Agree strongly with this. Not least coming from the Westminster tradition where separation of powers as understood in the USA traditionally doesn't apply. A recent paper I coauthored for the Policy Exchange think tank argues that Ministerial power has been too fragmented and needs to be restored, opposing the slavish imitation of US customs reflected in things like renaming the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords the 'supreme court'. https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/getting-a-grip-on-the-system-2/
From some people's perspective this analysis would miss the historical existence of decentralized power structures that were pervasive throughout West during large swath of its history, at least in the geographically western parts of the West, for example, for most of England's history it had a king, yet for at least large swaths of it also had effective separation of powers which during its best and most culturally, economically, and scientifically productive time periods worked quite well, elements such as borough corporations or parish officers effectively created separations of power at a local level and during those high quality time periods were both strong and worked quite well. And there are many other examples from Europe's past that demonstrate a functional separation of powers, even without a formal, modern framework. In the medieval and early modern periods, the power of guilds in many European cities served as a serious counterbalance to both the nobility and nascent national governments. Guilds, representing various trades and crafts, had economic and regulatory authority within their respective spheres, often negotiating their privileges and responsibilities with city authorities or even monarchs. This created a distribution of power, which stopped any single entity or small collection of entities from dominating economic and social life. The Hanseatic League operated as a powerful independent decentralized entity of entities across Northern Europe, wielding real economic and even political influence for centuries, further showing a distribution of power outside of traditional state structures. In the Holy Roman Empire, the complex patchwork of principalities, free cities, and ecclesiastical territories, each with its own rights and privileges, created de facto separation of powers, even though the Emperor in theory had ultimate authority. There are other examples and they all show that a functional separation of powers, where different groups held real and often overlapping spheres of influence, was a recurring part of European governance history
I think this is very fair. I also think, however, that there is a natural tendency for these sort of intermediate institutions to decay over time (I have a substack piece due out shortly discussing the phenomenon).
Agreed! But I would spotlight that the process of institutional decay is far from limited to decentralized or intermediary structures; it happens to even the most centralized institutions, including monarchies; and there are many examples of this, take for example the Capetian kings of France who through grit, and various talents and organization skills gradually built a strong monarchy and a generally well run and prosperous France, then later on that same monarchial institution of the national center was crumbling under poor management and financial insolvency
Separation of powers seems to result in supine legislators who enter Congress poor and exit rich (or stay, even through end-stage dementia). Into this vacuum executives and jurists will step; if Congress won't govern others will.
There's a great meme from the old Radish blog that I'll try to dig up: liberals want big government; conservatives want small government; reactionaries want effective government, and don't care whether every damn fool gets a vote.
Well written as usual. From some people's perspective this analysis would miss the historical existence of decentralized power structures that were pervasive throughout West during large swath of its history, at least in the geographically western parts of the West, for example, for most of England's history it had a king, yet for at least large swaths of it also had effective separation of powers which during its best and most culturally, economically, and scientifically productive time periods worked quite well, elements such as borough corporations or parish officers effectively created separations of power at a local level and during those high quality time periods were both strong and worked quite well. And there are many other examples from Europe's past that demonstrate a functional separation of powers, even without a formal, modern framework. In the medieval and early modern periods, the power of guilds in many European cities served as a serious counterbalance to both the nobility and nascent national governments. Guilds, representing various trades and crafts, had economic and regulatory authority within their respective spheres, often negotiating their privileges and responsibilities with city authorities or even monarchs. This created a distribution of power, which stopped any single entity or small collection of entities from dominating economic and social life. The Hanseatic League operated as a powerful independent decentralized entity of entities across Northern Europe, wielding real economic and even political influence for centuries, further showing a distribution of power outside of traditional state structures. In the Holy Roman Empire, the complex patchwork of principalities, free cities, and ecclesiastical territories, each with its own rights and privileges, created de facto separation of powers, even though the Emperor in theory had ultimate authority. There are other examples and they all show that a functional separation of powers, where different groups held real and often overlapping spheres of influence, was a recurring part of European governance history
Agree strongly with this. Not least coming from the Westminster tradition where separation of powers as understood in the USA traditionally doesn't apply. A recent paper I coauthored for the Policy Exchange think tank argues that Ministerial power has been too fragmented and needs to be restored, opposing the slavish imitation of US customs reflected in things like renaming the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords the 'supreme court'. https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/getting-a-grip-on-the-system-2/
I encourage our readers interested in executive power in the UK, to read Stephen's report!
From some people's perspective this analysis would miss the historical existence of decentralized power structures that were pervasive throughout West during large swath of its history, at least in the geographically western parts of the West, for example, for most of England's history it had a king, yet for at least large swaths of it also had effective separation of powers which during its best and most culturally, economically, and scientifically productive time periods worked quite well, elements such as borough corporations or parish officers effectively created separations of power at a local level and during those high quality time periods were both strong and worked quite well. And there are many other examples from Europe's past that demonstrate a functional separation of powers, even without a formal, modern framework. In the medieval and early modern periods, the power of guilds in many European cities served as a serious counterbalance to both the nobility and nascent national governments. Guilds, representing various trades and crafts, had economic and regulatory authority within their respective spheres, often negotiating their privileges and responsibilities with city authorities or even monarchs. This created a distribution of power, which stopped any single entity or small collection of entities from dominating economic and social life. The Hanseatic League operated as a powerful independent decentralized entity of entities across Northern Europe, wielding real economic and even political influence for centuries, further showing a distribution of power outside of traditional state structures. In the Holy Roman Empire, the complex patchwork of principalities, free cities, and ecclesiastical territories, each with its own rights and privileges, created de facto separation of powers, even though the Emperor in theory had ultimate authority. There are other examples and they all show that a functional separation of powers, where different groups held real and often overlapping spheres of influence, was a recurring part of European governance history
https://substack.com/profile/2067233-adrian-vermeule/note/c-88079364?r=18b35&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I think this is very fair. I also think, however, that there is a natural tendency for these sort of intermediate institutions to decay over time (I have a substack piece due out shortly discussing the phenomenon).
Agreed! But I would spotlight that the process of institutional decay is far from limited to decentralized or intermediary structures; it happens to even the most centralized institutions, including monarchies; and there are many examples of this, take for example the Capetian kings of France who through grit, and various talents and organization skills gradually built a strong monarchy and a generally well run and prosperous France, then later on that same monarchial institution of the national center was crumbling under poor management and financial insolvency
Separation of powers seems to result in supine legislators who enter Congress poor and exit rich (or stay, even through end-stage dementia). Into this vacuum executives and jurists will step; if Congress won't govern others will.
There's a great meme from the old Radish blog that I'll try to dig up: liberals want big government; conservatives want small government; reactionaries want effective government, and don't care whether every damn fool gets a vote.
Well written as usual. From some people's perspective this analysis would miss the historical existence of decentralized power structures that were pervasive throughout West during large swath of its history, at least in the geographically western parts of the West, for example, for most of England's history it had a king, yet for at least large swaths of it also had effective separation of powers which during its best and most culturally, economically, and scientifically productive time periods worked quite well, elements such as borough corporations or parish officers effectively created separations of power at a local level and during those high quality time periods were both strong and worked quite well. And there are many other examples from Europe's past that demonstrate a functional separation of powers, even without a formal, modern framework. In the medieval and early modern periods, the power of guilds in many European cities served as a serious counterbalance to both the nobility and nascent national governments. Guilds, representing various trades and crafts, had economic and regulatory authority within their respective spheres, often negotiating their privileges and responsibilities with city authorities or even monarchs. This created a distribution of power, which stopped any single entity or small collection of entities from dominating economic and social life. The Hanseatic League operated as a powerful independent decentralized entity of entities across Northern Europe, wielding real economic and even political influence for centuries, further showing a distribution of power outside of traditional state structures. In the Holy Roman Empire, the complex patchwork of principalities, free cities, and ecclesiastical territories, each with its own rights and privileges, created de facto separation of powers, even though the Emperor in theory had ultimate authority. There are other examples and they all show that a functional separation of powers, where different groups held real and often overlapping spheres of influence, was a recurring part of European governance history