Theory of Separation of Powers

Meaning of Separation of Powers:

“POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOULUTELY”

The theory of Separation of Powers advocates that the three powers of the government should be used
by three separate organs.
 Legislature should use only law-making powers.
 Executive should undertake only law enforcement functions.
 Judiciary should perform only adjudication/Judicial functions.
Their powers and responsibilities should be clearly defined and kept separate. This is essential for securing
the liberties of the people.

History of the theory:

 Aristotle– divided the governmental powers into Deliberative, Executive, Judiciary.
 Bodin – maintained that justice should be administered by independent judges and not by
kings.
 John Locke – legislature and executive branches should be kept separately.

Montesquieu’s View:
In his book The Spirit of The Laws’ (1748), he enunciated and explained his theory of Separation of
Powers. He wrote,

1. If the legislative and executive powers are combined in the same organ, the liberty of the
people gets jeopardized because it leads to tyrannical exercise of these two powers.

2. If the judicial and legislative powers are combined in the same organ, the interpretation of
laws becomes meaningless because in this case the lawmaker also acts as the law
interpreter and he never accept the errors of his laws.

3. If the judicial power is combined with the executive power and is given to one-person or
one organ, the administration of justice becomes meaningless and faulty because then the
police (Executive) becomes the judge (judiciary).

4. Finally, if all the three legislative, executive and judicial powers are combined and given to
one person or one organ, the concentration of power becomes so big that it virtually ends
all liberty. It establishes despotism of that person or organ.

Therefore, these three powers should be used by three separate organs of the government. It is essential
for safeguarding the liberty of the people.

Main Supporters:
The British jurist Blackstone and the founding fathers of the American constitution- Madison, Hamilton
and Jefferson, extended their full support to the theory of separation of powers. They regarded Separation of
Powers essential for protecting the liberty of the people.

Influence of Theory:
The framers of the French and the American constitutions were much influenced by it. In the 18 th century,
the French Constituent Assembly declared: “Every society in which the separation of powers is not defined has no
Constitution.”
 Likewise, the makers of the U.S. constitution have incorporated this theory in their constitution itself.
Hence the U.S. constitution is described as “an essay on the theory of separation of powers.”

Criticism of the Theory:

1. Complete Separation is not possible:

The government is a single entity. Its three organs can never be completely separated. The
legislative, executive and judicial functions are interdependent and inter-related functions and hence
cannot be fully separated.

2. Deadlocks and Inefficiency:

Separation of powers can lead to deadlocks and inefficiency in the working of the government. It
can create a situation in which each organ can get engaged in conflict and deadlocks with other two
organs.

3. Liberty does not depend only upon Separation of Powers:

The critics reject the view that liberty can be safeguarded only when there is a separation of
powers among the three organs of the government. They argue that in the absence of fundamental rights,
independence of judiciary, rule of law, economic equality and a spirit of democracy, there can be no
liberty even when there may be present full separation of powers.

4. The three Organs of Government are not equal:

The Theory of Separation of Powers wrongly assumes the equality of all the three organs of the
government. The legislature of the state is always regarded as the primary organ of government. The work
of the government begins by law-making. However, in actual practice the executive acts the most
powerful organ of the government. The judiciary is the weakest of the three organs, yet it is always held in
high esteem by the people. Hence the three organs are neither equal nor equally respected.

5. Vigilant public:
Liberties of the people do not depend on theories and dogmas. They should be protected and
preserved by the vigilant and educated public opinion. As Pericles pointed out that the secret of liberty is
courage.

Merits:
1. It aims at Individual liberty It is a safeguard against despotism.
2. Executive and legislature can not be rigidly separated, but judiciary should be separated from legislature
and executive. Then only rights and freedoms are secure.
3. Its basic principle is that the concentration of power leads to dictatorship is true for all times and ages.

Conclusion:
Further for using the theory of Separation of Powers, we need the adoption of another theory i.e. the
theory of Checks and Balances.

Under this theory each organ, along with its own power, enjoys some checking powers over the other two
organs. In the process a system of checks and balances governs the inter-organ relations.

Therefore, the theories of Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances always go together. These have
been together in operation in the US Constitution.
 Meaning of Separation of Powers:

“POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOULUTELY”

The theory of Separation of Powers advocates that the three powers of the government should be used
by three separate organs.
 Legislature should use only law-making powers.
 Executive should undertake only law enforcement functions.
 Judiciary should perform only adjudication/Judicial functions.
Their powers and responsibilities should be clearly defined and kept separate. This is essential for securing
the liberties of the people.

Montesquieu, a French writer has explained this theory in his book (Spirit of Laws). He concludes that separation
of powers is essential for the protection of individual liberty. Now let us study to what extent this theory is
followed in the constitutions of the UK and the USA

Working of the Theory:

United Kingdom:
In the U.K., legislative powers are given to the Parliament. It is the highest and supreme law-making body
in the nation. The executive powers are vested in the hands of the Crown cabinet. They executive enforce the
laws made by the parliament. Judicial powers are vested in the hands of court. There are certain deviations from
the theory:
The Legislature:
 It performs not only legislative functions but also executive and judicial functions.
 It appoints and controls the cabinet(executive).
 It asks questions and forces the executive to answer them.
 The parliament can even remove the cabinet if it is not so satisfied with its functioning.
 In short, legislature becomes the master and executive is made its slave.
The Executive:
 The executive (the cabinet and the crown) performs certain legislative and judicial functions.
 The cabinet participates in and guides the proceeding of the parliament.
 It initiates bills, prepares laws, passes delegated legislations and acts as a guide, friend, philosopher and
adviser of the parliament.
 The crown summons and prorogues parliament and can dissolve the House of Commons.
 The crown can veto the legislation made by the parliament.
 The crown performs judicial functions like appointing judges, decides certain cases and exercise the
prerogative of mercy.
The Judiciary:
 Lord Chancellor is the head of the judiciary.
 He is one of the important members of the cabinet (executive).
 He is also the presiding officer of the House of Lords (Legislature).
 Thus, the same person acts in three sections. This is against the theory of separation of powers.

United States of America:

American constitution is described as ‘an essay on the separation of powers and is today the most
important country in the world which operates on this principle.
The Legislature:
 Legislature (Congress) consists of 2 houses – SENATE and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
 Both the houses are elected by the people for a fixed period.
  Congress can not control or remove the executive.
 Article I of the constitution mentions that “All the legislative powers shall be vested in congress.”
The Executive:
 Article II of the constitution mentions that “the executive powers are vested in the hands of the President
of the US.
 The president is directly elected by the people for a fixed period.
 He can not control or dissolve the congress.
 On the other hand, legislature too can not exercise any control over the President.
The Judicial:
 The judicial power is exercised by the courts.
 The terms, salary and service conditions of judges are made secure.
 Neither the legislature no the executive has any control over the judiciary.

Thus, both in letter and in spirit, the makers of the United States constitution are successful in establishing
an independent and irremovable legislature, executive and judiciary.
Hence Willoughby concludes: “In the English government there is a separation of powers organically, but
the union of powers personally, while in America, there is a union of powers organically, but separation of powers
personally.”

Overlapping of Functions in US constitution:

The Legislative:
 Appointments made and treaties concluded by the President should be approved by the Senate
(Legislature). In this way the congress performs executive functions.
 The congress can impeach the President, Vice-President and other high officials in the nation. Therefore,
congress also performs Judicial functions as well.
The Executive:
 The President (Executive) can influence the legislation by sending messages to the congress, by addressing
the people and influencing the members of Congress directly. He can Veto legislation made by the
Congress. In this way the executive can perform legislative functions.
 The President appoints the Judges of the Supreme Court and pardons the criminals except in case of
impeachment. Therefore, the executive performs Judicial function as well.
The Judiciary:
 The courts (Judiciary) can declare the laws of the Congress unconstitutional. They interpret the provisions
of the Constitution and execute judge made laws. These are legislative and executive functions can be
performed by the Judiciary.

Thus, both in the UK and in the US, the theory of separation powers is not followed rigidly.
Checks and Balance theory:
For using the theory of Separation of Powers, we need the adoption of another theory i.e. the theory of
Checks and Balances.

Under this theory each organ, along with its own power, enjoys some checking powers over the other two
organs. In the process a system of checks and balances governs the inter-organ relations.

Therefore, the theories of Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances always go together. These have
been together in operation in the US Constitution.

In the US,
 Treaties are concluded by the President but they should be approved by the Senate.
 Bills are made by the Congress but they become laws only when the President approves
them.
 Judiciary can declare the laws made by the congress are unconstitutional.
Therefore, one organ is kept as a check against the other to curb the growth of dictatorship.

Application of Theory of Separation of powers in the eve of Indian Constitution:

In India rigid separation of powers is not followed as followed by the US constitution. India adopted British
Parliamentary system with some minor changes. The constitution makers have also meticulously divided the
functions of various organs of the state.

 The Executive - the President and the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister.
 The Legislature – is the Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha)
 The Judiciary – contains Supreme Court, High courts and the other lower courts.
 Similarly, at the state levels, Governor acts as an executive and there exists legislative body at each state.

Different organs of the state impose checks and balances on the other.

 Judiciary exercises judicial review over legislative and executive actions. Judiciary has the power to void laws passed
by the Parliament. Similarly, it can declare the unconstitutional executive actions as void.
 Legislatures review the functioning of the executive. Legislative branch removes the judges. It can also alter the
basis of the judgment while adhering to the constitutional limitation.
 Executive appoints the judges

But there are certain deviations:

 The members of the council of ministers are also the members of the parliament and they are collectively
responsible to it.
 The Parliament considers the specific allegations made against the judges of the supreme court and approves a
resolution requesting the President to remove them when the allegations were proved.
 Parliament or Cabinet system of Government

Definition:
Parliamentary government is a democratic form of government in which the political party that wins
the most seats in the legislature or parliament during the federal election forms the government. This majority
party chooses a leader to be the Prime Minister or Chancellor, and other high-ranking members of the party
make up the cabinet.
 It's called 'Parliamentary government' because all of the power is vested in the parliament i.e., the
executive(cabinet) is elected, controlled and removed by the parliament (Legislature).

 It’s called ‘Cabinet government’ because the cabinet formulates policies, takes decisions, execute policies
and controls the administration.
Main Features:

1. Two Executives:
There are two type of executives i.e. Nominal executive and Real executive.
 Titular/Nominal executive is head of the state for example the President of India. This type
executive is mere a symbolic or constitutional head of state.
 Second is real executive who is to exercise real powers of the state and is head of
government for example, the Prime Minister of India.
2. Term:
 There is no fixed term for the real executive.
 Real executive is appointed and controlled by legislature.
 Legislature can remove the executive at any time by passing a no confidence motion. So,
the executive is dependent and subordinate to the legislature.

3. Executive part of the legislature:

 Members of the cabinet(executive) are also the members of the legislature. They are
elected by and come from the members of the legislature.
 Even after the election as ministers(executive), they sit in legislature and participates in the
discussions.

4. Lead of the Prime Minister:

The cabinet consists of several ministers with the Prime Minister as its head. He leads and guides
the cabinet.

5. Responsibility of the Cabinet:

 The Cabinet is collectively responsible to the legislature for all its activities.
 The Cabinet remains in office as long as it enjoys the confidence of legislature.
  The ministers “swim or sink together” i.e., in case a minister does not agree with policies of
the Cabinet, he should tender his resignation and leave the Cabinet.

Merits:
1. The principle of collective responsibility in a cabinet system of government enhances the efficiency,
accountability and responsiveness of the government to the people.

2. The executive tends to be less dictatorial because it could easily be dismissed by the legislature through a
vote of no confidence.

3. Usually conflicts between the executive and legislature are reduced, since the two arms of government
are not strictly separated.

4. The government usually gets its bills passed in the parliament because members of the government party
always vote in favour of government sponsored bills.

5. Government decision making process is faster in a cabinet system since members of the executive are
also members of legislature.

6. Party discipline is enhanced in the parliamentary system because the prime minister is oblige to pick his
ministers from his party members in the legislature.

7. The presence of a recognised opposition party ready to criticise bad policies of the ruling party helps to
make for good governance.

Demerits:

1. It violates the theory of separation of powers. For all practical purposes there is no difference between
legislative and executive functions in this system.

2. The prime minster could become dictatorial because of the powers vested in him to appoint and dismiss
ministers, as well as the fact that he alone can call for the dissolution of the house.

3. A coalition government which usually emerges in a cabinet system, where no party has won a clear
majority in elections, often leads to conflicts, corruption among the coalition parties.

4. The cabinet system is less democratic because the prime minister is not directly elected by the electorate.
 5. It leads to Party government i.e.; interest of the party is placed before the nation and the role of
opposition is just for the name sake.

Presidential system of Government

Definition:
The presidential form of government is that in which the executive is not responsible to the legislature. An
example of such a system of Government is the United States of America (U.S.A).

 It is also called “Fixed executive” or “Non-Parliament executive” or “Non-Responsible executive.”

 It is called ‘Presidential executive’ because the president is the supreme head of the state.

 It is called ‘Non-Parliamentary executive’ because the executive is neither elected by nor responsible
to the parliament.

 It is called ‘Non-Responsible executive’ because the executive is not responsible to legislature.

Features:
1. One Executive:
There is only one executive i.e., the President is not only the head of the state but also the
head of the government.

2. Mode of election:
In a Presidential system, the executive is elected by the people.

3. No involvement of legislature:
Executive is not elected by the legislature. One can not control the other. Both are
independent and co-equal. It mainly rests on the separation of powers.

4. Tenure:
 Executive is temporary. Executive is elected for a fixed period and cannot be removed until
its term is over.

5. Not responsible to Legislature

Executive is neither appointed nor removable by legislature. In short, executive is
responsible not to legislature but to the people only.

6. Powerless Cabinet:
In a Presidential system, the President has Ministers. They are his ministers, named by him
and dependent on him. They are his advisors and agents. Hence the cabinet is beautifully called ‘The
Kitchen Cabinet.’

Merits:

1. A stable government is possible.

2. Under a presidential form of government, experts are appointed as heads of the departments without
consideration of their party affiliations. The president may appoint persons who belong to the opposition
parties.

3. There is continuous and consistent policy.

4. Highly suitable during the period of national crisis.

5. There is no chance for concentration of powers.

Demerits:

1. The executive is not responsible to the legislature and can do whatever it pleases.

2. There is always the possibility of deadlocks between the legislature and the executive.

3. It is not a flexible form of government.

4. The Presidential executive finds it difficult to follow a vigorous foreign policy, as there is no harmonious
relationship between the executive and the legislature. The executive may follow a policy which may not
be acceptable to the legislature.

DIFFERENCES
BASIS FOR PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT
COMPARISON
Meaning In Parliamentary system, the legislative and
executive body of government are closely
related, while the judiciary is independent
of the other two bodies of government.
Executive Dual executive
Accountability The executive is accountable to the
legislature.
Powers Concentrated
Ministers Only the members of Parliament can be
appointed as minster.
Dissolution of lower Prime Minister can dissolve the lower house
house before the expiry of its term.
Tenure of Executive Not fixed
Usually, conflicts between the executive
and legislature are reduced, since the two
arms of government are not strictly
separated.
PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GORVERNMENT
In Presidential system, the legislative,
executive and judiciary body of the
government are independent of each other.
Single executive
The executive is not accountable to the
legislature.
Divided
Persons outside the legislature are
appointed as ministers.
President cannot dissolve lower house.
Fixed
There is always the possibility of deadlocks
between the legislature and the executive.

Merits The system is flexible and elastic
The Government decision making process is
faster in a cabinet system since members of
the executive are also members of
legislature.
It is very rigid and inelastic
The Presidential executive finds it difficult
to follow a vigorous foreign policy, as there
is no harmonious relationship between the
executive and the legislature. The executive
may follow a policy which may not be
acceptable to the legislature.

The executive tends to be less dictatorial The executive is not responsible to the
because it could easily be dismissed by the legislature and can do whatever it pleases.
legislature through a vote of no confidence.

It keeps the alternative government ready Not possible here

It violates the theory of separation of There is no chance for concentration of
powers. For all practical purposes there is powers.
no difference between legislative and
Demerits executive functions in this system.

It leads to party government Party does not play a vital role

Not suitable during emergencies Suitable during emergencies
Not suitable to big countries with cultural Suitable to the countries with multiple
and religious diversities parties and cultural and religious diversities
 Authority

Authority is a form of power but they are distinguished from one another as contrasting means
through which compliance or obedience is achieved.

 Power can be defined as the ability to influence the behaviour of another.

 Authority can be understood as the right to influence the behaviour of another.

In simple terms, Authority refers to accepted power—that is, power that people agree to follow. People listen
to authority figures because they feel that these individuals are worthy of respect.

Example: A citizen’s interaction with a police officer shows how people react to authority in everyday life.

According to Max Weber, “the willing and unconditional compliance of people, resting upon their belief that it
is legitimate for the superior to impose his will on them and illegitimate for them to refuse to obey.”

Characteristics of Authority:

1. Legitimacy:
It determines the effectiveness of authority. Hence it is the hall mark of the concept of
authority.
Example: If “A commands B and B feels A has perfect right to do so and to which he has complete
obligation to obey. Power of this kind is often said to be legitimate. Legitimate power is often called
authority.”

2. Dominance:
Authority is capacity of the individual to command others. An individual or a group which
possesses authority exercises dominance over other individuals. Authority is a command of superior to an
inferior.

3. Accountability:
The individual or a group of individuals who possess authority are responsible to some
higher authority. In a democratic system accountability is the most significant characteristic of authority .

Source and Nature of Authority:

1. Legal/Formal Theory:
According to this theory authority is based upon the rank or position of the person
and this authority may be given by law or by social rules. The president of a company may take an action
 against an employee for not complying with rules because company rules has bestowed this authority in
him. This authority is called formal authority.
 This type of authority is embedded in the bureaucracy where authority is bestowed upon
contractually hired and appointed officials.
 While bureaucracy is the purest form of legal authority, other forms may comprise of elected
officers or office appointed by the members. These persons follow authority since their roles
are defined by the rules and regulations framed by such bodies.

2. Acceptance Theory:
The authority of the superior has no meaning unless it is accepted by the
subordinates. If the subordinates do not accept the orders of a superior there will be no use of exercising
authority.

3. Competence Theory:
There is also a feeling that authority is generated by personal competence of a
person. A person may get his orders accepted not due to formal authority but because of his personal
qualities. These qualities may be personal or technical. The advice of some persons may be accepted even
if they do not have a formal authority. They enjoy this authority by virtue of their intelligence, knowledge,
skill and experience.

Example: When a doctor advises rest to a patient, he accepts this advice because of Doctor’s knowledge
and not because of his formal authority or legal right. The patient will get relief only if he obeys the
doctor.

Scalar Principle of Authority:

It throws light on the way in which the different parts of an organisation are created
and are held together.
 It basically explains the levels of authority in an organisation i.e., from the top executive to the worker.
These levels indicate the authority at different positions. Normally it decreases from top to low.

Types of Authority:
Max Weber has classified authority into three pure types on the basis of its claim to
legitimacy.
They are:
1. Traditional Authority
2. Charismatic Authority
3. Legal-Rational Authority
1. Traditional Authority:
Traditional authority has evolved from a social order and communal relationship in
the form of ruling by obedient subjects.
 This authority passes from the father to the son.
 In a family system, father exercises traditional authority over members of the family. The
traditional authority is generally followed in Indian family system.
 Traditional authority is regarded as legitimate because it has ‘always existed’ and was accepted
by earlier generations.

2. The charismatic authority:

The charismatic authority rests on the personal charisma of a leader who
commands respect of his followers.
 The personal traits such as good looks, intelligence, integrity influences the people to follow
their leaders because of such traits. The followers become attached to the leader because they
feel that he will help them in achieving their goals.
  The charismatic leaders are generally good orators and have hypnotic effect on their
followers. The religious and political leaders come under this category.
 The charismatic phenomena also extend to film actors, actresses and war heroes. Film actors
and actresses have been successful in raising huge funds for calamities etc. because of their
charismatic personalities.
 Even political parties’ associate actors and actresses in their companies to collect crowds for
their rallies. People follow some persons because of their charismatic personalities and not
because of any other factor.

3. Legal-Rational Authority:
It is a form of leadership in which the authority of an organization or a
ruling regime is largely tied to legal rationality, legal legitimacy and bureaucracy.
 The majority of the modern states of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are following
national-legal authority.
 Under rational-legal authority, legitimacy is seen as coming from a legal order and the laws that have been
enacted in it.
 If society, as a whole, approves the exercise of the power in a certain way, then the power is considered
"legitimate authority".

Example: Officials elected by voters, rules that are in the constitution, or policies that are written in a formal document.

Therefore, of all the three types of authority, Max Weber preferred the legal-rational
authority, which characterised the modern organisations.

Limits of Authority:
The authority is not absolute. The use of authority by a superior over his
subordinates is restricted by various factors.
 Generally, it is important that the authority must be exercised keeping in view the groups, fundamental
social beliefs, codes and habits.
 There are biological limitations on the authority i.e., human beings do not have the capacity to do certain
things. An individual cannot be asked to walk up the side of the building.
 There are limitations on authority by physical factors viz., climate, geography and economic factors
include competition, market facilities etc. The superior should keep in mind all these things while
exercising authority.
 Partnership agreements, memorandum of association and company laws put limitations on the exercise of
managerial authority.

Territorial Authority:
Territorial authorities are French administrative structures, separate from state
administration, which have responsibility for the interests of the population in a defined terrtioryy.
 Federal State

The word ‘federal’ is derived from Latin word “Foedus” which means agreement. A
federal government is a dual government. One is called the centre and the other is state/provinces/cantons.

A federal state is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-

governing states under a central (federal) government.
In simple terms, it is an agreement made by some states to establish a common
government to protect the interests of all.

Features:

 Powers are distributed between the centre and the states. This is called division of powers. Both are
independent and free. No one is subordinate to the other but both are subordinate to the constitution.
 Supremacy of the constitution is the main feature of the federal state.
 Existence of a court to interpret the constitution and to settle disputes between the centre and state.
 Rigidity of the constitution.

Examples: The USA, The USSR, Mexico, Brazil etc.

But the theory differs from practice. A unitary government in theory may act as a
federal government in practice. (Example: Canada). Likewise, a federal government in theory may act as unitary
government in practice. (Example: The USSR, Mexico, Brazil etc.)

Merits:

1. Local Problems:
Every province has political, social and economic problems peculiar to the region
itself. Provincial government representatives live in close proximity to the people and are most of the
times from the same community, so that they are in a better position to understand these problems and
offer unique solutions for them.
Example: traffic congestion in Delhi, it is a problem that can be best solved by the
local government, keeping local factors in mind.

2. Representation to different populations:

 Citizens of various provinces may have different aspirations, ethnicity and follow
different cultures. The central government can sometimes overlook these differences and adopt policies
which cater to the majority. This is where the regional government steps in. While formulating policies,
local needs, tastes and opinions are given due consideration by the state governments. Rights of the
minorities are protected too.

Example: In Indian states, even of large diversity, a large number of schools provide
bilingual education.

3. Local autonomy:
State governments have the freedom to adopt policies which may not be followed
nationally or by any other state.

Example: Minimum wage for labours fixed by states like Kerala and Delhi
irrespective of the wage decided by the central government.

4. Division of Power:
Division of work between the central and the regional governments leads to
optimum utilization of resources. The central government can concentrate more on international affairs
and defence of the country while the provincial government can cater to the local needs.

5. Innovation aspect:
Federalism has room for innovation and experimentation. Two local governments
can have two different approaches to bring reforms in any area of public domain, be it taxation or
education. The comparison of the results of these policies can give a clear idea of which policy is better
and thus, can be adopted in the future.

Demerits:

1. Separation of Powers:
Sometimes there can be overlapping of work and subsequent confusion
regarding who is responsible for what.
Example: delay in the rescue work as there was confusion between the state
governments and the federal government on who is responsible for which disaster management work.
This may result in the loss of many lives.

2. Expensive:
The federal system of government is very expensive as more people are elected
to office, both at the state and the centre, than necessary. Thus, it is often said that only rich countries can
afford it. Too many elected representatives with overlapping roles may also lead to corruption.

3. Conflicts:
It leads to unnecessary competition between different regions. There can be a
rebellion by a regional government against the national government too. Both scenarios pose a threat to
the countries’ integrity.

4. Regional Inequalities:
It also promotes regional inequalities. Natural resources, industries, employment
opportunities differ from region to region. Hence earnings and wealth are unevenly distributed. Rich
states offer more opportunities and benefits to its citizens than poor states can. Thus, the gap between
rich and poor states widens.
 5. Selfishness:
It can also make the state governments selfish and concerned only about their
own regions progress. They can formulate policies which might be detrimental to other regions.

Example: Pollution from a province which is promoting industrialization in a big

way can affect another region which depends solely on agriculture and cause crop damage.

Conclusion:
In the modern world, Federalism is established as a substantive instrument of national unity.

Formation of Federal State:

Federal states are formed in 2 ways:

1. When several states join together voluntarily to form a union, federal state comes into existence. Each
retain its independence but all are subject to the whole.
Ex: The USSR and the USA

2. When a big state is divided into many small unites, federation is formed.
Ex: India, South Africa and Canada

Thus, while the first one is formed through integration, the second is formed
through disintegration.

Conditions essential for the successful working of Federal states:

1. Geographical unity:
 It means that all the states that form a union must be geographically connected with each
other.
 If there is a great distance between one state and the other, it is very difficult to administer
that country.
 Distance leads to carelessness on the part of both central and local governments.
 It is good from the military, economic and administrative points of view.

Examples: India, the USA and the USSR

2. Feeling of homogeneity:
 All the people must feel that they belong to one nation and country.
 They must be united by religion, language, culture and customs. It brings them nearer and
develops oneness and unity.
 But country like India proved that even with different languages, religions and cultures –
states can be established successfully.

3. Equality:
 All the states must be equal in economic, social and political fields. Otherwise, the more
advanced states may control the less advanced states.

4. Political education:
 Federal state works smoothly only when people are educated and understand its problem.
 Unless people really want to unite and to live together, no federal state can be established.
 A forced union is bad and it does not lasts long.

5. Political unity:
  There should be a political unity because it is difficult to establish a federal state with rival
groups of people – one pleading for communism and other for capitalism or anarchism.
 But in case of India, though it has different policies and ideologies, still federalism is working
successfully in India.

6. Existence of Democracy:
 Democracy and Federalism go side by side. A real federal state can exist only in a democracy.
 States, rights, independence of judiciary, fundamental rights of citizens and supremacy of the
constitution are some of the important features of federalism. They are preserved and
protected only by democratic form of government.

Unitary State:
A unitary state is a state governed as a single power in which the central government is ultimately
supreme.
Acc. to Finer, “unitary state is one in which all authority and power are lodged in a single centre,
whose will and agents are legally omnipotent over the whole area.

Characteristics:
1. In a unitary state, the central government is supreme and omnipotent. All powers belong to it.
2. Other law-making bodies like provinces and local government may be allowed to exist but they are only
servants of the centre. They have no independent existence. They are not recognised by the constitution.
The centre may create or abolish them or decrease their powers.
3. No conflicts could arise between centre and the states. Therefore, there is no need for the establishment
of Supreme court.
4. The constitution can easily be changed by the centre. So, the constitution need not be rigid.
5. A unitary state has 2 essential features:
a. The supremacy of the centre
b. The absence of subsidiary sovereign making bodies.

Merits:
1. Uniformity in law-making policy and administration throughout the country. So, it is easy to understand
the government.
2. It is very simple to establish a unitary government. All that the makers of constitution have to do is just to
establish a central government.
3. The constitution is generally flexible so that it can be changed easily according to the needs of the people.
4. It is better situated to small states with geographical and racial unity.
5. It is stronger than a federal government. In a unitary state no conflicts can arise between the centre and
the states.
6. It is less expensive as there is only one government – Central government.

Defects:
1. There is a little scope for local autonomy. The centre has neither time nor knowledge to understand the
local problems. So, the interests of the units of the local areas may be neglected.
2. It is not suitable to big states. It is also not good for to those states with too many diversities.
3. It is incredibly divisive form of government where everyone is forced to compete with everyone else for
priority.
4. It has slow government response. For example, there are no state National Guard that could be
dispatched in emergency, troops would have to be mobilized from national authority.
 Differences between Unitary and Federal States

Federal State:
A federal state is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-
governing states under a central (federal) government.
In simple terms, it is an agreement made by some states to establish a common
government to protect the interests of all.

Ex: the USA, the USSR, Australia and India

Unitary State:
A unitary state is a state governed as a single power in which the
central government is ultimately supreme.

Acc. to Finer, “unitary state is one in which all authority and power are lodged in a single centre, whose
will and agents are legally omnipotent over the whole area.

EX: Britain, France, Japan, New Zealand

Differences:

1. Number of governments:
A federal government is a dual government that includes Central and State
governments. Federal state comes into existence by the agreement of members state which join in it.

A unitary government includes only one government i.e., Central government.

2. Relation of between Centre and State:

In a federal state, powers are distributed between centre and the states. Matters of
national importance are given to the centre and matters of local importance are given to the states. Each
has its own sphere and each much exercises its powers within its limits. No one is supreme; both are co-
ordinate.
In a unitary state, all the powers are vested in the hands of central government.
States or local governments may not exist in the unitary state. Even if exists, they are just slaves of the
centre. The centre can create or abolish states.

3. Supremacy:
In a federal state, both the centre and states enjoy equal importance, respect and
authority. One cannot control the other and one is not sub-ordinate to the other. But both are
subordinate to the supreme law of the land i.e., Constitution. It can be amended only with the consent of
the states and the centre. Hence, every federal state should possess rigid constitution.
 In a unitary state, there is no much role of the state or local governments,
everything will be vested in the hands of central government. The constitution can be amended by the
parliament acting alone. So generally, unitary state has flexible constitution.

4. Position of Courts:
As a federal state is a dual government system, both the centre and the states have
equal importance, respect and authority. Then it will lead to conflict between centre and states
sometimes. Moreover, in a federal state the constitution guarantees some fundamental rights to the
citizens. Sometimes either the central or the state may violate these rights. Therefore, to settle the
disputes between them, there exist a Supreme Court. Hence, an independent and impartial judiciary is
essential for a federal state.
In a unitary state, there exist only one centre. Even if local government exists, they
are just slaves under the centre. So, no conflicts can arise between the centre and the states. Hence, there
is no need for the existence of supreme court in a unitary state.

5. Organisation of Legislatures:
A federal state represents two kinds of interests- national(people) and local(states).
People’s interest is looked after by the lower house in the legislature whereas states’ interests are looked
after by the Upper house. Hence, every federal state possesses a bicameral legislature.

In a unitary state, the entire nation comes under a single unit i.e., the central
government. So, the interests of the nation can be looked after by one house only. As there are no
stats/provinces in a unitary state, the question of representation does not arise. Hence, there is no need
for the existence of a bicameral legislature in a unitary state.

Federal State Unitary State

1. Powers are distributed between the centre
and the states
2. There is an independent judiciary to resolve
the conflicts between the centre and the state
3. In this government citizens have to obey two
sets of law
4. In a federal state, the constitution is the
outcome of an agreement and it can only be
amended by a special procedure
5. Separate legislatures at the central and state
levels
6. There is fear of separation in federal
government
7. No stability in this type of government
8. There constitution is rigid because there is no
room for the amendment
9. Their territory is united in diversity
10. This government is democratic in nature
11. There is a political awareness in this
government
12. A federal government must have a written and
rigid constitution
13. A special judiciary with wide powers must be
needed
1. All powers are concentrated in one central
authority
2. There is no mechanism in unitary government
3. In this government unitary system of law
prevails
4. In a unitary state, constitution is no the
outcome of an agreement and can be changed
by its own supreme authority
5. Supreme central legislature
6. There is a promotion of national integration
7. Government is stable
8. There constitution is flexible
9. Their territory is not diverse
10. This government is non-democratic in nature
11. There is no political awareness
12. A unitary government may or may not have a
written constitution
13. There is no need of having a special judiciary
 Democracy
Definition:
Etymologically ‘democracy’ is derived from the Greek words ‘demos’ (people) and ‘Kratos’ (rule).
Therefore, in simple terms – it is the rule by people.

 In other words, democracy is the system of government in which the sovereign power is vested in the people
as a whole exercising power directly or by elected officials.

 Abraham Lincoln defines democracy as “A Government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

 According to Bryce, “A form Government in which the ruling power of a state is legally vested, not in any
particular class, but in the members of the community as a whole.”

 According to Seely, “A Government in which everyone has a share.”

Merits:

1. Efficient Government:
 It establishes an efficient system of government based on the premises of rational voters,
competitive elections and relatively low political transaction costs.

 It also brings out working alliance between the experts and the laymen.

2. Guarantee rights:
 It guarantees and protects the rights and liberties. Right to property, vote, liberty,
education, freedom of speech, press etc., are guaranteed to all.
 It helps the individual to develop personality and contribute his mite to the common good.

3. Equal society:
 No discrimination is made between one and the other on the grounds of caste, colour,
community, religion and sex. Rights are granted equally to all. The same law is followed by
all the people in the nation.
 In economic field, it ensures equality of opportunity and economic security.
 So, it is said that democracy is not a form of government but a way of life.

4. Educates people:
 People in democracy are rulers as well as the ruled.
  They caste votes, elect the rulers, attend many meetings and participate in the
administration at all levels.

Three Main Arguments in the favour of Democratic Government:

A non-democratic government may sometimes even not respond to the people’s need,
but that completely depends on the wishes of the citizens of the country. If the rulers don’t want to, no one can
force them. They even don’t act. Whereas in democratic government, it is important for the rulers to attend the
need of the people. Hence, it’s a more accountable form of govt.

A democratic decision when taken involves more people, several discussions, consultation
& meetings. Yes, it takes time but lessens the chances of rash or vague decisions. It also improves the quality of
decision-making. In a diverse society, especially in a country like India, people are bound to have differences of
opinions and interests. To iron out these differences, democracy is the only known solution as there is no
permanent winner and no permanent loser.
In a democracy, mistakes are bound to happen like in any other forms of government. But
the advantage is that it can’t be hidden for a long time. Public discussions and correction always have room in
democratic government. Either the rulers have to change their decisions or the rulers themselves can be changed
by the people. Hence, we can state that it allows us to correct our own faults.

Demerits:

1. It leads to establish the majority view over the minority view.

2. Party leaders and political office holders in government control the citizens and the members of the party.
3. It does not encourage individuals to give their opinions.
4. It is very expensive form of government because elections have to be conducted periodically to the
various office.
5. It is difficult to prevent corruption and malpractices.
6. The decision-making process is slow in democracy as it involves long debates and deliberations in the
parliament.
7. Self-discipline, good conscience, and intellect are pre-requisites for every citizen to have a successful
democratic society.
8. Democracy has been characterised by these critics as mobocracy. It produces quantity rather than quality.

Conclusion:
The world has been experimenting with so many systems of government, but no other system could
satisfy the basic needs of the people. So, democracy has been accepted as the best form of government where a
man can really enjoy equality of opportunity, liberty and freedom.