Fusion of powers

Fusion of powers is a feature of parliamentary democracies, wherein the executive and legislative branches are intermingled. It is viewed as the opposite of a separation of powers found in so-called presidential democracies. Fusion of powers exists in many, if not a majority, of democracies today, and does so by design. But the system was the result of political evolution in Britain over many centuries, as the powers of the monarch and the upper house withered away, and the lower house became dominant. [http://books.google.com/books?id=Fcssj8yigS4C&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=fusion+of+powers&source=web&ots=MLbVIIxlv9&sig=65Cj8_OBt-SBXzCHkRdtxLX0PU8]

The primary characteristic of a fusion of powers is that the chief officer of the executive—be he called a prime minister, premier, chancellor, or other term—serves simultaneously as a member of the legislature. [http://www.politics.co.uk/issue-briefs/domestic-policy/legal/judicial-independence/judicial-independence-$366608.htm] The same is true for his key advisors, or cabinet. [http://www.dadalos.org/int/parteien/Grundkurs4/GB/westminster.htm] This is something that is usually expressly forbidden in a system employing a separation of powers (where a member of the legislature who wishes to take a position in the executive must resign from the legislature in order to join the executive). But within a fusion of powers, it is an essential feature. The legislature chooses the leader of the executive, he continues to serve within the legislature, and he can be removed from his executive position at the wish of the legislature.

The legislative-executive fusion is present in all parliamentary systems, and indeed, is almost a defining feature. However, in the United Kingdom, this fusion of powers goes one step further; there exists also a legislative-judicial fusion. While the courts of Great Britain are undeniably amongst the most independent in the world [http://www.politics.co.uk/issuebrief/domestic-policy/legal/judicial-independence/judicial-independence-$366608.htm] , the court-of-last-resort in the UK is the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, a subset of the upper house of Parliament composed of twelve Law Lords. This role will be changing soon, due to passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which will create a new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in 2009. But for the time being, all three of the traditionally defined branches of democratic governments are partially fused into one in the United Kingdom.

One advantage of a fusion of powers, according to promoters, is that it is easier for the government to take action. There exists virtually no way for there to be a deadlock in the manner that can sometimes occur where the legislature and executive are separated. [http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/6-lap9a.htm] Senator Eugene Forsey of Canada, a country with fusion of powers, remarks that "in Canada, the Government and the House of Commons cannot 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." [http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/idb/forsey/can_am_gov_05-e.asp]

A fusion of powers was specifically rejected by the framers of the American constitution, for fear that it tended to concentrate a dangerous level of power into one body. In modern practice, however, there does not appear to be any significant difference in the application of power between fused and separated democracies. Indeed, it may well be argued that a presidential system, in which it is nearly impossible for the legislature to remove the executive, has evolved into a more “imperial” system.

The disadvantage with a fusion of powers, ironically, is the power it gives to the executive, not the legislative, arm of government. In a fusion of powers, the head of government must have the confidence of a majority in the legislature. If the majority is made up of members of his (or her) own party, he can use his support in the legislature to control its business, thus protecting the executive from being truly accountable and at the same time passing any laws which are expedient for the government. A revolt by members of his own party (or, if the government is a coalition or minority government, by supporting parties) is possible, but party discipline, along with a tendency by many electorates to vote against unstable governments, makes such a revolt unattractive and therefore rare. Many states have responded to this by instituting or retaining multicameral legislatures, in which all houses must pass legislation in the same form. The responsible house is usually the most powerful, and is the only house with the actual power to terminate the government. Other houses, though, can often veto or at least delay controversial bills, perhaps until the government's performance can be judged by the electorate. They also provide additional forums for inquiry into the conduct of the executive. In addition, since the government's future is not at stake in other houses, members of the governing party or coalition in these houses can be freer to oppose particular government policies they disagree with. A second approach to curbing executive power is the election of the responsible house by some form of proportional representation. This often, but not necessarily, leads to coalitions or minority governments. These governments have the support of the legislature when their survival is at stake, but less absolute control over its proceedings.

In no country does there exist a “pure” fusion or separation of powers. A pure fusion of powers would probably involve government-by-committee-of-the-whole, with no one individual in charge, no one set apart as holding executive powers. A pure separation of powers would likely devolve into total stagnation, with each branch essentially becoming a political fiefdom. In reality, the fusion and separation principles are merely opposite ends of a continuum, with the most famous examples, Britain and the United States, taking up positions near—but not at—the opposite ends. Other countries are found at various points along the continuum. Most notable perhaps is the French model, known alternatively as a semi-presidential system or “mixed” presidential-parliamentary system, which exists somewhere near the middle of the spectrum. Mixed systems are being adopted by some of the newer democracies in eastern Europe. [http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:voUUBagxdU0J:www.geocities.com/Vykintas/ltupol.pdf+%22semi-presidential+systems%22+%22eastern+Europe%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6]

The term "fusion of powers" is believed to have been coined by the British authority, Walter Bagehot. [http://www.ncl.ac.uk/nuls/research/wpapers/verde1.html]