Vittoria Casey
AP Gov/Politics
September 28, 2015
Gordon, Per 3
Why is the theory of separate powers a cure to blocking factional control?
A french theorist, named Montesquieu, argued hundreds of years ago that the power of government could be controlled by dividing it among separate branches rather than concentrating it with one specific person or in one specific area. Many Americans believe that he set the precedent for our modern day government, and frankly, I agree. The idea of concentrating power in one specific area has deemed itself more dangerous than productive. Take Nazi Germany, and the Stalinist Soviet Union, for example. In Germany’s case, it resulted in the uprising of a lunatic dictator who slaughtered millions of people, who wasn’t taken down until it resulted in a full-blown World War. In the Soviet Union’s case, Stalin was more of a power-hungry dictator, but nothing in comparison to Hitler. Nonetheless, it was totalitarian government, which can never go right. In order to prevent this, America has adapted to the theory of separate powers which indicates that three branches of government of government must be separate and independent from one another, because any combination of these branches into one or two factions can be detrimental to individual liberties. In Montesquieu’s own writing, he stated four main points. The first point was that 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. The second point made was that 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 accepts the errors of his laws. The third point indicated that 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). The last point stated that 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 (Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu). Essentially, what Montesquieu was getting at was that everyone would have equal abilities to exercise all of their desires/voices if the government was split into three branches, which is exactly what ended up happening.
Madison’s main argument made in Federalist Paper Number 10 was not far off from Montesquieu exactly. Madison, however, took a completely different approach on the whole totalitarianism thing. Instead of explaining what would work, he went into detail about how bad the government that they had in place was. He basically took more of an Erwin approach as opposed to a Patterson approach. He focuses heavily on the problem of factions formed within the American government. He defines these factions as a number of citizens, whether a majority or minority, who were united and actuated "by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." He then goes on to talk about how to break up these factions in two distinct ways: 1) to remove its causes and 2) to control its effects. However, putting the theory of separate powers into play makes these factions almost immediately going away, seeing as that it is unlikely and almost completely improbable that everyone in the legislative, executive, and judicial branch all have the same views on every issue, and support the same political party. Therefore, Madison didn’t explicitly state it, but he was an avid supporter of the theory that Montesquieu had birthed, and hadn’t even bothered to mention his name within the paper. They would have made great friends.
No comments:
Post a Comment