The Importance Of Separation Of Powers In Politics

The importance of separation of powers in politics

The present work is centralized by the theme of division of powers in this case it can be said that it is a guideline and a system that seeks to reduce the concentration of power in a single organism, taking into account the requirements and attributions that compete with each power. It should be stressed, that the emergence of the division of powers is also called ‘Check and Balance’ (brake and counterweight system), which allows correct policies to be exercised according to the power limit. Likewise, it can be said that the origin of this mechanism arises from the tyranny or concentration of faculties.

Similarly, it can be argued that this mechanism protects the freedom of citizens as of their inherent rights. Likewise, various political philosophers such as Hobbes discard this division because they consider that only an authority must exercise the power to legislate, sanction, direct, etc. This is reflected in the famous figure of the ‘Leviathan‘ in the social contract, where he is the only person with faculties and the people have the subject of subject. So he cannot exercise a right of rebellion because they have renounced their political and freedom powers. It should be noted that Leviathan can exercise its strength in case the population disobeys its government. Unlike this political philosopher, we have Locke who accepts the division. However, he considers that the legislative power is hierarchically primary to others, because it is responsible for issuing laws which will be the basis for a government.

It must be taken into account that the present philosopher only takes into account 3 powers: legislative, executive and federative;He does not take into account judicial. The federative power focuses on the outside relationship.

Likewise, another philosopher as Machiavelli considers that the "end justifies the media" and the present ideal develops it in a prince. However, this falls to the supreme good that he considers, so it would be very subjective to apply it in a certain government. It should be noted that the present philosophers conceived man as an irrational being and that in a way they need a maximum authority to control them and thus ensure peace and social welfare. This ideal is based on the Hobbesian conception of man in his natural state. In addition, his thinking of Machiavelli concludes that it is better to be feared and hated than only loved.

On the other hand, the political philosopher who develops the mechanism is Montesquieu through his book "Spirit of laws", from their contribution the various governments decided to exercise this division. It should be emphasized that he emphasizes that each power has independence, but at the same time of observance or control in order to avoid an antagonism of power. Likewise, it is considered that it is necessary that the powers have adequate communication, clarity and precision, so that these are influential in the organization of modern states, because the division of powers and legal respect gives strength to democracy, forCreate equality, harmony and peace.

In my position as a student I am in favor of the division of powers because it is necessary to avoid a concentration of faculties in a single organ. When exercising this mechanism, the rights, faculties and freedoms of citizens are protected and in the same way it will be avoided that political organizations avoid centralizing their power in the benches. On the other hand, I consider that it is important because it facilitates the understanding between politics and the government. Moreover, it can be said that this system allows mutual inspection, which allows the state apparatus to be complied with objectively. It is important that they be prosecuted to corroborate due fulfillment of their functions. That is why it is concluded that without a division of powers there is no demonstration, since it must be acting according to what the law allows. But for this this is not only due to a political principle but to the requirement of a democratic social system.