Abstract:
This paper examines the separation of powers in parliamentary systems, focusing on the UK, Canada, and Australia. It explores the evolution of parliamentary sovereignty, compares constitutional conventions and statutes, analyzes the roles of parliamentary oversight and judicial review, and presents case studies of executive action controversies. The study concludes with lessons on maintaining democratic accountability and checks and balances in these three nations, offering insights into the complexities and nuances of governance within parliamentary frameworks.
Keywords: Parliamentary Sovereignty, Constitutional Conventions, Checks and Balances, Parliamentary Oversight, Legislative-Executive Relations, Commonwealth Constitutions, Democratic Accountability.
Introduction to Separation of Powers in Parliamentary Systems:
The doctrine of separation of powers is the idea that a government works best when its powers are not all controlled by a single authority. Instead, these powers are divided among different branches. This principle is not followed in a completely strict way, but many countries use it as a guiding rule.
The United States was the first country to officially adopt this principle. In India, the concept of separation of powers began developing in the 17th century. Thinkers at that time identified three main powers of government: the power to make laws (legislative), the power to enforce laws (executive), and the power to interpret laws (judicial). By dividing these powers among different branches, the government can function more fairly and effectively. The concept of the separation of powers is a fundamental principle in modern democratic governance, but its implementation varies widely across different political systems. In parliamentary systems, such as those in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, this principle takes on a distinctive form due to the fusion of the executive and legislative branches. This article delves into the historical development of parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers, offering a comparative analysis of constitutional conventions and statutory provisions. It also examines the role of parliamentary oversight committees and judicial review in these systems, presents case studies of executive controversies, and draws valuable lessons for ensuring democratic accountability.