"The Caliphate and the Imamate in Islamic Thought" Series
By the Writer and Thinker Thaer Salama - Abu Malek
Seventy-first Episode: Separation of Powers in the Western System, a Principle That Does Not Exist in Reality!
Authority in the Western system is formed by the existence of three types of powers: the legislative power, which is represented by the parliament, the executive power, represented by the state, its agencies and ministries, and the judicial power. The principle of separation of powers constitutes a foundation of the principles they theorize for the legal state. One of the biggest tricks practiced by the democratic system is: the so-called separation of the three powers, executive, legislative and judicial.
This is not the place to elaborate on its refutation, and the purpose of this book is not to investigate all aspects of error in this Western system, but rather to point out the most important contradictions in it. By studying reality, we find that the legislative authority in it is based on elections that bring to parliament members chosen by the people to represent them, and these in Western countries always represent major political parties that are competing for power. The party that obtains a parliamentary majority forms the executive authority, and here the first overlap between the authorities begins. The legislative has mixed with the executive! Therefore, the ruling party can enact laws that it deems consistent with its program, so it drafts the bill and then votes on it in parliament, and it has a majority in parliament, so the law passes easily, achieving the values that the ruling party wants to impose. Here, the executive authority interferes with the legislative authority. One of the forms of interference between the authorities is the major role of the president in appointing and dismissing judges of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the judiciary, which is appointed and changed by a decision of the executive authority, is not completely independent. Likewise, the Constitutional Court reviews laws and prevents laws that conflict with the constitution. It goes without saying that the constitution is drafted by a group of legal experts and judges, and if it is said that parliament is referred to in order to approve their constitution, then it is an embodiment of the interference of powers. In any case, the intervention of judges in enacting constitutions is an intervention in the legislative authority, and the legislators in reality are judges and lawyers, who draft bills and submit them to parliament for a vote. The role of the legislative authority is voting, not codification. Then, when the judiciary decides on cases, it looks at similar cases that have been decided by judges (as in the Canadian system, it looks at whether judges in Canadian or English courts have ruled on similar cases?). Thus, the law is applied based on what is in the courts, unless parliament enacts a law that does not violate the constitution.
Likewise, the issue of the legislative authority's confidence in the government, i.e., in the executive authority, or the withdrawal of confidence, thus toppling the government, constitutes an overlap between the two authorities. The government that is exposed to the confidence of the legislative authority is not independent.
If the ruling party has a simple majority and relies on small parties to form the government, its decisions are mortgaged to it and its will, and suddenly the small party, which has a few representatives, controls the decisions of the government because if it withdraws from the coalition, the government will fall, and this is another form of exploitation of power and its concentration in the hands of the few. Thus, dozens of examples can be given that show the interference of powers and their concentration in the hands of the few. Thus, you find that the powers overlap and cannot be separated practically.
We will find three types of violations of the concept of democracy,
The first: when the ruling party enacts laws that represent what it pledged in its electoral program, these laws may be said to represent in some way the majority that brought the party to power, and therefore represent the opinion of the people, and have a force based on this representation, but the scrutinizing view finds that democracy does not achieve the arrival of any of the parties or personalities to power based on the opinion of the majority, but always represents the opinion of the minority, and therefore these laws that agreed with the electoral program do not represent the opinion of the majority,
The second type of laws are those that the ruling party enacts as a result of its presence in power, which were not part of its electoral program, and this represents the majority of laws, and the party is exploiting its parliamentary weight and its ability to impose laws, and does not refer in any of these laws to the opinion of the people, and their election of him does not constitute a meaning of their approval of those laws! This is the essence of exceeding democracy, abusing power, and controlling people. As an example of this, the ruling party in some democratically advanced Western countries has imposed a law requiring the establishment of LGBTQ clubs in every school (middle and high school) in the state, so that the student enters it by his choice and the school has no right to inform the parents of their son or daughter's sexual orientations, nor their practices in it, and in another state it imposed the introduction of filthy sex education to schools from the lower elementary grades, despite the strong opposition from wide sectors of society and religious schools, and these laws were not part of the electoral program, and were not subject to any popular referendum on them, and this is an example of the abuse of power, and the interference of the executive authority with the legislative authority in a blatant manner.
The third type: Likewise, you see that political parties set their programs and visions, and prevent their members and those who enter the fray of elections representing them, prevent them from adopting any opinion contrary to those visions. For example, in the Canadian Liberal Party, we find that some candidates in the elections, when the press asked them about their opinion on homosexuality, and they expressed opinions contrary to the party's opinion, the party expelled them, and so on. The deputies who enter parliament, and who will vote on draft laws, do not have the right to deviate from the visions of the parties they represent (except in rare cases and in what is of secondary importance in the laws). The scrutinizing observer finds that the laws enacted by the parties represent the opinion of a minority controlling those parties, setting their visions, and setting the laws that achieve these visions in reality, and this represents the pinnacle of legislative tyranny in the guise of a legal state!
1- Remember that we said the following: Democracy is based on three main pillars: the first is: judging by the opinion of the majority in society, the second is: preventing the concentration of powers in the hands of the minority, or exploiting them, and the third is: the representation of the authorities for the opinion of the people,
2- The website monitors: http://www.electionresources.org the results of elections around the world, the percentage of voters, and the percentage by which the candidate won. The highest participation rate in elections is that in Cyprus, more than 83 percent of those eligible to vote participated in the elections. Here is a table showing the percentage by which candidate Nikos Anastasiadis won in the presidential elections, which is the percentage that was claimed to be a majority, but in reality represents 36.7% of the percentage of voters' votes, so it is definitely not a majority as the democratic system claims. Based on this percentage, the candidate won:
Elections
Date
Voters:
Voters
Voting rate
Winner
Number of votes
Percentage of voters' votes
Percentage of voters' votes
Cypriot presidential elections
February 17, 2013
545,491
453,534
83.1%
Nikos Anastasiadis
200,591
45.5%
36.7%
