Separation of Power in the UK - Essay Example

Separation of power in UK The law refers to rules that control the About oxford dictionaries, law is described as “the system of rules that a precise country or society acknowledges as controlling the action of its citizens and that it may implement by imposition of penalties.” Law is almost everywhere and in everything: its application is relevant to corporate, marriages, states and people. The study of the law is basic for those fascinated with politics. With the law, there is a regulation of societies to avoid no equality and no equality. The cruise of this paper is to examine the separation powers in the UK. The principle of separation of powers had leveraged many constitution makers, philosophers like Montesquieu whom all had intense thinking to this maxim. Even though the United Kingdom constitution is unwritten, it is a golden doctrine of separation of powers for other countries to follow. Back in 1748, Montesquieu- a French jurist- put forward his hypothesis that “there can be no freedom” and thought, “Everything would terminate if the judicial, legislative and executive powers of the government were to be involved by the same individual or authority. In the United Kingdom, the law is separated into three powers; judicial, executive and legislative. The judiciary plays an important role in United Kingdom politics. The judiciary comprises of, the royal court, Supreme Court, crown court and the magistrate courts. It should be apolitical, and any rulings made, for instance on government legislation, must be in a free and fair manner without any element of political bias (Lovell, 2003; p 54). Nevertheless, different aspects about Judiciary raise a string of questions lately: judicial supremacy, judicial independence and judicial neutrality. The courts of England are Crown Court’s jurisdiction is strong because of the power of the Crown. The executive oversees the function of the Crown with relevance to Royal prerogative. The executive has no right to delay the process of common justice. It is a law that goes back down the memory lane over a century ago. Moreover, the executive has no mandate to pressure judges. Especially into acting in ways other than impartiality. In the Act of settlement in 1701, judges in higher courts had the privilege of remaining judges as long as they had shown “good behavior”. If they were guilty of bad behavior then a legal approach to have them fired was an option. For the large number of judges, there is no such thing. Thus, it guarantees them a security of tenure within their work- reason being that such security helps their independence from the government tenacity in that they can only be fired for very precise grievances that do not involve failing to endorse the government and its policies. We should mistake Judges to be civil servants. The crown on the guidance of the Lord Chancellor and Prime Minister appoints them. Before, judges have been barristers before appointment to office. Nevertheless, solicitors can of late make it as judges in the Crown Court. When it comes to judicial neutrality, even though the judiciary is dependent of the parliament, and the executive. It is still required to be neutral when making legal rulings and decisions. Whether the judges do have political favorites and preferences, their eventual decisions and ruling should be free of such advantages (Lemieux, 2005; p 47). Traditionally, respected law figures seen to be political favorable and preferable to the conservative party. In this line of reasoning, it was a held conviction that the senior and respected legal figures in the United Kingdom were anti-labor and pro-Conservatives. Especially when the country had a Labor government. If this were something to go by, then judicial neutrality could have not been in existence. Its justification manifested when the judiciary never acted to challenge Margaret Thatcher’s anti-trade union legislation. “The judges are the law keepers and the qualities that they require for that role are not those of great- lawmakers. Moreover, enthusiasm can never be a judicial virtue. It signifies taking sides, and when a judge is taking sides, he or she loses the outlook of impartiality and quite feasibly impartiality itself.” Said Lord Devlin. There those who think that it is all not practical being neutral. Thus, it would unacceptable for the community to see the judges as having to be completely neutral as it is natural for them to have preferences and take sides on some issues- they would not be human beings otherwise. Judicial supremacy: it would be easy to see the respected and senior law in the United Kingdom politics as being supreme. It would not be so nevertheless. Any legal decision by judges, law Lords can face the challenge from an Act of parliament. It signifies that, in spite of the probable time delay, the mandate of the elected body (democratically) can prevail over the judiciary to some extent. In addition, any decision by judges is only effectual if both the public and the government accept it. Secondly, we have the legislative as an arm of the government that with a synonym as the parliament. The parliament is of two houses, the House of Lords and commons (Leeuwen, 2010; p62). The House of Lords is or the ‘second chamber’ or the ‘Upper house’. All these terms explain the Lords are part of the United Kingdom legislative. The winning political party forms the government (Leeuwen, 2010; p62). The political party that won most places or seats in the national election makes the government that rules the country. The government comes up with policies and launches legislation in the parliament. Mostly, senior members of the government have a membership in the House of Commons. However, some ministers together with two cabinet ministers are in the House of Lords. It works with the House of the commons to make laws, put on check, challenge the deeds of the government, and give a platform of independent expertise. It spends 60% if its time legislating and the remaining 40% is spent on scrutiny- debating matters and questioning the government and policy. There is no actual number of the member of the House of Lords but currently there are about 800 active members. The number was at 666 in the reforms of 1999 yet, since then; the succeeding prime ministers have been increasing new life peers faster than the members of the house are dying. Historically the House of Lords’ members mostly have been hereditary peers. It means years back a monarch, king or queen, had a member or aristocracy nominated as a member of the house. After that, it has been a family thing from one generation to another (Scaliger, 2009; p21). A dismal number of other members that sum to 26 are Bishops and archbishops of the Church of England. The House of Commons has the most authority. The speaker chairs the House. Unlike the United States’ House of Representatives’ speaker, the post is not political and by convention, the Britain political parties do not contest the constituency held by the speaker. The house of the commons now consists of 650 MPs. The new government claims that plans are underway to diminish the number from 650 to 600 as part of a bigger change to size and number of constituencies. Every member of the house represents a geographical constituency that comprises mostly of around 60000-80000 in the name of voters. In the legislative process, approving of the legislation is the responsibility of both the two Houses. In every house, a Bill goes via the following phases: first reading: a Minister relevant to the Bill launches the Bill. Second reading: The House members debate the general maxims of the Bill on, and there is a process of a legal vote done. Committee stage: each schedule and clause of the Bill and amendments to them with any new schedules and classes studied in detail, in the Commons by a dismal, precisely chosen cohort of members gathers as Public Bill Committee, by the members in the lords as a one on the floor of the House. Third reading: the eventual version of the Bill is deemed by the whole house in a debate. Royal assent: the Crown gives assent to the bill that then becomes an Act, with its provisions becoming a law instantly or at a date stipulated in the act known as Commencement order (Lovell, 2003; p 54). Thirdly, we have the executive: the United Kingdom used to be an entire monarchy, with the world revolution and people being sensitized on the essence of a democratic world, it adopted a democratic system. This was to give the people of England a voice and have a say on the governing body, opposed to pure monarchy state where you were to abide by what the king or the queen says. The executive includes the crown prerogatives, the prime minister and the cabinet. The United Kingdom has no president- it has a prime minister. According to the constitution, the head of state is the monarch who is in the lineage of the Royal family. Nevertheless, the monarch has very few legal powers and remains above party politics. In practice, the most important person is the Prime Minister especially when it comes to the United Kingdom politics. In theory, he appoints the ministers who run governmental departments and heads the cabinet the collection of the very senior most of those ministers. In practice, nevertheless, the prime minister is the powerful figure and increasingly behaves like a president in other political systems, precisely in the field of foreign policy. The most vital political departments are the treasury- most states refer to this docket as the Ministry of Finance. It is accountable for the raising of all taxes and the regulation of all government expenditure and the overall management of the economy. The head of the economy has a title of the Chancellor of the Exchequer- George Osborne is currently holding this position. The home office: most states have it as a ministry of the interior affairs. It is accountable for criminal issues immigration and policing. The boss of this office has a title of the Home Secretary- Teresa May currently holds the position. The Foreign and Commonwealth office: it is accountable for all international relations, precisely the country’s membership with the EU. The head of the office is the Foreign Secretary - the position is currently in William Hague’s able hands. The other department is similar to those in other states such as education, transport, health, justice even though all ministers are answerable to the Prime Minister; ultimately, they are all accountable to parliament. Lastly, the royal prerogative applies to both Crowns in the modern times in the United Kingdom, and the ministers. It is because representatives of the Crown, instead of the Queen, make nowadays prerogatives directly, as the queen’s powers are limited, the executive members with under the authority of the queen normally exercise prerogative. Nevertheless, the queen has some powers to appoint a minister that she pleases without anyone questioning. The Crown’s representatives are normally ministers that form part of the executive. They are directly accountable to the legislative when exercising the powers of the Crown prerogatives. In conclusion, England applies law in every sensible way- whether in a political view or even a business view. The manner in which UK has separated its laws acts as an example for many developing countries. References Leeuwen, L. E., & Rombouts, W. (2010). Separation of powers in theory and practice: an international perspective. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers. Lemieux, S. (2005, September 1). Britain and Ireland 1798-1921: Changing the Question or Altering the Answers? Simon Lemieux Shows How a Synoptic Approach Enables Us to Appreciate the True Nature of the Irish Question. History Review, 3, 5. Lovell, G. I. (2003). Legislative deferrals statutory ambiguity, judicial power, and American democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Masterman, R. (2011). The separation of powers in the contemporary constitution: judicial competence and independence in the United Kingdom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Power to the people; Constitutional democracy.(Britains unheralded revolution)(The New British Constitution)(Book review). (2009, June 27). The Economist, 4, 5. Scaliger, C. (2009, July 6). Freedom and Progress: Americas Separation of Powers Was Compelled by a Strong Distrust of Government. Now, However, Many Americans Believe "Government Does It Better"-Though History Warns Otherwise. The New American, 5, 6. Separation of Powers; the New Supreme Court. (2009, October 3). The Economist, 4, 5. Read More