Fusion of powers

Fusion of powersis a feature of someparliamentaryforms of government where different branches of government are intermingled or fused, typically theexecutiveandlegislativebranches. It is contrasted with theseparation of powers^[1]found inpresidential,semi-presidentialanddualistic parliamentaryforms of government, where the membership of the legislative and executive powers cannot overlap. Fusion of powers exists in many, if not a majority of, parliamentary democracies, and does so by design. However, in all modern democratic polities thejudiciarydoes not possess legislative or executive powers.^[a]

The system first arose as a result of political evolution in theUnited Kingdomover many centuries, as the powers of themonarchbecame constrained byParliament.^[2]The termfusion of powersitself is believed to have been coined by theBritish constitutionalexpertWalter Bagehot.^[3]

Examples

Australia

Australia has a partially Westminster-derived parliamentary system in which the executive branch is entirely composed of members of the legislative branch.^[4]Government ministers are required to be members of parliament—but the federal judiciary strictly guards its independence from the other two branches.^[5]

Canada

Canada, like other parliamentary countries using theWestminster system,has a fusion between the executive and the legislative branches, with thePrime Ministerand otherCabinet ministersbeing members of Parliament. SenatorEugene ForseyofCanadaremarked that "in Canada, theGovernmentand theHouse of Commonscannot be at odds for more than a few weeks at a time. If they differ on any matter of importance, then, promptly, there is either a new government or a new House of Commons. "^[6]However, the two branches have distinct roles, and in certain instances can come into conflict with each other. For example, in June 2021, theSpeaker of the House of Commonsdirected a member of the public service to comply with an order of the House of Commons to share certain documents with the Commons, and the public servant refused to do so. The federal government announced that it would challenge the Speaker's ruling in the Federal Court,^[7]but dropped the lawsuit in August when Parliament was dissolved for afederal election.^[8]

Denmark

TheDanish governmentrelies on theconfidenceof the parliament,Folketinget,to stay in power. If there is a successfulmotion of no confidenceagainst the government, it collapses and either a new government is formed or new elections are called. The executive branch thus relies on the legislative branch.

France

The currentFrench Fifth Republicprovides an example of the fusion of powers from a country that does not follow theWestminster system.Rather France follows a model known alternatively as asemi-presidential systemor 'mixed presidential-parliamentary' system, which exists somewhere betweenparliamentary democraciesandpresidential democracies.

Israel

Israel has a Westminster-derived parliamentary system, in which theGovernmentis generally made up of members of theKnesset,Israel's parliament. It is legally possible in Israel to appoint ministers who are not members of Knesset, but that is usually not done. By law, thePrime MinisterandDeputy Prime Ministermust be members of Knesset.^[9]

Sweden

The parliamentary system in Sweden has since its new constitution in 1974 instituted a fusion of powers whereby the principle of "popular sovereignty" serves as the guiding light of principle of government and forms the first line of the constitution.^[10]

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom is generally considered the country with the strongest fusion of powers. Until 2005, theLord Chancellorwas a full fusion of all branches, beingspeaker in the House of Lords,a government minister heading theLord Chancellor's Department,and head of the judiciary.

Notes

^However, the independence of a judicial organ is not absolute, nor is there any guarantee that a judicial organ of a state will remain, or has the right to be, independent, as in many states with asovereign legislaturethe legislature has the right to alter or abolish any of the judicial organs of that state. SeeJudicial functions of the House of Lordsas an example.

References

^Montesquieu,The Spirit of Laws
^Martin C. Needler (1991).The Concepts of Comparative Politics.Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 116.ISBN 978-0-275-93653-2.
^The Harmonious Constitution
^"Chapter 2".Parliament of Australia.Archived fromthe originalon 2 October 2017.Retrieved2 October2017.
^SeeAustralian Communist Party v Commonwealth[1951] HCA 5,AustLII^{[permanent dead link]}
^"How Canadians Govern Themselves".Library of Parliament, Canada.
^Fife, Robert (June 23, 2021)."Liberals take House Speaker to court to block release of unredacted records about fired scientists".The Globe and Mail.
^Bronskill, Jim; Bryden, Joan (August 17, 2021)."Ottawa drops court quest to keep documents on scientists' firing under wraps".The Globe and Mail.
^"Basic Law: The Government (2001)".
^"Documents and laws".

[2] However, the independence of a judicial organ is not absolute, nor is there any guarantee that a judicial organ of a state will remain, or has the right to be, independent, as in many states with asovereign legislaturethe legislature has the right to alter or abolish any of the judicial organs of that state. SeeJudicial functions of the House of Lordsas an example.

[1] Montesquieu,The Spirit of Laws

[Needler1991-3] Martin C. Needler (1991).The Concepts of Comparative Politics.Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 116.ISBN 978-0-275-93653-2.

[4] The Harmonious Constitution

[5] "Chapter 2".Parliament of Australia.Archived fromthe originalon 2 October 2017.Retrieved2 October2017.

[6] SeeAustralian Communist Party v Commonwealth[1951] HCA 5,AustLII^{[permanent dead link]}

[7] "How Canadians Govern Themselves".Library of Parliament, Canada.

[8] Fife, Robert (June 23, 2021)."Liberals take House Speaker to court to block release of unredacted records about fired scientists".The Globe and Mail.

[9] Bronskill, Jim; Bryden, Joan (August 17, 2021)."Ottawa drops court quest to keep documents on scientists' firing under wraps".The Globe and Mail.

[10] "Basic Law: The Government (2001)".

[11] "Documents and laws".

[1]

[a]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]