On Checks and Balance: The need for Democratic Competence and Separation of Power

 

By Akande Aanuoluwapo  

Although definitions of democracy may vary, they all share a core principle: democracy is the government of the people. This implies a government accepted by the people (legitimacy), one that protects and expresses the rights and freedoms of its citizens and ensures equal treatment for all (justice). 

Democracy can be practiced directly, where all citizens participate in decision-making, or indirectly, through representatives who make decisions on behalf of the people. Countries like Nigeria and many others operate under the latter system. 

A democratic government is characterized by legitimacy, freedom of speech, and justice. But how can a democratic country uphold these principles? How can it ensure that the rights of the people are protected, and that there is equal representation and distribution of power? This is where the separation of powers comes into play. 

Separation of powers means that the major government institutions are functionally independent, and no individual holds powers that span these institutions. These institutions typically include the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. 

Therefore, separation of powers ensures that those who make the laws are not the same as those who execute them, and those who review the laws are different from those who make or execute them. Each of these organs operates independently, preventing any one branch from having too much power. 

This principle helps uphold democracy by preventing arbitrary rule and ensuring that power is not concentrated in a single organ. For example, the executive cannot interfere in the administration of justice by the courts, and the judiciary cannot perform the tasks of the executive or legislature. 

Under the separation of powers, the judiciary's independence is crucial as it ensures justice, fair hearing, and holds the government accountable for its actions. Imagine a country where the executive controls the judiciary. In such a scenario, it would be difficult for the judiciary to make fair decisions in conflicts between the executive and ordinary citizens, as there would be a bias towards the executive. 

Upholding the principle of separation of powers also allows for checks and balances. The judiciary can limit the actions of the legislature, the legislature can check the actions of the executive, and vice versa. 

Just as the separation of powers and judicial independence are pivotal to a strong democratic government, so is a free press. An independent press is essential to freedom of expression and the democratic process. Like the judiciary, the press holds the government accountable, upholds justice, and checks governmental activities. In the U.S., the press is sometimes called the fourth branch because it plays a crucial role in providing citizens with information to check government power. 

Imagine the press being controlled by the executive. This would limit its ability to report fairly and uphold justice, as it would be biased towards the executive. 

Unfortunately, the FHR aims to limit the independence and freedom of the press by incorporating it into the publications committee, headed by the PRO, a member of the executive body. This move undermines the democratic process, as it places the press, an independent body, under the control of an executive member. 

The press seeks to ensure accountability of political leaders, enhance justice, and inform the public objectively about matters of interest. For a society like FATSSSA, the autonomy of the press must be reinforced