Separation of Powers

[Orcris]

Would there be a system of checks and balances in a socialist state? In bourgeois democracy, the government is divided into different branches so that one of them doesn't get too much power. Under soviet democracy, on the other hand, the soviets have both legislative and executive power. How do you prevent them from abusing this power?

In individual communes, you can have recall elections, but I'm guessing that it would be difficult to recall somebody from the regional or national soviets. Do you think that there should be a separate executive branch to prevent the national soviet from abusing its power?

[Deity]

The best way to prevent the state from abusing power is to have no state.

[WelcomeToTheParty]

Why would it necessarily be difficult to recall someone from a regional or national soviet? If the majority of the voters wanted them gone they would be gone.

Who would the executive branch represent in your separation of powers? And what about the legislature? Are they the same people? What would be the point since we've already got accountability in the form of recall.

[Orcris]

Based on my understanding of soviet democracy (which could be wrong), the members of the national soviet would need to be recalled by the provincial soviets, rather than the people. Then, the provincial soviets would need to be recalled by the town soviets. Only the town soviets could be directly recalled by the people. Because of this setup, it would be difficult for people to recall members of the national soviet.

Also, I was thinking that the executive branch could be elected by the national soviet similar to a prime minister in a parliamentary system. This would make it so that laws need to go through both the national soviet and the executive, rather than giving the soviet both legislative and executive power.

[WelcomeToTheParty]

Based on my understanding of soviet democracy (which could be wrong), the members of the national soviet would need to be recalled by the provincial soviets, rather than the people. Then, the provincial soviets would need to be recalled by the town soviets. Only the town soviets could be directly recalled by the people. Because of this setup, it would be difficult for people to recall members of the national soviet.


Would that necessarily have to be the case though? I don't see any problem with direct recall and I think that would be the best way to keep government accountable to the proletariat. And could you explain what benefit exactly comes from the separation of legislature and executive? If the democracy was functioning properly the executive and legislature would be of exactly the same mind because they would be the expression of the same will of the proletariat so it seems like an unnecessary duplication.

[Bardo]

Personally, I don't see what is so valuable in separating government into various branches. The need to do so indicates mistrust in the structure of the system itself, having to separate one process from another when the most important check on the state is democratic participation. In a democratic system of governance, decisions are made based on the democratic process, rather than on the decisions of two or three houses of government.

If a recall function is a working practice and participation is high, there is no need for such divisions in government. The will of the proletariat can be executed through a single government channel.

[BIXX]

I feel that I agree with the sentiment that we should avoid that system you seemed to cite, as it seems like a baby state.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Would there be a system of checks and balances in a socialist state? In bourgeois democracy, the government is divided into different branches so that one of them doesn't get too much power. Under soviet democracy, on the other hand, the soviets have both legislative and executive power. How do you prevent them from abusing this power?

In individual communes, you can have recall elections, but I'm guessing that it would be difficult to recall somebody from the regional or national soviets. Do you think that there should be a separate executive branch to prevent the national soviet from abusing its power?

I think there may be methods used by people to balance different areas with eachother - like how do workplace and community decision-making bodies interact with eachother, does one over-ride the decisions of another if they are not in harmony, how can people ensure a fair way of dealing with these things in the early years where a lot more collective decisions and reorganization will probably be needed?

But I don't think we should or would want to have the formal "seperation of power" like in bourgois govenrments. For one thing, my impression of this is not to protect on branch from dominating others (which in the US system happenes every several decades... legislature will dominate the executive, the Judicial will be more "activist", the executive will take more power and dominate the other branches). I think as the US system developed, the seperation of powers has been useful in actually keeping popular demands from going too far "too fast". An executive can say that this or that refom "won't pass congress, or will be struck down in the courts" and the legislature can do the same... the Judiciary is just a monarchy, so it doesn't matter as much what they say, but they will also pass the buck and say that it's not an issue for the courts, etc.

Any process or formal democracy for workers, would have to be designed to facilitate popular demands and dictates, not sort of mediate and moderate them.

[Nevsky]

Separation of powers was one of the most important inventions of classic liberal political theory. It proved to be incredibly successful throughout recent history; its absence was one of the reasons why states like the GDR collapsed. Most of 89's "peaceful revolutionaries" were not protesting against the socialist model of economy but against the ridiculously corrupt, crusted political structure. A socialist state would benefit from fully independent courts which only obey the law, not the party. If that's not the case, people will think they live in a "totalitarian" hellhole. Of course, separation of executive and legislative would have little reason to exist once the state withered away.

[Clarksist]

Personally, I don't see what is so valuable in separating government into various branches. The need to do so indicates mistrust in the structure of the system itself, having to separate one process from another when the most important check on the state is democratic participation.

I think that there are some possible benefits to branches of government, and I agree that this is based on a mistrust of the system itself.

I'm not sure what the best form of division would be, which is unfortunate because it makes discussing difficult since you have to deal with a counter-position that you have no direct way to analyze but I think the sentiment of my post might give us something helpful to think about.

Multiple divisions could give popular movements multiple avenues for political change. Take most liberal democracies, some progress (and conservative backpedaling, no doubt) is made through referendum, through legislating, and even through the courts (just take reproductive rights in the US, for example). We could take some of the ideas from the liberal democracies, but we would need to put it under proletarian control.

I just think that we shouldn't put all of our faith in any one set-up as a rule. The mistrust you spoke of is important, and a healthy democracy would involve mistrust, I think. If there was some sort of legal review branch (like the judicial in the US, I'm sorry but I'm from the US and lack the education to speak confidently about other governments) there could be checks on certain local conservatism. Say there is a nationally elected or controlled judicial branch which could override idiosyncratic local laws that persecute people undemocratically... again sorry for the vagueness.

[Bardo]

The mistrust you spoke of is important, and a healthy democracy would involve mistrust, I think.

By "mistrust" I mean not only in the ability for the system to work to our advantage, but in the democratic process. As Jimmie touched on, unnecessary divisions in government can act as speed bumps or barriers for popular demands. With a direct and transparent channel for the proletariat to put through popular demands, without the reliance on separate houses of government, we'll be able to execute these demands much quicker and much more effectively. Problems arise when participation is heavily restricted and an oligarchy is responsible for the decision making, whether through the party or through bourgeois style democracy regardless of separation of powers.

[Akshay!]

The best way to prevent the state from abusing power is to have no state.

Nice slogan. Now if we come back to the real world again, can you explain how exactly would you not have a state if only one country has become socialist? Are you suggesting (like that other "anarchist") that suddenly all other states would magically go away? :confused:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Nice slogan. Now if we come back to the real world again, can you explain how exactly would you not have a state if only one country has become socialist? Are you suggesting (like that other "anarchist") that suddenly all other states would magically go away? :confused:

One country can't 'become' Socialist. Capitalism and Socialism are modes of production, not mere ideologies. A mode of production cannot exist in one country; that is, autarky cannot exist well in one country, i.e. it's extremely unlikely that one 'Socialist' country would be able to do better if it had an autarkical method of production than if it subsumed itself into the capitalist world. It might have some measurable welfare improvements that are certainly not worth overlooking, particularly in the context of capitalism (e.g. Cuba), but overall it's going to struggle, in the context of what Socialist is meant to promise and achieve (e.g. Cuba again).

A red flag and a 'communist party' in power does not = Socialism. A progressive party, or even a party that wishes to bring about Socialism, may be able to alter the labour process in a country, may be able to bring about some incremental gains in welfare, in democratic participation, and these things should not be taken for granted, but they will not be able to unilaterally destroy the capitalist mode of production and replace it.

[blake 3:17]

Separations of powers are quite essential to a socialist democracy. And the building of a socialist society doesn't happen over night.

In any large scale, there'd need to be combinations of direct and representative democracy, as well as institutions having some relative autonomy from society as a whole.

[LifeIs2Short]

Really I think power should be used by the masses in a directly democratic fashion, but I think a system of constitutional courts protecting human rights need to be in place to prevent a 'tyranny of majority'.

[Vercingetorix]

A reverse of the organizational structure that we have in the modern state, where local power is supreme in most ways, and national power is supreme in fewer ways. The closer the authority is to the individual within a society, the more just society will become.

Our current systems are upside down, where centralized power is supreme, and local power is limited.

Decentralization of a socialist state is the only way to prevent abuse.

[Blake's Baby]

Seperation of powers is good in capitlism. It prevents any one faction of the bourgeoisie getting all the power.

Seperation of powers is rubbish in socialism. It prevents workers taking action.

[Orange Juche]

Seperation of powers is good in capitlism. It prevents any one faction of the bourgeoisie getting all the power.

Seperation of powers is rubbish in socialism. It prevents workers taking action.

One could argue in socialism it would prevent one faction of workers from taking all the power and essentially destroying a socialist system from the inside.

[blake 3:17]

Seperation of powers is good in capitlism. It prevents any one faction of the bourgeoisie getting all the power.

Seperation of powers is rubbish in socialism. It prevents workers taking action.

And making stupid wreckless decisions. Good or popular ideas aren't necessarily good practices.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There clearly has to be some separation of powers. But most people are so un-imaginative that when they heard the phrase 'separation of powers', they immediately think that what we need is grey bureaucrats in the legislature and grey bureaucrats in the judiciary to check the power of those wreckless revolutionary thinkers in the executive.

When I think of separation of powers, I think of something more dynamic: separate powers between local and central levels. But in a way that truly gives power to local communities, and establishes a non-static model of power; one where there is always a balance of power to be struck between local, regional and global interests. Abolish parties. Abolish 'central governments' in the way that we know them. Give the power to initiate executive decisions to local councils of workers, and instead have checking mechanisms at the central level.