6. International Influence: In many cases, international norms and pressures (e.g., human rights treaties or membership in global organizations) can influence a country’s adoption of constitutional principles and adherence to democratic standards.

In conclusion, constitutionalism is essential for maintaining the balance between governmental authority and individual freedoms. It is shaped by historical, political, legal, and institutional factors, and it functions best in societies that value democratic governance, the rule of law, and human rights.

The principle of ‘Rule of Law’ is an essential aspect of modern constitutionalism. It implies that no individual is above the law, and the law should be equal for all. The ‘Rule of Law’ requires that the exercise of power by the government should be based on a legal framework, and the courts should have the authority to interpret and enforce the law. In this way, the ‘Rule of Law’ safeguards the rights and freedoms of individuals against arbitrary and abusive state action.

The United Kingdom (UK) has a long tradition of parliamentary sovereignty, which means that Parliament is the supreme law-making body. However, the principle of ‘Rule of Law’ has been established in the UK constitution through various legal and constitutional developments. In this essay, we will examine the principle of ‘Rule of Law’ and its practice in the UK.

The Principle of ‘Rule of Law’

The principle of ‘Rule of Law’ has its roots in the Magna Carta, a charter of liberties agreed to by King John of England in 1215. The Magna Carta established the principle that no one, not even the king, is above the law. It also provided for due process of law and the right to a fair trial. Over time, this principle has been incorporated into the UK constitution through various legal and constitutional developments.

One of the most significant developments in the principle of ‘Rule of Law’ in the UK was the establishment of an independent judiciary. The judiciary in the UK is independent of the executive and legislative branches of government. This means that judges are appointed on merit and are not subject to political interference. The judiciary has the power to interpret the law and ensure that the government is acting within the confines of the law.

Another important development in the principle of ‘Rule of Law’ in the UK was the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. It requires public authorities to act in a way that is compatible with human rights, and individuals can seek redress if their rights have been violated.

Practice of ‘Rule of Law’ in the UK

Despite the various legal and constitutional developments aimed at establishing the principle of ‘Rule of Law’ in the UK, there have been concerns about the practice of this principle in recent years. Some critics argue that the UK government has taken actions that are contrary to the ‘Rule of Law.’

One area of concern has been the UK government’s use of executive orders, which are orders issued by the government without going through Parliament. Critics argue that this undermines the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the democratic process. For example, in 2019, the UK government prorogued Parliament, which is the suspension of Parliament by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister. The move was criticized as an attempt to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of the government’s Brexit policy.

Another area of concern has been the UK government’s approach to the Human Rights Act. Some politicians and commentators have called for the Act to be repealed, arguing that it has led to a “rights culture” and interferes with the government’s ability to govern effectively.

Conclusion

The principle of ‘Rule of Law’ is an essential aspect of modern constitutionalism, and it has been established in the UK through various legal and constitutional developments. However, concerns have been raised about the practice of this principle in recent years. It is essential that the UK government continues to uphold the principle of ‘Rule of Law’ to ensure that individuals’ rights and freedoms are protected and that the government is accountable for its actions.

The system of checks and balances is a system of horizontal distribution of power between the different organs of a government, such as a legislature, executive, and judiciary. In the Indian context, the legislature, executive, and judiciary share the powers and keep a system of checks and balances among each other. The system in the modern world owes its origins to the constitution of the United States of America; the United States was the first country to introduce a government system where powers were divided among three governing bodies, legislature, judiciary, and the executive.

Background and History

The system of checks and balances was first incorporated into the constitution of the United States of America. The founding fathers of the US constitution were greatly influenced by the work of William Blackstone and Montesquieu. They observed that in the English system of governance, the parliament was the supreme, which means that a court of law can not amend any law passed by the British parliament. 

The framers of the constitution of the United States realised that to sustain a strong democracy, a system of checks and balances was a must. After India’s independence, the founding fathers of the Indian constitution also adopted a governing system with adequate checks and balances between bodies of power.

System of Checks and Balances

Under the principle of checks and balances, each branch of the government shall possess tools to check and limit the powers of other branches within the government. Normally, in a parliamentary democracy, the branches of the government are legislation, the executive, and the judiciary. 

A system of checks and balances keeps a government from taking unprecedented and totalitarian actions. The following points are important to understand the system of checks and balances.

• It is a horizontal distribution of powers between different organs of the government
• It provides different government bodies to work on the same level
• This system prevents one body of authority from overpowering others
• The system provides methods for different government organs to check each other

Checks and Balances on Different Organs of the Government

The constitution of India provides for a system of checks and balances so no one organ can overpower another.

On Executive

• In the parliament proceedings, the Indian parliamentary democracy provides different instruments and methods used to hold the government accountable to the parliament—for example, no-confidence motion, question hour, and censor motion
• The constitution provides for the feature of Judicial Review; according to this, any law made, passed, or amended by the parliament is subject to judicial review in a court of law
• The new law or any amendment to a law must be in line with the basic features of the constitution of India
• Otherwise, a court can declare a law null and void

On Legislature

• The constitution prevents the legislators from meddling with the executive role by providing provisions
• It is done so a conflict of interest may not arise between two essential organs of the government
• The judiciary can execute their doctrine of judicial review on legislation if they find them extra-constitutional and out of line with the constitution’s basic features
• The constitution also prevents the legislators from discussing the conducts of the judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court in the parliament

On Judiciary

• The constitution provides for the impeachment of a sitting judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court if found guilty of not complying with his responsibilities or any misconduct
• The appointment of judges and other judicial appointments require the government’s nod after being approved by the collegium

Checks and balances are crucial mechanisms in any democratic system, distributing power across political institutions to prevent any single entity or individual from wielding excessive control. While often discussed together, the terms ‘checks’ and ‘balances’ refer to slightly different concepts. Checks allow institutions to limit each other’s power by challenging, delaying, or scrutinizing decisions. Balances, on the other hand, ensure that various perspectives and interests are represented in the political process, such as through federalism or the presence of multiple political parties.

Although most strongly associated with the United States, the principle of checks and balances is fundamental to all modern democracies. It operates both between and within institutions, ensuring that no one branch of government becomes overly dominant. However, particular attention is often paid to the executive branch, as it poses the greatest risk of overreach. In the UK, for instance, several key institutions serve as checks and balances on executive power: parliament, the courts, impartial officials, and media and civil society.

Why Do Checks and Balances Matter?

Checks and balances serve two essential purposes. First, they prevent the majority from acting without considering minority perspectives, guaranteeing that opposition voices are heard during law-making. Second, they promote better governance by ensuring that policies are tested, behaviors monitored, and decisions scrutinized. This helps maintain the integrity of the political system and improves the quality of policy decisions.

However, there can be downsides when checks and balances are too rigid. While these mechanisms limit unilateral action and encourage broad participation, they can also lead to political gridlock or give vested interests the power to block reforms. Effective democracies carefully balance these competing concerns, maintaining strong checks without stifling necessary actions. In contrast, when democracies backslide, leaders often weaken these safeguards in the name of decisive governance. A notable example is Hungary, where Viktor Orbán’s government curtailed judicial power and placed election regulators under tighter state control, reducing their ability to limit executive overreach.

Challenges in the System of Checks and Balances

The following challenges may emerge in the system of checks and balances:

Overreaching of Judiciary

The judiciary may take extra-judicial actions by interfering with the workings of the legislators and the executive. Because only the judiciary can interpret legislation passed by the parliament in a court of law, it can overreach its jurisdiction.

Parliamentary Committees

The constitution provides for the execution of parliamentary committees; these committees are formed to reduce the burden of the executive. However, the recommendations proposed by such committees are advisory. The parliament and executives are not bound to agree to the recommendations proposed by these committees.

Proceedings of the Parliament

Actions like the no-confidence motion the question hours, if used repeatedly, can adversely affect the proceedings of the parliament.

Safeguarding Checks and Balances

For a democracy to thrive, its checks and balances must remain intact. These mechanisms ensure power is distributed and decisions are made with proper oversight. When leaders or institutions disregard or seek to weaken these safeguards, it can erode public confidence and destabilize the political system. Safeguarding checks and balances requires responsible governance, respectful engagement with parliamentary scrutiny, and adherence to the rule of law. Members of Parliament and other political actors must hold the government accountable, encouraging it to uphold these vital democratic principles.

Constitutionalism is a political ideology based on the idea that government power should be limited by a constitution, which outlines the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens, as well as the powers and responsibilities of government institutions. The principles of constitutionalism form the foundation for a constitutional democracy, where the rule of law is respected, and the government is held accountable to the people it serves.

Principles of Constitutionalism

As we unravel the complexities of constitutionalism, it is essential to identify and understand its core principles. These principles are the heart of constitutionalism, guiding its function and application in governance. Let’s break down these principles to further explore their depth and significance.

Popular Sovereignty

One of the fundamental principles of constitutionalism is ‘Popular Sovereignty.’ This principle states that the ultimate power resides with the people. It’s the citizens who choose their representatives through democratic processes, highlighting the key role they play in the government.

Independent Judiciary

An ‘Independent Judiciary’ is another pillar of constitutionalism. It signifies that the judiciary should operate independently of the other branches of government. This independence safeguards the rights and liberties of the public, ensuring that laws and regulations align with the constitution, and promotes ‘Police Accountability.’

Separation of Powers

‘Separation of Powers’ is a principle that prevents the concentration of authority in one branch of government. Instead, the power is divided amongst different branches – typically the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This balance allows each branch to keep the others in check, a central premise of constitutionalism.

Responsible and Accountable Government

Constitutionalism demands a ‘Responsible and Accountable Government.’ Every government official, from the highest-ranking to the lowest, is answerable to the public and the law. This principle fosters transparency and helps in reducing corruption and misuse of power.

Rule of Law

‘Rule of Law’ is a principle stating that everyone, including the government and its officials, is subject to the law. It ensures equal treatment before the law and is instrumental in promoting fairness and justice in society.

Police Accountability

In relation to the rule of law, the principle of ‘Police Accountability’ emphasizes that law enforcement agencies must operate within the law. It means they should be accountable for their actions, thereby preventing misuse of power and maintaining public trust in the system.

Civilian Control of the Military

Finally, ‘Civilian Control of the Military’ is another vital principle of constitutionalism. It implies that elected civilian officials have control over the military, ensuring that it serves the nation’s best interests and maintains peace and order, rather than seizing power unlawfully.

Understanding these principles provides a solid foundation for comprehending the intricate framework of constitutionalism. From popular sovereignty to civilian control of the military, each principle plays a unique role in shaping our societies, establishing checks and balances, and promoting democratic governance.

Russia is a federal state with a complex federal system. Its federal structure has undergone significant changes throughout its history. 

The concept of federalism as adopted by the Russia involves a full adherence to all such features as stand recognized as essential and fundamentally important features of a true federation. Russia enjoys the name of Russian Federation.

Written Constitution

The Constitution of the Russian Federation is a written constitution which declares that the state is a democratic, federal and rule of law state. Chapter 3 of the constitution stands devoted to a discussion of the federal features of the constitution and it lays down the division of powers between the federal government and the governments of the Subjects of Russian Federation.

Rigid Constitution

Like a truly federal constitution the Constitution of Russian Federation provides for a rigid method of amendment. Chapter 3, which contains provisions regarding Russian Federation, can be amended only by a special procedure of amendment. A proposal for amendment can be made by the President of Russia, the Federation Council, the State Duma, the Government of Russia, legislative assemblies of the Subjects of Russian Federation as well as groups of deputies numbering not less than 1/5th of the total number of deputies of the Federation Council and the State Duma.

Amendment proposals adopted in accordance with the set procedure become Acts and come into force only when approved by at least 2/3rd of the Subjects of Russian Federation.

(This method of Amendment applies in respect of amendment of chapters 3 to 8 of the Constitution).

For chapters 1, 2 and 9, the Constitution provides even a more rigid method — proposal is to be made by a majority of at least 3/5th of the total memberships of the Federation Council and the State Duma. Thereafter a special constituent assembly has to be called, which is required to pass the amendment proposal by a 2/3rd majority of its total membership or the proposal has to be submitted for a popular vote i.e. referendum.

In case a clear majority (51%) supports the proposal, it becomes a part of the Constitution. However, here again such a referendum is considered valid only if at least 50% of the electorate exercises its right to vote. It is indeed a very rigid method of amendment. Thus, Constitution of Russia fully meets the condition of making the federal constitution a rigid constitution. Russian Constitution is indeed a very rigid constitution. The presence of several active political parties in the political system makes it very difficult for the party in power to make amendments in the constitution.

Subjects of the Russian Federation

Russian Federation has several types of federating units, all of whom are referred to as the Subjects of the Federation.

Further the Constitution ensures:

(i) Equality of all Subjects.

(ii) Each Republic has its own constitution and legislation and every other Subject has its own charter and legislation.

(iii) The status of each Subject is defined by a federal law. Such a law is passed by the federal government and adopted by the legislative and executive bodies of the concerned Subjects.

(iv) The status of a Subject or Subjects can be changed only by a mutual consent of the federal government and the concerned Subject or Subjects.

(v) Each Subject enjoys autonomy in carrying out its legislative and executive functions. The sovereignty, however, belongs to the Russian Federation.

(vi) While the Russian language is the language of the Russian Federation, each Republic can have its own state language.

(vii) Boundaries of no Subject can be changed without the consent of the concerned Subjects

Russian Federation as a Multi-national Society

Article 3 lays down a fundamental principle which recognizes and accepts the multinational character of the Russian population. Each ethnic group enjoys cultural and linguistic freedom as well as an equal and honorable status as part of the Russian Federation.

Supremacy of the Constitution

The Constitution of the Russian Federation is the supreme law of the land. Each Republic has its own constitution and every other Subject has its own charter. But the law is: “No provision of the constitution of a Republic as well as of the Charter of every other Subject can be in any way opposed to the Constitution of the Russian Federation”.

The Constitutional Court of Russia has the power to reject as void any law which is deemed to be violative of any provision of the federal constitution. Both the governmental bodies of the Russian Federation and the governments of the Subjects derive their powers from the Constitution of Russia. The judiciary acts as the guardian, protector and interpreter of the Constitution.

Division of Powers

The Constitution of Russia affects a division of powers (Jurisdictions) between the Federation and the Subjects. It follows the US model in so far as it defines the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, the joint jurisdiction of the Federation and the Subjects, and leaves the residuary jurisdiction for the Subjects.

A. Jurisdiction or Powers of the Russian Federation:

Article 71 of the Constitution defines the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation.

It includes:

(i) The adoption and amendment of the Constitution of Russia and federal laws as well as supervision over these.

(ii) The federal structure and territory of the Russian Federation.

(iii) Regulation and protection of rights and liberties of the people.

(iv) Citizenship

(v) Regulation and protection of rights of national minorities.

(vi) Establishment of the system of federal bodies of legislative, executive and judicial powers, procedures and formation of bodies of state power.

(vii) Federal and state property and management;

(viii) Determination of basic principles of federal policy and federal programmes in the field of state structure, the economy, the environment and social, cultural and national development of Russian Federation,

(ix) Establishment of a legal framework for a single market, financial, monetary, credit and customs, regulation, emission of money and guidelines for price policy, federal economy, federal taxes, levies, federal funds for regional development.

(x) Federal power aids, nuclear energy, fissionable materials, federal transport, railways, information and communications, space activities.

(xi) Foreign policy and international relations, treaties, war and peace,

(xii) Foreign trade.

(xiii) Defence and security, defence production, determining procedures for sale and purchase of arms, ammunition, military hardware and other equipment, production of fissionable materials, toxic substances, narcotics and procedures for their use.

(xiv) State borders, territorial waters, air space, exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of Russia,

(xv) Law courts, prosecutor’s office, legal procedures, legal regulation of intellectual property.

(xvi) Conflict of federal laws.

(xvii) Metrological service, standards, models, metric system, time measurement acodesy and cartography, names of geographical objects, official statistics and accounting.

(xviii) State decorations and honorary titles of the Russian Federation.

(xix) Federal state service

B. Joint Jurisdiction or Powers of the Federation and the Subjects:

The joint jurisdiction of Russian Federation and the Subjects of the Russian Federation includes, as Art 72 lays down:

(i) Ensuring compliance of the constitutions and laws of the republics, charters, laws and other regulatory legal acts of the other Subjects, and the federal laws;

(ii) Protection of rights and freedoms, ethnic minorities, ensuring legality, law and order, public safety, border zone requirements.

(iii) Issues of the possession, use and management of land, mineral resources, water and other natural resources.

(iv) Delimitation of state property.

(v) Management of natural resources, protection of the environment and ecological safety, specially protected reserves, protection of historical and cultural monuments.

(vi) General questions of upbringing, education, science, culture, physical culture and sports.

(vii) Coordination of health services, protection of family, motherhood, fatherhood and childhood, social protection including social security.

(viii) Implementing measures to combat catastrophes, natural disasters, epidemics and eliminating consequences there of.

(ix) Establishment of general guidelines for taxation and other levies.

(x) Administration, administrative procedures, labour family, housing, land, water and forestry legislation, legislation on the sub-surface and environmental protection.

(xi) Cadres of judiciary and law enforcement agencies, the bar, notaries;

(xii) Protection of the original environment and traditional way of life of small ethnic communities.

(xiii) Establishment of general guidelines for the organisation of the systems of bodies of state power and local self-government.

(xiv) Coordination of the international and external economic relations of the Subjects of Russian Federation, compliance with the international treaties of the Russian Federation.

The provisions of this Article apply to all the Subjects of Russian Federation.

C. Jurisdiction or Powers of the Subjects (Provinces/Units) of Russian Federation:

The jurisdiction/powers which are neither in the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation nor in the joint jurisdiction, belong to the Subjects of the Russian Federation. In other words, the Constitution defines the sphere of the powers of the federal government, the concurrent powers of the Federation and the Subjects and leaves the residuary powers/jurisdiction to the Subjects.

The Constitution also lays down that there is to be no customs barriers, duties, levies or any other barrier for free movement of goods, services or financial means in whole of the territory of Russia. However, necessary restrictions in the interest of public life, health, safety, culture and environment can be made only under a federal law.

The laws of the Russian Federation alone can regulate currency and coinage, lay down condition for state loans, and regulate banking and the functions of the Central Bank of Russian Federation. The Constitution of Russia clearly defines the jurisdictions of the Federation and the Subjects.

Dual Administration

The Constitution of Russia provides for a dual Administration. Each citizen obeys the federal laws, and pays federal taxes. Along with it, he obeys the Subject laws and pays the taxes of the Subject in which he resides/works.

Russian Federal government enjoys powers over matters falling in its jurisdiction and each Subject enjoys autonomy in its internal administration. However, no law of a Subject can in any way violate any federal law. If it happens, the Constitutional Court can reject the concerned law of the Subject as unconstitutional.

However, within the territory of a Subject if any of its legal and regulatory act is in conflict with a federal regulatory act, the former continues its operation. Each Subject determines the structures and functions of its governmental bodies.

Bicameral Federal Assembly

The Constitution provides for a bi-cameral federal legislature and designates it as the Federal Assembly. It consists of two houses: The Federation Council and the State Duma. Each subject of the Russian Federation sends two deputies (representatives) to the Federation Council (One Deputy each is sent by the legislative and executive authorities of a Subject), which constitutes the upper house of the Russian Federal Assembly.

It is representative of the Subjects of Russian Federation. It has the power to approve decisions of the federal government as relate to the subjects of Russian Federation. The State Duma represents all the people of Russia and it is the lower house of the Federal Assembly.

Single Citizenship

Though a truly federal Constitution, the Russian Federation does not provide for a system of dual citizenship. Each citizen enjoys a single, common and equal citizenship of Russia.

Independent Judiciary with a Special Constitutional Role

Like a truly federal constitution, the Constitution of Russian Federation establishes an independent judiciary with the power to interpret the constitution as well as to settle all disputes between the Russian Federation and the Subjects of Russia. The Constitutional Court of Russian Federation is the apex level court and has the jurisdiction to settle Federal-Subjects disputes. It has the responsibility to act as the guardian, protector, and interpreter of the Constitution.

It has the power to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution of Russian Federation by rejecting every Federal or Subject Law which is held to be may violative of any provision of the Constitution. The above discussed ten features clearly reflect the federal character of the Russian Federation. The Constitution, even while declaring that the names Russian Federation and Russia enjoy equal constitutional validity, in its text uses only the term “Constitution of the Russian Federation”. It has been done to stress the federal character of the Russian State.

Russia is indeed a federal polity consisting of several different classes of federating units which are called the Subjects of the Russian Federation.

The operation of the Constitution of Russian Federation since its birth in 1993 has, however, reflected that the Russian federal system is also characterised by the presence of a strong and powerful central/federal government. The Constitution defines and finally determines the status of each Subject of the Federation. Federal laws enjoy primacy over the laws of the Subjects.

Several features, other than the one laid down by the Constitution, stand determined by federal laws. The jurisdiction of the Russian Federation is broader than the jurisdiction available to the Subjects.

However along with it, the Constitution of Russian Federation assures internal autonomy of the Subjects. Each republic enjoys the freedom to adopt and use its own languages and its people enjoy cultural and religious freedom. Each subject establishes its own bodies of state power.

Further, through a network of inter-state associations, in which the Russian Federation can participate, an attempt has been made to make federalism a harmonious, cooperative and constructive federalism.

Russian Federation is indeed a federal state with several salient features

The presence of several types of Subjects within it makes the working of this federation quite unique. A sincere attempt is now being made to work it as a truly functioning federal system. The unreality of federalism, which was the basic feature of the federation under the constitution of the erstwhile USSR, was in a big way responsible for the disintegration of the Soviet Union. This lesson has brought home the necessity of working the Russian Federation on effective federal lines.

The Chechnya problem again calls for instilling a sense of autonomy, equality and active participation among the Subjects of Russian Federation. The federal government of Russia is fully aware of this need. It augurs well for the future health of federalism in the Russian Federation.

The Behavioural Approach to the study of comparative political institutions emerged in the mid-20th century as a response to traditional approaches in political science, particularly those that focused on formal institutions and legal frameworks. The behavioural approach sought to make political science more scientific by emphasizing empirical research, quantification, and the study of actual political behavior rather than abstract theories or normative assumptions. This approach had a profound impact on the study of comparative political institutions, as it shifted the focus from the structures of governments to the behaviors of individuals and groups within political systems.

Core Features of the Behavioural Approach

1. Empirical Focus: The behavioural approach is grounded in empirical observation and data collection. It emphasizes what people do in political systems (voting, participation, lobbying) rather than what institutions formally dictate. This move from normative to empirical analysis marked a significant shift in political science.

2. Interdisciplinary Orientation: Behaviouralists sought to incorporate insights from other social sciences, particularly psychology, sociology, and economics, to better understand political phenomena. They believed that political behavior could not be fully explained by institutions alone and required attention to human attitudes, values, and actions.

3. Individual and Group Behavior: A central tenet of the behavioural approach is that political institutions are shaped by the behavior of individuals and groups. It looks at how voters, politicians, interest groups, and political parties act, as well as how they are influenced by their social and economic environments.

4. Quantitative Methods: Behaviouralists placed a strong emphasis on quantitative research, using statistical tools and surveys to gather data on political behavior. This was a departure from the more qualitative, descriptive methods used by traditional scholars of political institutions.

5. Value Neutrality: The behavioural approach advocated for objective, scientific inquiry in political science, distancing itself from normative or prescriptive theories. Behaviouralists aimed to describe political realities as they were, rather than as they ought to be.

Strengths of the Behavioural Approach

1. Empirical Rigor: By focusing on observable and measurable phenomena, the behavioural approach introduced a greater level of scientific rigor into the study of political institutions. This helped build more reliable and replicable findings in comparative politics.

2. Broadening of Scope: The behavioural approach expanded the scope of political science beyond just formal institutions. It examined how non-institutional actors (voters, interest groups, media) influenced political processes, providing a more holistic view of politics.

3. Comparative Insights: Because of its empirical and systematic nature, the behavioural approach allowed for meaningful comparisons across different political systems. By focusing on patterns of behavior rather than specific institutional arrangements, scholars could analyze political phenomena across countries, regions, or time periods.

4. Innovation in Methods: The use of surveys, interviews, and statistical models introduced new methodologies in political science that enabled more precise and detailed understanding of political behavior. These methods became essential tools in the study of electoral behavior, public opinion, and political participation.

Criticisms of the Behavioural Approach

1. Neglect of Institutions and Structures: One of the primary criticisms of the behavioural approach is that it tends to downplay the importance of formal political institutions. Critics argue that while understanding individual behavior is important, institutions play a key role in shaping and constraining political actions. Behaviouralism, by focusing on individual-level factors, may overlook how institutional arrangements impact political outcomes.

2. Overemphasis on Quantification: Critics also point out that the behavioural approach’s heavy reliance on quantitative methods can sometimes lead to an oversimplification of complex political phenomena. Political behavior is often influenced by historical, cultural, and contextual factors that are difficult to capture through statistical analysis.

3. Lack of Normative Insight: While the behavioural approach emphasizes value-neutrality, its critics argue that political science cannot be entirely devoid of normative concerns. Understanding political behavior is important, but political science should also grapple with questions of justice, equality, and democracy. The focus on empirical data collection can lead to a neglect of these broader, normative concerns.

4. Contextual Insensitivity: Behaviouralists often seek generalizable theories of political behavior across different countries and systems. However, this quest for generalization can sometimes ignore the specific cultural, social, or historical contexts that shape political behavior. What works as a valid observation in one political system may not hold true in another due to differing institutional or cultural factors.

5. Reductionism: Critics accuse the behavioural approach of reductionism, reducing complex political processes to individual behaviors without fully considering how macro-level forces, such as economic systems or global political trends, influence individual choices.

Conclusion

The Behavioural Approach significantly advanced the study of comparative political institutions by introducing rigorous empirical methodologies and a focus on individual and group behavior. Its contributions to the scientific study of political systems, particularly in terms of empirical research and quantitative methods, have been invaluable. However, it also has limitations, particularly its tendency to downplay the role of institutions and its emphasis on value-neutrality. In the study of comparative political institutions, a balanced approach that combines the insights of behavioralism with an understanding of institutional structures and normative concerns is necessary to fully grasp the complexities of political life.

The basic unit of Easton’s system analysis is ‘interaction’. Interaction is generated from the behaviour of the members of the system when they play their role as such. When these myriad interactions, in the perception of the scholar, become a ‘set of interrelations’, they are considered as a ‘system’. Easton’s subject matter of analysis is only the set of political interactions.

There are four major premises or broader concepts of his flow-model or input-output analysis:

(i) System;

(ii) Environment;

(iii) Response; and

(iv) Feedback.

In the analysis of politics, one has to make use of these concepts.

System

His system is a ‘political system’, the basic unit of analysis. It is a ‘system of interactions in any society through which binding or authoritative alloca­tions are made and implemented.’ Easton is interested in studying political life which is seen as a system of behaviour operating within and responding to its social environment while making binding allocations of values. The making of binding and authoritative decisions distinguishes the political system from other systems (existing both within and outside the overall society) that form the environment of that political system.

Within this political system, there are many political groups and organisations, called para-political systems. But he is more concerned with ‘political system’ standing as the most inclusive unit of political life. Political system, as such, is found everywhere. It is the inclusive whole of all political interactions. Easton analyses the nature, conditions, and life processes of political life operating in form of an analytic system.

By adopting the concept of ‘system’, Easton has free Political Science from its traditional, legalistic, institutional, and formal moorings, and proposes to view it as it really is. This ‘system’ is made of interactions of those persons who take part in public life, and are related with making and implementing of public policies.

Easton is not satisfied to see ‘political activity’ merely as ‘direction of man by man’ (de Jouvenel), or as ‘relating to control or will’ (Catlin), or ‘relation between influencer and the influenced’ (Lasswell). It is also not adequate to see politics related to authority, power, government and rule (Dahl). His concept of system is more inclusive.

In a sense, his concept of ‘system’ is integrative involving values, culture, authority, governance, implementation, participation, process, etc. ‘System’ is a very wide term, which includes all forms of formal and informal processes, interactions, functions, structures, values, behaviour, etc. The political system allocates values for the whole society and its decisions stand obligatory. A ‘system’, thus, can be any set of variables, whatever be the form or intensity of interactions or interrelationship operating among them. A political system is a subsystem of the societal system, but it has a binding power of its own. Even within a political system, there are many subsystems.

Easton’s political system is both open and adaptive. Exchanges take place between a political system and its environment which is made of many systems and their subsystems, including even para-political systems. All these, and other various events and influences make up the conditions under which members of a political system act and react.

The latter can find these as favourable or obstructive to its survival. As such, it must have the capacity to face those obstructions, and adapt itself to those conditions. Most often, a political system has a trait or capacity to adapt itself to changing environment. Political systems contrive mechanisms to regulate their own moves, transform internal structures, and even reformulate goals.

A political system, like any other system, has boundaries. These bound­aries relate to the formation of political interactions and go on changing. The political system, somehow, tends to maintain its systemic boundaries, and boundary conditions. In other words, it has to carefully look after and protect its life-processes or capacity to respond effectively to external environment or internal influences. It has to operate as an effective trans­forming process. In case, it is unable to maintain its boundaries, it may lose its identity, even merge into other systems.

It may be reiterated that Eastonian framework of systems theory is conceptual and analytical. His ‘political system’ is born of concepts, and is conceptual or ‘constructivist’, used as a set of variables selected for description, explanation, and research. It is different from, and not, a concrete or natural system. An actual, concrete or natural system, also called as membership-system, consists of human beings or actual individuals. Easton’s analytic system is made of abstractions that focus selected elements of human behaviour.

His system, thus, is a set of particular interactions, which is related to allocation of values that are binding for society and their implementation, within that membership or concrete system, called society. Binding nature of the set of interactions is another quality separating political system from other systems. This abstract analytic system interacts with its environment, converting its inputs into outputs through processes or within puts, and feedback as shown in the following diagram:

Environment

Easton’s political system is a complex set of certain processes or interactions which transforms particular inputs into outputs of authoritative policies, decisions, and implementation. This conversion takes place in some environment. As an open system, it must have the resilience to respond to that environment, facing all obstacles, and adjusting itself to conditions.

Only by doing so, it can survive or exist over a period of time.

Analytically, environment can be of two types:

(i) Extra-societal, and

(ii) Intra-societal.

As given in the Diagram above extra-societal environment involves interna­tional political systems, like various political systems, alliances, UNO, etc.; international ecological systems; and, international social systems, as cultural, socio-structural, economic, demographic, and other systems. Intra-societal systems include ecological, biological, personality-oriented, social, cultural, socio-structural, and demographic systems operating within the political system.

Conflicts, strains, and changes emerging out of environment can prove functional or dysfunctional to that political system. Therefore, the latter should have, for its survival, persistent capability to respond to that environment. Easton rightly puts more emphasis on the capacity of the system to cope with the environment. Countries of the Third World can find a lot of useful material in Easton’s concept of ‘environment’, and required ‘capacity’ to deal with it.

Easton has pointed out that system theorists have spoken a lot on the first two concepts – ‘system’ and ‘environment’. As regards the third and fourth concepts of ‘response’ and ‘feedback’, he can be said to have made his own contribution to systems theory. In fact, the latter concepts, instead of being singular ones, are clusters of many concepts. So is the case with the first two concepts also.

Response

A political system has to respond to its environment in coping with crises, stresses, and other difficulties. It has also to perform, on its own, some other functions, such as, maintaining order in the society and to uphold its own form and identity amid ever-changing environment. All of them have been put under the generic concept of ‘response’.

Specifically, the political system has to perform three main categories of functions:

(a) Allocation of values for society,

(b) To motivate its members to accept the allocations as binding, and

(c) To cope with stress and challenges coming to the system.

The first two are essential parts of political life. Without them neither can the political system exist nor the society survive without the political system as such. Easton gives the central place to ‘systemic persistence’ which usually remains under ‘stress’ for several factors. The system has to look into the sources of stress and modes or processes of regulating stress. A political system is a set of interacting essential variables which fluctuate within a certain limit or range. It cannot go beyond its ‘critical range’. The system is considered under ‘stress’, if the essential variables push it to cross over the critical range.

The system tries to remain within critical range, but at times, it is compelled to go beyond. For its survival and persistence, it has to respond in many ways – at the level of demands or support, or at output or feedback levels. The political system collapses in case it is unable to cope with coming stresses and crises Therefore, it is always necessary constantly to evaluate the nature of stresses, capacity of the system to cope with, and the means and methods to do so.

The political system is driven by:

(a) ‘Demands’ and challenges made on it, and

(b) ‘Support’, it gets from its members.

It meets the challenge of demands with the help of supports, but it can manipulate and regulate both. It receives them in form of ‘inputs’ from its environment, the society at large. These inputs are converted into ‘outputs’, but the system also keeps a watch over effects and consequences of its outputs through ‘feedback’, which helps it constantly to modify its inputs as well as outputs. Easton’s political system, in a way, is a conversion process in which inputs are transformed into outputs, helped and guided by feedback.

All the systemic responses are broadly divided into two categories:

(a) Inputs, and

(b) Outputs.

(a) Inputs:

Inputs are responses entering into the system.

They consist of:

(1) Demands, and

(2) Supports.

Demands put strain or stress on the system, whereas support provides energy to sustain it. Though the two are of different nature, still they make up one category of ‘inputs’ to be converted into ‘outputs’ through within-puts or the conversion process. Easton does not discuss the nature or form of within-puts. The political system receives both demands and supports from society or environment. It is driven by demands, and sustained by supports.

(1) Demands:

Demand is ‘an expression of opinion that an authoritative allocation with regard to a particular subject matter should or should not be made by those responsible for doing so’. It can take the form of stress, effects, demands, agitations, crises etc. all coming from environment. They all intend to influence, move, modify, or change the political system, and can be undifferentiated wants, articulated recog­nizable demands, or specific issues. Mostly, they are of collective or public nature. Demands are, after their determination, satisfied through ‘allocation of values’.

Demands can take several forms, such as, provision for certain things, services, and conveniences; regulating public behaviour; participating in the political system, for making symbolic expressions, etc. A system may not be in a position to convert all demands into outputs. It looks into quantity, nature of contents, source, kind, volume, intensity, etc. Only a few demands reach the output stage. Excessive demands put stress over the system, and cause ‘overload’. Overload may ‘be due to the volume, intensity, velocity, urgency, and contents of the demand.

In order to deal with the problem of overload or excessive demands, the political system can make use of several ‘regulatory mechanisms’:

(i) Structural mechanism:

It is located at the boundary of the system and regulates the flow of articulation of demands. Unimportant demands are scrutinised and regulated by and through various gate-keeping roles. They may not even be allowed to enter the system.

(ii) Cultural mechanism:

On the basis of prevailing socio-cultural norms, certain demands can be designated as incompatible with them, thus, lessened in considerable manner, if not rejected altogether. Sometimes they become the basis or constraints of political demands.

(iii) Communication channels:

Through the use of TV, radio, corre­spondence, press, etc. demands may be strengthened or weakened or diluted to a considerable extent.

(iv) Reduction processes:

Demands may be reduced to a limited number through a process-selection, scrutiny, grouping, etc. Some criteria, general or restricted, may be added to it.

(2) Support:

A political system also receives support from its environment. After subtracting demands from inputs, we get supports which operate between the system and its environment. They are positive responses towards specific objects or level of a political system. Support can be towards (a) the political community which means the acceptance of political division of labour; (b) the regime which embodies basic values, political structures, and norms underlying the political system; and (c) the political authorities or persons holding power in the given context. Support can be given at some particular or all levels.

Support to political community reflects paying regard to the general form and arrangement of power in the society, and acceptance of the demar­cation between the political and non-political. Support to a regime broadly means legitimacy of the system, its constitutionality, basic structure, and inherent values. The last level invokes holding of respect, loyalty, and obedience to the particular persons wielding political authority. It includes administrators and officials.

The support can be rendered in many ways – by paying taxes, obedience to law, participation in the form of voting, discussion, comments, and constructive suggestions, or deference towards public authorities. The form and style of expressing support can be overt or covert, positive or negative, diffuse or specific, and so on. Often the political system obtains support by and through allocation values and implementation thereof, manipulation of outputs, socialisation, and other political means.

Without support at a certain minimum level, no political system can persist. There can be many causes of failure, as is the case with some Third World countries for not getting support from their populace, such as inadequate use of regulatory mechanism, non-generation of support, and neglect of outputs.

(b) Outputs:

Outputs are the decisions and actions of the authorities. They produce effects and consequences which have direct relation with the members’ attitude and behaviour for the system. Easton calls them as ‘authoritative allocation of values’, ‘binding decisions and actions’, or ‘exchange between the system and its environment’. Output is turnout or production made by the political authorities. It is the flow of those responses which go from the system to environment.

Outputs are converted inputs or finished goods prepared from the raw material of inputs. Even the political authorities themselves can also take initiative in the making of outputs. They are the results of the transformation process of the political system.

Outputs reveal many forms – realisation of taxes, regulation of public behaviour and conduct, distribution of honours, goods, and services, allocation of values, display of symbolic outputs, etc. They are reflected in verbal or written statements from the authorities as well as concrete actions. They can be the effects or results of immediately authorised decisions.

If they relate to decisions taken in distant past, they would be called as ‘outcome’. In case they are not binding, they would be named as co-outputs. Outputs can be inter or intra systemic. In all cases, they release support-stress. They can be regarded as a primary source to get specific support, but a satisfactory flow of output over a period of time tends to produce all-out or diffuse support.

Outputs have several aspects – economic, social, cultural, political, etc. From the viewpoint of political system, political aspects of the outputs are more important. They influence the broader society or environment, and also determine the need and form of each succeeding round of inputs. Even the form, need, and quality of support depends on it.

Feedback

‘Feedback’ is another important concept in Easton’s systems theory. Capacity of a political system to persist over time depends on feedback. It is a dynamic process through which information about the outputs and the environment is communicated to the system which may result in subsequent change or modification of the system. Information about demands and supports may enter the system as inputs in usual manner.

When infor­mation relating to converted inputs, or outputs comes in, then there is a kind of re-communication of information, or re-inputation of inputs already converted into outputs. By doing so, the political system gets an opportunity to modify or transform its behaviour conducive to that feedback. In this manner, it can make it more effective or persist in a better way. In the absence of feedback, it is likely to operate in the usual unresponsive manner, and lose support.

Information about environment reaching as inputs in usual manner may enter the system too late. It may reach there in a distorted form, as it happened with Indira Gandhi Government (1977) and the Shah of Iran (1979)- ‘Loop’ means a curve that rejoins the main line farther on. ‘Feedback Loop’ connotes a process wherein information is obtained; actions, reactions or responses are made on it; then to see the result, and re-collect the same; and, to be benefited by it to achieve the goal.

It includes the arrangement and linking of information channels for the aforesaid purpose. Feedback involves a continuity by linking of obtaining information, reacting, and knowing the effects further to improve upon Systems behaviour and responses. It is a ‘output-information-reinputation- recommunication-reoutputation’ process.

Feedback process, in this way, is concerned with input sequence, demands and support emerging out of environment, conversion processes, outputs, and feedback mechanisms. Feedback mechanisms carry effects and consequences of the outputs into the system again as inputs. They make the system dynamic, purposive, and goal-oriented. Interactions and their various forms within a system confront the problems of stress, maintenance, etc., by counter-balancing, by reducing, or by removal. But their interac­tion-circuits may remain incomplete or breakdown at any point, e.g., stoppage at the level of demands. A demand has to go along with the long conversion process.

Its shape, size and content may considerably change till it reaches the output-stage. Sometimes, the demand dies out by then completely. Similarly, information coming from the environment may not be considered as a ‘demand’ by the authorities. Ultimately, the latter have to decide whether some allocation of values should be made to meet that demand or not. But reaction or response to every such breakdown of the circuit has to be taken into consideration for further action and implemen­tation by the system.

Easton presents the concept of ‘feedback loop’ as the basis of the capacity of the outputs to generate specific support. It connects the conse­quences of the outputs with the inflow of inputs: demands and supports. Thus, it establishes a circulatory relationship between inputs and outputs. There is all-round impact of this dynamic process – on support, stress, survival and persistence. It completes the political circuit through its input – conversion – output – feedback process. In a political system, several feedback processes operate at various levels. But Easton relates the feedback processes pertaining to the whole political system.

For analytical purposes, there are two forms of feedback:

(i) Negative feedback – it relates to the information regarding the system and the regulation of errors; and

(2) Goal-transforming feedback – it is concerned with the purposeful redirection of the system.

In all conditions, feedback is a regulatory demand of political systems. However, feedback itself can suffer from many pathologies, regarding accuracy, responsiveness, time-lag, etc. Several mistakes can take place in the process of communication. Even delayed information can cause great harm to the survival of a political system.

The feedback loop can be analysed from several angles. From the view of system-maintenance or gaining specific support, its operation can be divided into four stages:

(1) There are situations of feedback, which can come out of authorised direction, associate outputs, or outcomes. They all are part of the political system. But its estimation depends on its perception or observation.

(2) There are feedback-responses which can be in the form of satisfying the demands, or positive or negative support.

(3) In the third stage feedback-responses are communicated to the political authorities.

(4) In the last stage, after completion of the feedback-circuit the authorities deliberate, discuss, and arrive at certain decisions. Much depends on variables like responsiveness of authorities, time-lag, availability of infor­mation-resources for decision-making, etc. Here, resources of the system as a whole are involved. The feedback loop, in Easton’s input-output analysis, interlinks authorities and its members in a manner that the former may take steps soon after they get information through the feedback.

Introduction

The concept of the Rule of Law is one of the foundational principles of modern legal systems. The Rule of Law is a concept that has been developed and refined over time by legal scholars, philosophers, and political theorists. One of the most influential thinkers in the development of the concept of the Rule of Law is A.V. Dicey. 

Dicey concept

Dicey is one of the well known jurists of England and he has written a famous book “Law of the Constitution”. One should know the difference between administrative law and the rule of law. People who are in government job have different law from ordinary citizens and the rule of law is equal for everyone whether he is Prime minister of India or a normal clerk working in an office. The same law will be applicable to both of them, no discrimination will be done under the rule of law and rule of law is supreme in nature.

Dicey was against making different rules for a different class of people so he stood by against this concept and promoted the idea of Rule of law. Here a term is used “Droit administrative” was introduced by Napoleon and in France, it was known as Droit Administratif. France was having separate administrative court for dealing with the matter. According to this action by the citizens against an official for a wrongful act committed in their official capacity will be dealt by the special court not by the ordinary courts of law. Droit administratif does not consist of rules and law made by the French parliament but it includes a rule which is developed by the judges of the administrative court.

The doctrine of Rule of law has 3 meaning in Dicey book.

1. Supremacy of law.
2. Equality before the law.
3. The predominance of a legal spirit.

Merit and Demerits of the Dicey Concept

Merits:

1. Help in making limits to the power of administrative authorities.
2. A major role in growth and recognition of administrative law.
3. Act as a scale for the test of administrative action.

Demerits:

1. His theory was not fully accepted during that era also.
2. Failed to distinguish between discretionary and arbitrary power.
3. He misunderstood the concept of Droit administration which was actually successful in France.

Rule of law

Rule of law is a product of struggle by the people from centuries for recognition of their inherent rights and the concept of a rule is very ancient and old. During the ancient times, the concept of rule of law was discussed by the Greek philosopher Aristotle and Plato at the time of 350 BC so now you can imagine how old this concept. Plato has written that if rule of law under the supervision of any law than it doesn’t have any value and the concept of state will get collapsed and if the law is master of government and government work as a slave for law then the concept of state will work effectively and humans can enjoy their rights.

According to Plato the meaning of rule of law is that it is supreme in nature and nobody is above the law.

According to Aristotle has written that law should be the final sovereign of the state.

According to Sir Edward Coke “Rule of Law” means the absence of arbitrary power on the part of Government.

This phrase was derived from the French phrase “la Principe de legality” which means that the principle of legality whatever the legal system principle is called a rule of law. Which refers to government is based on the principles not on any individuals and according to the law everything will move. Rule of law is the basic principle of the English constitution and this doctrine is accepted by the US and as well as India also.

The entire basis of Administrative law is the Rule of law and delegated legislation is the backbone of administrative law.

Development

Rule of law was developed by a British jurist Albert Venn Dicey in his book called “The Law of the Constitution” 1885. In this book, he develops this concept and he identifies 3 principles while establishing the rule of law.

According to Albert Venn Dicey rule of law first meaning is “No man is punishable except for a Distinct breach of Law” established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary court. The government or any high-class authority cannot punish any individual on the personal ground till the time an individual has committed an offence and if the offence is committed then proper procedure and trail will be conducted and in case the final verdict is that the offence is committed then physical or economic punishment will be given to the accused person. This clearly indicates that even if 100 criminals are not arrested is ok rather than punishing one innocent person.

“No man is above the law” every man, whether he is from a higher rank or whatever his position is subjected to ordinary law under the jurisdiction of the ordinary court. No man will be derived from his personal property until the time he has breached any law established by the ordinary court. Article 14 of The Constitution of India also talk about that “Every Man is equal before the law, no one is above”.

Constitutional rights are the source of a judicial decision it means that the source of rights is not the constitution but the rules or law enforcement by the court. The British constitution is the result of judicial result and all the rights are given under the Constitution is decided and framed from some or the other judicial decisions.

The principle of Rule of law is accepted by Article 14 of the Constitution and it has 2 main rule that no man is above the law and no man is punishable except for a breach of law and the last rule given above is not accepted by our constitution. So, the first and second rule applies to the constitution but the third rule of dicey is not accepted by our Indian system. All rules passed by the legislature must be within the provision of the Constitution and if any law is made which encroached any of the provisions of the constitution then it will be declared as void by the Supreme Court.

Basic Principles of Rule of Law

1. Law is supreme and nobody is above the law.
2. All the things should be done according to a law not as per whim.
3. No person should be suffered except for the breach of law.
4. Absence of arbitrary is the soul of the rule of law.
5. Equality before the law and equal protection of the law.
6. Speedy trial.
7.  The fair and just procedure should be conducted.
8. Independent and impartial judiciary.

Constitutionalism is the theory and practice of limiting government powers through a constitution, ensuring that the authority exercised by those in power is governed by established rules and principles rather than arbitrary decisions. It is a cornerstone of modern democratic governance, promoting the rule of law, individual rights, and the separation of powers. Various concepts of constitutionalism have evolved over time, reflecting different political, social, and historical contexts.

Classical Constitutionalism

Classical constitutionalism focuses on the idea that government authority should be exercised within the boundaries of law. This concept emerged from ancient Greece and Rome, where the notion of a “constitution” (though not in its modern written form) meant that the government was constrained by customary rules and norms. Classical constitutionalism is primarily associated with thinkers like Aristotle, who argued that the government should serve the common good and that laws should constrain rulers to prevent tyranny.

Key Features:

• Government is based on laws, not on the whims of rulers.
• The state exists to serve the common good.
• The constitution acts as a framework for limiting the power of leaders.

Liberal Constitutionalism

Liberal constitutionalism is closely associated with the emergence of constitutional democracy and the protection of individual rights. It developed primarily during the Enlightenment and found expression in the political writings of John Locke, Montesquieu, and later Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. This concept emphasizes the importance of limiting governmental power to protect individual liberty and ensuring that authority is exercised through representative institutions.

Key Features:

• Rule of Law: The law is supreme, and no one is above it.
• Separation of Powers: Government powers are divided among different branches (legislature, executive, and judiciary) to prevent the concentration of power.
• Protection of Rights: Constitutions explicitly safeguard civil liberties such as freedom of speech, religion, and due process.
• Popular Sovereignty: The people are the ultimate source of political authority, and government should be based on their consent.

Modern Constitutionalism

Modern constitutionalism, as seen in most contemporary democracies, continues the liberal tradition but often incorporates more explicit mechanisms for the protection of rights and institutional checks on power. It stresses that constitutions should not only limit power but also create structures that encourage democratic participation, accountability, and justice. Modern constitutions often include provisions for judicial review, allowing courts to strike down laws that violate the constitution.

Key Features:

• Judicial Review: Courts can interpret the constitution and invalidate laws or actions that conflict with it, ensuring that the constitution remains the highest law.
• Fundamental Rights: The protection of human rights is central, often enshrined in bills of rights or similar documents.
• Democratic Institutions: Emphasis on regular elections, political pluralism, and participatory democracy.
• Amendability: Constitutions include provisions for amendments, allowing the political system to evolve over time.

Democratic Constitutionalism

Democratic constitutionalism emphasizes the role of the people in shaping and maintaining the constitution. While it shares many principles with liberal constitutionalism, it gives greater importance to direct citizen involvement in constitutional processes, whether through regular elections, referenda, or active civic engagement. The constitution is seen as a living document, adaptable to changing societal values and norms, but always maintaining a core set of principles around democracy and human rights.

Key Features:

• Constitutional Adaptability: The constitution must evolve to reflect the changing needs and values of society.
• Direct Participation: Citizens have a say in the creation, amendment, and interpretation of the constitution, often through referenda or initiatives.
• Political Accountability: Institutions are designed to ensure that government officials are responsive and accountable to the electorate.
• Civil Society Engagement: Strong emphasis on the role of civil society in maintaining and promoting constitutionalism.

Authoritarian Constitutionalism

Authoritarian constitutionalism refers to systems in which the constitution is used to legitimize and maintain authoritarian rule, often through legal means. These constitutions may include democratic elements such as elections or separation of powers, but in practice, they are designed to concentrate power in the hands of a particular leader or ruling party. This concept of constitutionalism can be seen in countries like Russia, Hungary, and Turkey, where constitutions exist but are often manipulated to serve authoritarian ends.

Key Features:

• Centralization of Power: Although institutions may appear democratic, real political power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or small elite.
• Manipulation of Law: The constitution is used to entrench the power of those in authority rather than to limit it.
• Controlled Elections: Elections may be held, but they are often rigged or unfair, limiting real political competition.
• Restrictions on Civil Liberties: While some rights may be enshrined in the constitution, they are frequently disregarded or selectively enforced.

Social Constitutionalism

Social constitutionalism focuses on the inclusion of socio-economic rights and the promotion of social justice within the constitutional framework. This approach is particularly prominent in post-colonial and post-authoritarian states, such as India and South Africa, where constitutions were designed not only to protect political freedoms but also to address historical inequalities and ensure access to basic resources like education, healthcare, and housing.

Key Features:

• Socio-Economic Rights: Constitutions enshrine rights to basic welfare, including education, health, and housing, alongside traditional civil liberties.
• Positive Obligations on the State: The state is required to take active steps to promote social justice and reduce inequality.
• Redistribution and Welfare: The constitution often endorses policies that aim to redistribute wealth or resources to promote equality.
• Inclusive Governance: The system encourages the participation of marginalized and disadvantaged groups in governance.

Post-Colonial Constitutionalism

Post-colonial constitutionalism reflects the experience of countries that gained independence after periods of colonial rule. These countries often adopted constitutions that merged Western legal traditions with local customs and sought to address the legacies of colonialism, such as economic underdevelopment and political marginalization. In many cases, post-colonial constitutions emphasize nation-building and socio-economic development.

Key Features:

• Hybrid Legal Systems: The constitution may blend elements of the colonial legal system with indigenous customs and traditions.
• Focus on Development: Post-colonial constitutions often prioritize economic development and social welfare, aiming to correct the inequities left by colonialism.
• State-Building: The constitution plays a crucial role in unifying diverse ethnic, religious, or linguistic groups into a single national identity.
• Political Stability: These constitutions often include mechanisms designed to prevent political instability, such as strong executive powers or limits on political pluralism.

Conclusion

Constitutionalism, in its various forms, remains a vital concept in the governance of modern states. Whether through classical, liberal, social, or post-colonial forms, it aims to ensure that political power is exercised within a framework of laws and principles that promote justice, accountability, and the protection of individual rights. As societies evolve, so too does constitutionalism, adapting to the challenges of modern governance while maintaining its core principles of limiting power and safeguarding liberty.

Democratic centralism is a form of organisation that Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, and other democratic centralists abide by, both when having seized the government and also while trying to seize it. Most communist parties have a democratic centralist structure.

In party meetings, a motion (new policy or amendment, goal, plan or any other kind of political question) is moved (proposed). After a period of debate, a vote is taken. If one vote clearly wins (gaining a share of 60% or above among two options, for example) all party members are expected to follow that decision, and not continue debating it. The goal is to avoid decisions being undermined by participants whose views are in the minority. In the development of socialism in the Soviet Union and China, it was implemented in response to rapid political developments, which required faster mechanisms of decision-making.

Before an issue has been voted on and carried out, discussion and criticism is permitted in all forms. Once a resolution is being carried out, discussion and criticism which may disrupt unity in performing the action is forbidden, to ensure that the action is not derailed.^[5] In several socialist states, related practices were also adopted to ensure freedom of discussion, such as Mao’s “Don’t Blame the Speaker”.

Some Trotskyist and orthodox Marxist perspectives describe “deficient” forms of democratic centralism as “bureaucratic centralism,” often those espoused by Marxist-Leninists. According to these views, bureaucratic centralism de-prioritises democracy, and thus fails to serve the interests of the proletariat.

Introduction:

Comparative Politics is the study of the politics and governance of different countries, regions, or societies. It is a subfield of Political Science that aims to compare and contrast the structures, institutions, processes, and policies of different political systems to gain a better understanding of their similarities, differences, and patterns. Comparative Politics is a multidisciplinary field that draws on a variety of theories, methods, and approaches from Political Science, Sociology, Economics, History, Anthropology, and other social sciences.

Definition

1. Arend Lijphart:

Arend Lijphart, a prominent scholar of Comparative Politics, defines Comparative Politics as “the systematic and comparative study of the structures, processes, and functions of politics in different countries and regions, and the systematic search for patterns and explanations that can be generalized across different cases.”

2. David Easton:

David Easton, another prominent scholar of Comparative Politics, defines Comparative Politics as “the study of the similarities and differences in the structures, processes, and functions of political systems across different countries, with the goal of explaining these similarities and differences.”

3. Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell Jr.:

Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell Jr., two prominent scholars of Comparative Politics, define Comparative Politics as “the scientific study of political phenomena that occur in more than one country, with the goal of generating and testing hypotheses about political behavior, structures, and processes.”

4. Seymour Martin Lipset:

Seymour Martin Lipset, another prominent scholar of Comparative Politics, defines Comparative Politics as “the study of the similarities and differences in the political cultures, structures, and processes of different countries, with the goal of explaining the causes and consequences of these similarities and differences.”

5. David Collier:

David Collier, a contemporary scholar of Comparative Politics, defines Comparative Politics as “the systematic comparison of political phenomena across different countries, with the goal of identifying patterns, causal mechanisms, and contextual factors that shape political outcomes.”

Importance of Comparative Politics:

Comparative Politics has several important contributions to the field of Political Science and to the broader society. Below are some of the key contributions of Comparative Politics.

1. Understanding Political Systems:

Comparative Politics helps us understand the political systems of different countries and regions. By comparing and contrasting the political systems of different countries, we can gain a better understanding of their strengths, weaknesses, and challenges. This understanding can help us identify the best practices and policy solutions that can be applied to different contexts.

2. Explaining Political Processes:

Comparative Politics also helps us explain the political processes of different countries. By comparing the ways in which different countries organize their political processes, we can identify the factors that contribute to the success or failure of these processes. This understanding can help us design better political processes that are more efficient, effective, and responsive to the needs of citizens.

3. Analyzing Political Institutions:

Comparative Politics also helps us analyze the political institutions of different countries. By comparing the structures and functions of different political institutions, we can identify the factors that contribute to their effectiveness or inefficiency. This understanding can help us design better institutions that are more accountable, transparent, and participatory.

4. Evaluating Public Policies:

Comparative Politics also helps us evaluate public policies of different countries. By comparing and contrasting the policies of different countries, we can identify the factors that contribute to their success or failure. This understanding can help us design better policies that are more effective, efficient, and equitable.

5. Understanding Global Politics:

Comparative Politics also helps us understand global politics. By comparing and contrasting the political systems and policies of different countries, we can identify the factors that contribute to global cooperation or conflict. This understanding can help us design better policies that promote global cooperation and peace.

Methods of Comparative Politics:

Comparative Politics uses a variety of methods to compare and contrast the political systems and policies of different countries. Below are some of the key methods used in Comparative Politics.

1. Case Studies:

Case studies are a common method used in Comparative Politics. Case studies involve the in-depth analysis of a particular country or region to understand its political system, institutions, and policies. Case studies are useful for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of particular political systems, institutions, and policies.

2. Quantitative Analysis:

Quantitative analysis is another method used in Comparative Politics. Quantitative analysis involves the use of statistical techniques to analyze large datasets of political data. This method is useful for identifying patterns and trends across different countries and regions.

3. Comparative Historical Analysis:

Comparative historical analysis is another method used in Comparative Politics. This method involves the analysis of historical data to understand how political systems, institutions, and policies have evolved over time. This method is useful for understanding the long-term trends and patterns in politics.

4. Comparative Institutional Analysis:

Comparative institutional analysis is another method used in Comparative Politics. This method involves the analysis of the structures and functions of different political institutions across different countries and regions. This method is useful for identifying the factors that contribute to the effectiveness or inefficiency of particular institutions.

Foundations of Constitutionalism:

Constitutionalism refers to the system of government based on the rule of law and a constitution that outlines the powers and limitations of the government. The concept of constitutionalism has evolved over time, with its foundations dating back to ancient times. Some of the foundations of constitutionalism are discussed below:

1. Ancient Greece and Rome:

The ancient Greeks and Romans laid the foundation for constitutionalism with their systems of governance that emphasized the rule of law and the power of the people. The Greeks established the concept of the polis, or city-state, which had a constitution and laws that governed the actions of its leaders. The Romans established the concept of the republic, with a constitution that limited the power of the ruler and provided for the representation of the people.

2. Magna Carta:

The Magna Carta, signed in 1215, is considered a foundational document of constitutionalism. It established the principle that the king was subject to the law and provided for the protection of individual liberties. The Magna Carta also established the idea that government should be based on consent, with the king required to consult with his subjects before imposing taxes.

3. English Civil War and Glorious Revolution:

The English Civil War and Glorious Revolution of the 17th century furthered the development of constitutionalism in England. The Civil War saw the establishment of parliamentary supremacy over the monarch, with the Parliament gaining control over taxation and the army. The Glorious Revolution saw the establishment of the principle of the rule of law, with the monarch required to rule in accordance with the law and the Bill of Rights of 1689 establishing the rights of individuals.

4. American Revolution and Constitution:

The American Revolution and the subsequent drafting of the United States Constitution in 1787 furthered the development of constitutionalism in the modern era. The Constitution established a federal system of government with a separation of powers between the three branches of government, as well as the protection of individual rights through the Bill of Rights.

Differences between Constitutionalism and Constitution:

1. Definition: A Constitution is a written document that outlines the fundamental principles, structures, and functions of a government. Constitutionalism, on the other hand, is a broader concept that refers to the principles and practices of limiting government power through the establishment of a constitution.

2. Purpose: The purpose of a Constitution is to provide a framework for the government and its operations, while the purpose of constitutionalism is to limit government power and protect individual rights.

3. Scope: A Constitution is typically a specific, written document that outlines the structure of government and the powers it possesses. Constitutionalism, however, is a broader concept that includes the principles and practices of limiting government power and protecting individual rights, which may extend beyond the specific provisions of a Constitution.

4. Flexibility: A Constitution can be either flexible or rigid, meaning that it can be easily amended or difficult to amend, respectively. Constitutionalism, however, is a set of principles that are meant to be durable and resistant to change, and are designed to provide a long-term framework for limiting government power.

5. Implementation: A Constitution is a legal document that is enforced through the courts and other legal institutions. Constitutionalism, however, requires a commitment from citizens, politicians, and other stakeholders to uphold the principles of limited government power, the rule of law, and the protection of individual rights.

The American Federation, also known as the United States of America, is a federal system of government that combines a central government with regional governments, each with their own separate powers and responsibilities. The nature and features of this federal system can be understood through an analysis of its history, political structure, and key characteristics.

History:

The United States was founded in 1776, after a long struggle for independence from Great Britain. The original system of government established by the Articles of Confederation in 1781 was highly decentralized, with most powers reserved for the individual states. However, this system proved to be too weak to effectively govern the new nation, and in 1787 a new constitution was drafted, establishing a federal system of government.

Political Structure:

The federal government of the United States is composed of three branches: the executive, legislative, and judicial. The executive branch is headed by the President, who serves as both the head of state and head of government. The legislative branch is composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, which together make up the Congress. The judicial branch is headed by the Supreme Court, which is responsible for interpreting the Constitution and determining the constitutionality of laws.

Each state also has its own system of government, with its own constitution, governor, and legislature. These state governments have the power to make their own laws and regulations, as long as they do not conflict with the Constitution or federal law. This system of shared power and responsibility is a key feature of the American Federation.

Features:

1. Division of Powers:

One of the key features of the American Federation is the division of powers between the federal government and the individual states. The Constitution outlines the powers and responsibilities of each level of government, with the federal government responsible for national defense, foreign policy, and regulating commerce between the states. The states are responsible for matters such as education, health care, and criminal justice.

2. Separation of Powers:

Another key feature of the American Federation is the separation of powers between the three branches of the federal government. This system of checks and balances ensures that no one branch of government becomes too powerful, and helps to prevent abuses of power. The President can veto legislation passed by Congress, but Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote. The Supreme Court can declare laws passed by Congress or state governments unconstitutional, but the President has the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court.

3. Bill of Rights:

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is another key feature of the American Federation. The Bill of Rights outlines the rights and protections afforded to individual citizens, including freedom of speech, religion, and the press, as well as the right to bear arms and a fair trial.

4. Dual Citizenship:

A unique feature of the American Federation is the concept of dual citizenship. Citizens are both citizens of the United States and citizens of the state in which they reside. This means that citizens have both national and state-level rights and protections, as well as responsibilities.

5. Popular Sovereignty:

The American Federation is also based on the principle of popular sovereignty, meaning that the people are the ultimate source of authority and power in the government. This principle is reflected in the system of representative democracy, where citizens elect officials to represent their interests in the government.

In conclusion, the American Federation is a federal system of government that combines a central government with regional governments, each with their own separate powers and responsibilities. This system is characterized by a division of powers, separation of powers, a Bill of Rights, dual citizenship, and the principle of popular sovereignty. These features have contributed to the stability and success of the American political system over the past two centuries.

The doctrine of Separation of Powers was popularized by the French political philosopher Montesquieu in his work The Spirit of the Laws (1748). Montesquieu advocated for the division of government into three branches—Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary—with each functioning independently to prevent the concentration of power and ensure liberty. However, the idea of complete separation has been debated for its feasibility and desirability.

Why Complete Separation of Power is Not Possible:

1. Practical Interdependence: In modern democracies, absolute separation of powers is impractical due to the interdependence between the branches. For example, the executive often relies on the legislature for enacting laws and budget approvals. In parliamentary systems, members of the executive (cabinet) are drawn from the legislature, making a strict separation impossible.

2. Checks and Balances: A rigid separation would undermine the system of checks and balances. The judiciary has the power to declare laws unconstitutional (judicial review), and the legislature can impeach executives or judges. These powers ensure accountability and prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful, but they also demonstrate overlap, where one branch can influence or limit the actions of another.

3. Administrative Necessities: The increasing complexity of governance requires coordination between branches. For example, executive agencies often engage in quasi-legislative (rule-making) and quasi-judicial (adjudicatory) functions, such as in regulatory bodies. Complete separation would hinder these practicalities.

4. Global Trends of Judicial Activism: In many countries, judicial activism has grown, where courts not only interpret the law but also effectively create or influence policy, particularly in cases related to human rights, environmental issues, and constitutional matters. This role of the judiciary blurs the lines of separation and reflects the evolving nature of governance.

Why Complete Separation of Power is Not Desirable:

1. Efficiency and Governance: Some degree of overlap is necessary for efficient governance. For example, delegated legislation allows the executive to issue regulations under broad laws passed by the legislature. Without this delegation, the legislative process would become too slow and unwieldy to respond to the complexities of modern governance.

2. Accountability and Flexibility: A complete separation could lead to rigid governance structures, reducing flexibility and responsiveness. Inter-branch cooperation allows the government to adapt to changing circumstances and ensures that no branch operates in a vacuum. For instance, executive accountability to the legislature, especially in parliamentary systems, enhances democratic control and ensures policies are in line with the people’s will.

3. Safeguard against Tyranny: The fusion of powers seen in certain systems, such as the UK’s parliamentary democracy, acts as a safeguard. Here, the executive is directly accountable to the legislature. While there is a lack of complete separation, the system ensures that the executive is not unchecked.

4. Judicial Interpretation and Policy Influence: Courts often interpret laws in ways that influence policy direction, such as in Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in India. The judiciary’s role in shaping policy outcomes, while technically a violation of strict separation, helps address societal issues, thus showing that some blending of powers can benefit governance.

Conclusion:

While the doctrine of Separation of Powers is essential in preventing the concentration of power and ensuring accountability, complete separation is neither possible nor desirable in modern governance. A functional overlap with checks and balances ensures that the system remains flexible, efficient, and responsive to public needs. Instead of rigid separation, the principle should evolve to ensure mutual cooperation and accountability between the branches of government.