A government usually has three branches; executives, judiciaries
and legislatures – these branches are involved in making, implementing and interpreting
the law.
Checks and balances help in regulating the government and
all its branches – it is basically the counterbalancing influences which make
sure that power does not end up in the hands of one branch or sect.
Why is such a system needed? Without checks and balances the
government would always have the incentive to abuse power. Also,
since there would be no controlling force the different branches may clash with
one another in trying to get the most power. The result would be havoc and
chaos.
But the real question is does such a system work?
Theoretically, it works well – the United States has a procedure which states
that the legislature must introduce and vote on a bill, this bill is then
passed to the president. Once he signs the bill the law is official.
Realistically, there are loopholes in the system. This can
be seen from the fact that corruption exists in the government and conclusively
people suffer. Checks and balances can only work if the people behind the
picture really want it to.
1 comment:
I agree with your point that the systems are designed in a way that allows to keep checks and balances on trouble makers but it ultimately jots down to the implementation aspect. However, i would like to add that at times the people in the system are so closely linked that it is difficult to bring accountability on the table without a large number of officials being dragged into the problem.
Post a Comment