Checks and Balances

Power is intoxicating. It is capable of corrupting the noble; of bringing out the worst in men. Men like Hitler and Stalin were born human; power turned them into monsters.

In democracies, people delegate political power to their leaders. A well-designed democracy dilutes that power by dividing it. The trick is to create many power centres which can regulate one another. Like in a truly democratic household; the husband, the wife, and the children all have their say in a debate. The master of the house will sometimes have the last word; at other times his wife may overrule him. The children can often persuade or force the parents to give them what they want. This power struggle is evident when the family shops together or decides which movie to go to.

On a national scale, restrictions are placed on powers of a single leader or a group to minimise or eliminate the possibility of a dictatorship.

Civilised societies have five centres of power, each controlling the others and acting as a counterbalancing force.

1.       Legislative: The lawmakers. The Congress in the USA, parliament in the UK or India, ‘Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union’ succeeded by the ‘Federal assembly of Russia’ are all examples of bodies that have the power to make laws. Such legislative bodies can be split into an upper and a lower house. In the UK, the lower house is the House of Commons, similarly translated in India (Lok Sabha). Though called a lower house, it is more powerful than the upper house, the House of Lords (Rajya Sabha). The Senate is the upper chamber in the USA, and House of Representatives the lower. ‘Soviet of the nationalities’ and ‘Soviet of the Union’ were the odd-sounding Soviet equivalents. Their successors are the ‘State Duma’ (lower) and ‘Federation Council’ (upper). The two-house system was historically introduced to offer one chamber to the aristocrats and the other to common people.

2.      Executive: Donald Trump, Theresa May, Narendra Modi, Vladimir Putin and their cabinets belong to the executive branch. To confuse everyone, India has a President who is the Head of State. I suspect this was in lieu of the monarch (UK’s Head of State) India lost at the time of gaining independence.

3.      Judiciary: The courts. While legislative branch makes the law, and the executive branch enforces it, the judiciary is responsible for interpreting it. Soviet Union had and Russia has courts that look similar to courts elsewhere. I will discuss later what makes them different.

Legislative, executive and judiciary are the three official power centres in the modern civilised world. At one time, Religion as represented by the clergy was a key power centre. Only a few Islamic societies like Iran are still ruled by theocracy.

4.      Media: Television and press, although not official, can be extremely powerful. Through reports, investigation, stories and at times persistent campaigning, media is capable of damaging the reputation of or bringing down anybody.

5.      Social media: This is a relatively new power centre, born after the internet revolution. Social media represents public opinion. Joined as a force, people are capable of counterbalancing another power centre.

In India, due to overpopulation, human beings and vehicles are constantly fighting for space on the roads. When a mob patiently waiting to cross the road reaches its tolerance limit, it simply decides to cross. The vehicles capable of killing them stop and wait until everyone crosses. Sometimes a similar ‘people power’ is exercised by groups (activists, lobbyists) to provoke actions from the government or parliament.

United States of America

United States of America is a great, possibly the greatest, country in this respect.  In a mind-bogglingly complex but beautiful design, the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches are given power over one another so that no action can be unilaterally taken. Trump repeatedly issued executive orders to ban entry of people from seven Muslim countries into the US. Various courts stayed those orders. Trump pushed through the health bill to replace Obamacare. His own party members in the Senate rejected it. On the other hand, Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, tilting the balance in favour of the Republicans. A Supreme Court judge is nominated by the president and grilled by the Senate before approving him. The president may veto laws made by congress, and the congress may override the veto. Confusing?

While all this is happening, CNN is running a sustained campaign to topple Trump. Late night comedians are now full-time anti-Trump and their shows are posted and shared on Twitter and Facebook. FBI is investigating the Trump family’s connections to Russia and the election fraud. To top it all, in an unprecedented move, the Air Force General John Hyten said a week ago that he will resist any illegal nuclear strike order from Trump.

This is one country where the checks and balances work in practice. There is no way Trump can become dictatorial or get anything nasty done during his term.

The maximum term of eight years for a president is another thing the Americans should be proud of. UK and India don’t have it. Mexico has only one term of six years. It functions so well that since 1934, each president has enjoyed six years, not a day more, not a day less.

As far as I know, only Uganda had an upper age limit of 75 years. Its current president is 73 years old. In order to retain power, he has managed to scrap the upper age limit this year. It is to America’s credit that the 8-year term has not been violated (even when it was felt that retaining Obama would have been better than electing Hillary or Trump).

India

I don’t think any other country has as many political parties or candidates as India. An election can be won by a candidate getting 5% votes, outsmarting the other forty candidates. Coalition is the norm. The partners bicker, fight, causing a downfall of the coalition at times.

The current Indian government has a strong mandate. They have managed to push certain reforms that weaker governments couldn’t. This is excellent.

However, over the past two years, India’s ruling party (BJP) has attempted to remove or dilute the checks and balances. The finance minister long argued that the government should be authorised to appoint the judges (like in the USA). The Indian judiciary has preferred to appoint the judges itself. This inbreeding is not good in itself, but is a lesser evil compared to a political party appointing them. (Ideal would be a third party, a committee of independent competent assessors, appointing them).

The Governor of the Reserve Bank of India was supposed to be independent. In 2016, the independent governor was let go prematurely, and was replaced by a yes-man who allowed the blunder of demonetisation to take place. Checks and balances didn’t work in practice.

The two year emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi in 1975 had to be signed off by the president of India. He signed it, and allowed India to fall under dictatorship. The post of the President of India has failed to control the executive branch. It is aptly called a ‘rubber stamp’. India should consider abolishing the post.

Free media and a very vibrant social media, therefore, are India’s saviours. No other country on earth occupies so much space on Facebook and twitter, or so overwhelmingly criticises their own government.

The independent judiciary, though occasionally incompetent or corrupt; the aggressive media; and an overpowering freedom of expression on social media make dictatorship in India improbable.

United Kingdom

United Kingdom similar to the USA has many checks and balances. Brexit was fought tooth and nail by the public (Gina Miller), the courts (The Supreme Court in Jan 2017 made parliamentary approval mandatory for triggering article 50). The UK parliament has now ensured it will scrutinise the final draft before approving it. Theresa May’s plan to usurp power and push for a hard Brexit is already foiled by the competing power centres.

The anomaly in the UK is that a monarch is its Head. In theory, the Queen is above everything. The courts, the church and the government report to her.

One acid test to verify whether the checks and balances work is to see not its theoretical formulation, but practical functioning. The queen could have stopped Brexit by not signing. (Read my short story: The Royal Assent).  Not only she, but all the queens and kings in the last 300 years, have signed every document they are asked to sign. The institution of monarchy doesn’t function as the Head of the State, it’s a farce. Monarchy should be abolished not because republicans want its abolition, but because it has become a farce.

Soviet Union

Little to write here. Soviet Union was a totalitarian society, where the power of the General secretary and politburo was unchecked and unrestricted. Frightened by the cruelty of Stalin and whimsical autocracy of Khrushchev; Brezhnev and his successors tried to enforce a “collective leadership”. This is attempted in China as well. Collective leadership generally means the group of leaders (politburo) backing the opinions of the supreme leader; in the case of the Soviets, the General Secretary. 

Russia

Yeltsin was a democrat. He still ruled by decrees and when the occasion demanded silenced the parliament by bombing it.

In Putin’s Russia, the parliament and the judiciary conform to the president’s line. If an opposition candidate (e.g. Navalny) is uncomfortable, a speedy court process holds him guilty and gives a minor sentence that is major enough to disqualify him.

Putin has abandoned the principle of ‘collective leadership’. His politburo has frequently changed.

Russian media is state controlled. Except a radio station ‘Ekho Moskvy’, and a few small-circulation newspapers, the media rarely speak against Putin or the government.

On Facebook, the only Russians who criticise the political rulers are those living out of Russia. Fear is in the DNA of older Russians. And the younger Russians, like the young anywhere, are not interested in politics. (They will be if Russia were to become totalitarian again, but by then it will be too late).

Violating the two term restriction by making Medvedev a puppet president for four years was an unconscionable deception. Extending the consecutive maximum from 8 years to 12 years was a political fraud. I don’t know why the Putin critics think he will step down in 2024. He is a fit judo player and will be only 72 in 2024. He can once again invite Medvedev for a brief period before assuming presidency himself. When no checks and balances exist, this process can be continued till the end of his life.

To decide if today’s Russia is a dictatorship, it is irrelevant how competent or conscientious or great Vladimir Putin is. Political power is concentrated in his hands with no checks or counterbalancing power. 

It is indeed unfortunate that 100 years after the revolution, the Russian state continues to be classified as a dictatorship.

If the choice is between ‘progress under dictatorship’ and ‘stagnation under democracy’, I personally prefer stagnation, even chaos, under democracy. (Worse is stagnation under dictatorship, which is what happened in Brezhnev’s time). 

Summary: (a) Essential to study the checks and balancing power centres that exist in your country.

(b) Fictitious power centres such as the British monarch or the President of India contribute nothing (as a control mechanism), but are a huge cost centre. They should be scrapped.

(b) Concentration of power in the hands of a single person or a small group is dictatorship, irrespective of how good or competent the person is.

(c) Social media, the fifth power centre, is one the common man has access to. For those willing to maintain democracy in their country, that power centre should be used by fearlessly writing against dilution of checks and balances.

Ravi