Myth of separation

The idea of separation of powers is often hailed as a foundational principle of modern governance, but it doesn’t necessarily focus on empowering ordinary citizens.

At its core, it’s about dividing power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches within a system that primarily serves the interests of the elite. While it’s celebrated as a safeguard against tyranny and a way to uphold democratic values, in practice, it often falls short of these ideals. Instead of ensuring true democracy or protecting citizens’ rights, it often functions more as a way to manage and balance power within the ruling class.

The concept of separation of powers originated in a time before modern democracies existed, serving as a framework to distribute authority among a small group of political, economic, and institutional elites. This division doesn’t necessarily prioritise genuine accountability or inclusivity in governance. Rather, it functions to maintain stability within existing power structures, ensuring that no single faction or individual within the elite can dominate unchecked. While it may create the illusion of fairness and balance, it often leaves broader societal participation on the sidelines, restricting the redistribution of power to the general public.

When Montesquieu introduced the theory in The Spirit of Laws (1748), he viewed it as a safeguard against tyranny. His vision involved dividing government power into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. Inspired by the British constitutional system of his time, Montesquieu admired how the monarchy, parliament and judiciary worked independently to check and balance each other. However, this vision was shaped in an era dominated by aristocratic and monarchical rule, where power was concentrated among a small elite. The checks and balances he championed were not necessarily meant to democratise governance or empower the people – they were primarily mechanisms for managing power-sharing among the ruling classes.

In this context, the separation of powers was a tool for stabilising the power dynamics within the elite, ensuring that no one faction or individual could monopolize control. Far from a framework designed for democratic inclusivity, it served to preserve elite interests, shielding them from popular interference.

Even in today’s so-called ‘democracies’, the legacy of elite dominance within the separation of powers remains deeply entrenched. While the expansion of voting rights and participatory mechanisms is often hailed as progress, these processes are frequently shaped – and sometimes overtly manipulated – by powerful establishments. These elites have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, a system built on inequality and exploitation, where class divisions remain rigid. The dynamic stifles meaningful change and sustains a facade of inclusivity, all while protecting the privileges of the ruling elite.

In Pakistan, for instance, lawmakers from the treasury benches often present themselves as champions of democracy and defenders of the people’s rights. They regularly criticise judicial overreach, portraying it as a threat to democratic norms. At the same time, they dismiss media criticism as nothing more than noise or nuisance, only acknowledging it when it threatens their electoral chances. When public opinion, shaped by media scrutiny, starts to affect their prospects, they often resort to superficial measures designed to temporarily placate the public.

Similarly, their response to public protests follows a predictable pattern. Treasury bench parliamentarians tend to downplay or dismiss demonstrations, often blaming them on opposition forces with their own agendas.

Public protests, no matter how genuine, are frequently dismissed as staged drama rather than legitimate expressions of public grievance. Even when opposition parties disrupt proceedings in assemblies, their actions are often labelled as commotion, reducing serious political debate to a spectacle rather than treating it as an effort to hold the government accountable.

Since Pakistan’s independence in 1947, successive leaders – whether in military uniform or civilian clothing – have consistently failed to uphold even the most basic rights enshrined in the constitution. Article 9 guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, covering essential rights necessary for human dignity and well-being. Yet, these rights have been consistently neglected, leaving large segments of the population without adequate resources. Public services remain subpar, and the digital divide continues to widen, while environmental degradation and water pollution further erode the quality of life.

Despite the broad scope of Article 9, it remains largely an unfulfilled promise. Successive governments have failed to enforce these rights, perpetuating inequality and disregarding their responsibility to citizens. This failure undermines not only the constitution but also the social contract, leaving many people without the basic necessities for a dignified, secure life.

On the other hand, both the opposition and the treasury benches recognise, and often publicly assert, that criticism and the right to create a commotion are essential rights of the opposition. The treasury benches, however, only object to this right when the opposition poses a significant challenge to their control or threatens their unchecked use of public resources. This selective objection undermines the very democratic principle of accountability.

So, what should be the true role of the opposition? The opposition’s primary responsibility is to safeguard the rights of the people. Their focus should be on strengthening rule of law, improving governance, and addressing the concerns of the common citizens – not merely protecting the interests of their leaders or party. In a healthy democracy, the opposition must rise above partisan interests and avoid falling into the trap of personal or political gain. Their role is to ensure that the government is held accountable and that the needs of the people are placed at the heart of legislative efforts.

What is urgently needed now is a reimagining of the separation of powers. This redefined framework should move beyond the traditional division between the executive, legislature, and judiciary – branches that remain controlled by the ruling elite – and focus on establishing a true balance of power between these institutions and the people.

The writer is an advocate of the high court and a former civil servant.