Checks and balances as a concept of governance has existed since ancient Greece and the Roman democracy. In a organisation of checks and balances, likewise known equally the "separation of powers," government is divided into several semiautonomous branches. While the idea of separating powers is not particularly controversial, the extent to which it is implemented is.

1

Prevents Tyranny of Minority

The central concept backside checks and balances, even in antiquity, was preventing a minor grouping or a single individual from seizing and monopolising power. By separating power into distinct branches, for case, legislative, executive and judicial, each with a singled-out involvement in maintaining its stake in the political procedure, tyranny of a minority group is stymied -- within a liberal commonwealth, that is.

  • Checks and balances as a concept of governance has existed since aboriginal Greece and the Roman commonwealth.
  • By separating power into singled-out branches, for example, legislative, executive and judicial, each with a distinct interest in maintaining its pale in the political procedure, tyranny of a minority group is stymied -- inside a liberal commonwealth, that is.

2

Prevents Tyranny of Bulk

Checks and balances resolves the problem of a majority imposing tyrannical laws or imposing unreasonable laws that negatively impact the minority. James Madison, chief writer of the U.Southward. Constitution, asserted that the U.S. did not need a tyranny of the bulk: "If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will exist insecure." Other Founding Fathers held similar beliefs.

3

Promotes Self-Regulation

Inherent in the Constitution is the notion that competing factions will essentially self-demolish in terms of abuse of power. Each party in the minority position will seek to shift the residuum of power by bringing the corrupt practices of the ruling political party to light. In this style, competition between self-interested actors essentially self-regulates the power structure.

The biggest drawback of checks and balances is that it slows the governing process. Division of power normally entails cooperation and compromise between competing factions and this can, depending on the level of political polarisation, significantly wearisome the legislative process. Whereas, in a fusion of powers system, a ruling party can draft legislation and wield executive power simultaneously, a single opposing co-operative in a checks and balances system tin hold up the entire governing procedure.