EVOLUTION OF THE RULE OF 3 IN GOVERNANCE

Separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary is an ancient doctrine. But it is not set in stone. It has evolved to suit the needs of the times

- ALI S NARIMAN

SEPARATION of powers was once thought to be the only sensible rule of constitutional behaviour. Fundamental differences between the three branches of government-the legislature, the executive and the judiciary prompted the conclusion that they should be separate and distinct.

But this does not reflect how democratic governments around the world actually work.

In 1920, British historian Albert Pollard wrote in his book, The Evolution of Parliament, that the doctrine of separation of powers in politics "was an ingenious attempt to reduce the infinite complexity of government to the subtle simplicity of a constitutional Rule of Three".

In the first half of the 20th century, academics who were generally hostile to the traditional tripartite theory of separation of powers argued for a system of government based on only two functions: policy and administration. This is because the problem at the centre of constitutional government today is how to achieve a balance between the different branches-a balance that will safeguard the freedom of the individual and at the same time ensure that governments provide their citizens with essential services, without which modern-day society cannot survive.

The initial doctrine of separation of powers had its roots in antiquity. Greek philosopher and polymath Aristotle (384322 BCE) first mentioned the idea of "a mixed government" in his treatise Politics.

Greek historian Polybius (200-118 BCE) later explained in some detail the system of checks and balances, crediting Spartan king Lycurgus with having established the first government of this kind.

In more recent times, scholars, governments and constitutions have approached the subject in different ways, adding layers of understanding to it.