Constitutional Checks and Balances: Conclusions

Conclusion Separation of powers is an antidote to absolute power of any organ of the state. The concept was first incorporated in the codified constitution of the United States. In the backdrop of centralised British imperial power, separation of powers signified fair liberty of citizens from arbitrary monarchical rule. Similarly, against the backdrop of overcentralized state structure under the Government of India Act, 1935, the All-India Muslim League ardently supported adopting of the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances in the future constitution of Pakistan. Nonetheless, the successive constitutions of Pakistan drew on the colonial legacy; hence, fell short of essential requirements of institutional equilibrium. The institutions overstepping the fields of one another undermine the evolution of constitutionalism. Necessary amendments to the constitution are, thus, imperative.

A caveat may, however, be added—a system of checks and balances may endure if it rises with the changing social phenomena. Constitutions are made and revised for the common good of living people and for shared prosperity and equal access to opportunity for all citizens. The principles, therefore, need to be dynamically applied. The same is true about the judicial review, which was considered a great innovation of the US Constitutional system, but it is now viewed as a prop for prolonging status quo.

In brief, societies passing through democratic transition from centuries-old repressive rule urgently require effective checks and balances in their model of governance while in mature democracies consensual governance has mellowed in exercise of shared powers