Appendix i
1. What is the role of the UN General Assembly, UN Security council and UN Human Rights council in maintaining the Independence of the Legislative, Judicial and Executive Branches?
United Nations General Assembly:
Policy Advocacy: The UNGA provides a platform for member states to discuss and address issues concerning democracy, rule of law, and human rights. Through adopting resolutions and declarations, the UNGA can advocate for the autonomy of legislative, judicial, and executive branches within member states.
Capacity-Building: supports initiatives aimed at strengthening democratic institutions, promoting good governance practices, and upholding the rule of law. These initiatives include programs that provide technical assistance, platforms for sharing knowledge, and partnerships with international organisations.
Peer Review Mechanisms: The UNGA may facilitate mechanisms for peer review where member states voluntarily share their experiences and best practices related to maintaining the independence of governmental branches. This can promote mutual learning and collaboration among countries facing similar challenges.
United Nations Security Council (UNSC):
Peace and Security: The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is responsible for addressing threats to international peace and security, which includes situations where there is conflict or instability that puts the independence of the legislative, judicial, or executive branches at risk. The UNSC can help uphold democratic principles and the rule of law by creating conditions conducive to peace through its resolutions and peacekeeping missions.
Sanctions: In cases where there are violations of democratic norms or attacks on the independence of governmental branches, the UNSC may impose targeted sanctions on individuals or entities responsible for such actions. These sanctions are aimed at deterring further abuses and promoting accountability.
United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC):
Monitoring and Reporting: The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is responsible for monitoring the human rights situations of member states. This includes keeping an eye on any violations of the independence of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. To investigate and report on such violations, the UNHRC appoints special rapporteurs and independent experts who raise awareness and call for action.
Technical Assistance: To promote human rights and strengthen democratic institutions, the UNHRC offers technical assistance and capacity-building support to its member states. This may include providing help in legislative reform, judicial training, and establishing executive accountability mechanisms
Universal Periodic Review (UPR): The UNHRC conducts a peer review mechanism called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). During this process, member states are regularly assessed on their human rights records. One of the issues examined during the UPR process is the independence of governmental branches, and recommendations are made to improve compliance with international standards.
How to ensure transparency and public scrutiny in the appointment process?
To ensure transparency and public scrutiny in the appointment process, candidates' qualifications, backgrounds, and potential conflicts of interest should be publicly disclosed. E.g Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).
The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is an independent commission responsible for choosing individuals for judicial positions in courts and tribunals in England and Wales. The Commission was established on April 3, 2006, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Its purpose is to uphold and reinforce the independence of the judiciary by assuming the responsibility for selecting candidates for judicial positions, thereby removing this authority from the Lord Chancellor and making the appointment process more transparent and accountable. The selection of candidates is based on merit and involves a transparent process that includes public advertisements, assessments, and interviews. Information about the selection process and criteria is accessible to the public, and the JAC produces comprehensive annual reports.
The Commission consists of 15 Commissioners, including the Chairman. All members are selected and appointed through open competition, except for three judicial members who are chosen either by the Judges’ Council or the Tribunals’ Council. The Commission's membership is comprised of individuals from the judiciary, the legal profession, non-legally qualified judicial officer holders, and the public.
How to foster open and informed public discourse about the importance of maintaining the division of powers?
To illustrate how national and local governments can foster open and informed public discourse about the importance of maintaining the division of powers and protecting democratic institutions, we can look at specific examples from various countries that have implemented or proposed such initiatives:
The National Issues Forums (NIF) is a nonpartisan, nationwide network of locally sponsored public forums that address public policy issues. It is based on the fundamental idea that people should come together to discuss and deliberate on common problems.
These forums, organised by various organisations, groups, and individuals, provide citizens with the opportunity to deliberate, make collective decisions on how to approach challenging issues, and work towards forming informed public judgement. Forums can range from small or large group meetings similar to town hall discussions to ongoing study circles held in public spaces or private residences.
The forums focus on a range of issues such as healthcare, immigration, Social Security, or ethnic and racial tensions. They serve as a platform for people with diverse perspectives and experiences to seek a mutual understanding of the problem and look for common ground for action. Moderated by trained and neutral moderators, forums use issue discussion guides that outline the problem and present three or four broad approaches to the problem. Participants consider each approach, examining what resonates with them, what concerns them, as well as the costs, consequences, and trade-offs associated with each approach.
Key initiatives of the organisation:
Issue Guides: NIF provides comprehensive issue guides that cover various aspects of each topic, present multiple perspectives, and pose critical questions to facilitate discussions.
Deliberative Polls: NIF occasionally conducts deliberative polls, gathering a representative sample of citizens to discuss issues in-depth and measure changes in opinions.
Community Partnerships: NIF collaborates with local organisations, schools, and community groups to host forums and expand their reach.
Digital Engagement: NIF utilises online platforms to conduct virtual forums, ensuring broader participation and accessibility.
The Federal Agency for Civic Education in Germany:
The Federal Agency for Civic Education focuses on raising awareness about democracy and encouraging political participation. It covers a wide range of current and historical topics through various mediums such as events, printed materials, audiovisual content, and online resources. The agency organises conferences, congresses, festivals, exhibitions, study trips, competitions, film seminars, and cultural events, as well as journalist training courses.
Its educational programs aim to inspire citizens to critically engage with political and social issues and actively participate in political life. Given Germany's history with dictatorial rule, the agency feels a special responsibility to instil values like democracy, pluralism, and tolerance in the public consciousness.
The agency offers specialised resources for educators and those involved in youth work. It tailors its content to address young people and young adults, creating age-appropriate topics and media. It also designs media packages and training courses for young adults in sports clubs, the armed forces, and the police. Embracing modern communication methods in the age of media society, the agency pursues a cross-media approach to meet the need for fast and well-founded information. Through its educational offerings and specific online products, the agency engages with current social and political events and debates, providing interested citizens with comprehensive information.
4. How does the United Nations Democracy Fund work and has it been effective?
The United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF) was established by the UN Secretary General in July 2005 as a UN General Trust Fund. UNDEF supports projects that empower civil society, uphold human rights, and promote the participation of all groups in democratic processes. The majority of UNDEF's funding is directed towards local civil society organisations. This unique role complements the UN's more traditional work with Governments to enhance democratic governance worldwide. UNDEF relies solely on voluntary contributions from Governments. In 2021, it received nearly 220 million dollars in contributions and has over 45 countries as donors, including many middle- and low-income States in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Through 15 Rounds of Funding, UNDEF has backed over 880 two-year projects in more than 130 countries.
UNDEF receives an average of about 2,000-3,000 proposals a year and only some 50 are selected.
Governments, national and intergovernmental bodies, regional units, and UN entities may implement projects. However, UNDEF gives priority to supporting projects carried out by civil society and non-governmental organisations. Out of 405 local projects funded from 2006 to 2012, 365 were executed by civil society and NGOs. These organisations completed 117 projects in Sub-Saharan Africa, 93 in Asia and the Pacific, 55 in the Americas, and 50 in both Europe and Arab States.
“Strengthening Ethics, Good Governance and Transparency in Ecuador” is one of the projects funded by UNDEF. The overall objective of the project was to strengthen the fight against corruption and promote transparency in Ecuador.
The results of the evaluation report of the project signified that It was too soon to determine whether or not key counterparts of the project had a sustained capacity to fight corruption and promote transparency. The Project, as most, did not have a mechanism in place for post-project monitoring of results. The Project carried out multiple and varied activities aimed at strengthening the fight against corruption, including specialised training for police, prosecutors, judges, and other related officials. This training did indeed appear to provide a basic framework for both the National Police and the Public Ministry to investigate and prosecute acts of corruption.
5. What is the minimum requirement to maintain or achieve the division of powers?
In order to maintain or achieve the division of powers, several foundational elements need to be in place. These elements ensure that power is distributed appropriately and that checks and balances are in place to prevent the concentration of power in any single entity.
The following are the minimum requirements for achieving this:
A clear Constitutional Framework: A written constitution or foundational legal document should clearly outline the separation of powers. This document should specify the distinct roles and responsibilities of each branch of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and the division of powers between different levels of government (e.g., federal, state, local).
An independent Judiciary: An independent judiciary is crucial to interpret the laws and resolve disputes between the branches of government. Judicial independence includes security of tenure for judges, financial autonomy, and insulation from political pressure.
Checks and Balances: A system of checks and balances ensures that no single branch becomes too powerful. This includes the ability of each branch to limit or review the actions of the others (e.g., veto power, judicial review) and regular oversight mechanisms (e.g., legislative committees, independent auditors).
Legislative Oversight: The legislative branch should have the power and mechanisms to oversee and hold the executive accountable. This includes regular audits and reviews of executive actions and the ability to impeach or remove executive officials.
Transparency and Accountability: Transparency and accountability mechanisms are essential for the effective functioning of the division of powers. This includes open government proceedings and records, mechanisms for public and media scrutiny, and clear procedures for holding public officials accountable for misconduct.
Case of the United States:
The U.S. The Constitution is a prime example of the division of powers, both horizontally and vertically.
Horizontal Division (Separation of Powers)
Legislative Branch: The Congress comprises the House and Senate and forms the legislative branch. In addition to other responsibilities, the legislative branch is responsible for creating all laws, declaring war, overseeing interstate and foreign commerce, and managing tax and spending policies.
Executive Branch: The President, along with his or her advisors and different departments and agencies, comprises the executive branch, which is tasked with the enforcement of the laws of the country.
Judicial Branch: The judicial branch consists of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Judicial Center. According to the Constitution, "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Federal Judicial Center is the education and research agency for the federal courts.
Vertical Division (Federalism)
Federalism, as embodied in the Constitution, involves the sharing and division of power between the national and state governments. The Framers aimed to create a unified national government with limited powers while also preserving the autonomy of state governments to exercise a general police power. In addition to preserving liberty through the diffusion of power, federalism offers other benefits, such as allowing individual states to innovate with new government programs as laboratories of democracy and increasing the accountability of elected government officials to citizens.
The boundaries between the powers of the federal and state governments are not clearly outlined in the text of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has often referred to specific constitutional provisions when ruling that Congress has exceeded its constitutional powers and infringed upon state sovereignty. One well-known provision, considered by the Court as a means to prevent federal encroachment, is the Tenth Amendment. This amendment states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Another very important tool for division of powers in the US, is the establishment of Checks and Balances: Each branch has specific powers to check the others, such as the President’s veto power, the Senate’s role in confirming judicial appointments, and the judiciary’s ability to declare laws unconstitutional. However, there is growing concern that this system is starting to fail. This perception arises from several factors:
The growing political divide has resulted in a deadlock and division that weaken the ability of checks and balances to function effectively. When one party holds power in multiple branches of government, there is less motivation to oversee the other branches. For example, a Senate controlled by the same party as the President may be less motivated to carefully examine judicial nominees, raising concerns about the fairness of the judiciary.
The selection of judges has turned into a highly politicised process, creating the impression of judicial bias. When the judiciary is viewed as a tool of partisan politics, its function as an unbiased mediator overseeing the other branches of government is undermined. This perception has the potential to diminish public confidence in the judiciary's capacity to operate with autonomy and justice.
6. How does elimination of fixed terms can significantly disrupt the balance and functioning of democratic systems?
Case Study of Russia:
Putin first became President in 2000 and served two terms until 2008. Then he became Prime Minister while Dmitry Medvedev became President. In 2012, Putin returned to the presidency and has remained in power since.
In 2020, constitutional amendments were passed that reset Putin’s term limits, potentially allowing him to stay in power until 2036, effectively dismantling the term limits that were a safeguard against prolonged autocratic rule. Putin's prolonged tenure has enabled him to consolidate power, influencing the judiciary, media, and political opposition, stifling dissent and minimizing political competition. This has weakened democratic institutions, with the legislative body and judiciary becoming less independent and aligning their actions with the executive branch’s interests. Civil liberties, including freedom of speech, assembly, and press, have declined under Putin, with opposition leaders and activists facing harassment and imprisonment, reducing political pluralism.
Extended terms in power can lead to increased corruption, with the ruling elite benefiting from the lack of accountability. Putin’s ability to extend his rule sets a dangerous precedent for other countries, signalling that democratic norms can be bent or broken to suit the ambitions of a powerful leader. This prolonged rule can lead to public disillusionment with the democratic process, diminishing faith in democratic institutions and processes. Similar patterns of centralization of power, weakening of democratic institutions, and erosion of civil liberties can be observed in other countries where leaders have extended their terms or abolished term limits. Examples include Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and various African nations like Uganda under Yoweri Museveni.
Case of Turkey:
In 2002, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) gained a majority in the general election. The party initially aimed for a pro-European, market-friendly, liberal, and democratic form of conservatism. This approach was well-received by business groups, liberal intellectuals, and international media as it aligned with Turkey's aspiration for EU membership and democratic consolidation. However, since 2011, Turkey's political landscape has shifted, leading to concerns about democratic regression. The AKP's third consecutive victory in 2011 marked a turning point, and the country faced criticism for authoritarian tendencies, particularly after the 2013 Gezi Park Protests and the failed coup attempt in 2016.
In 2017, a referendum led to the transformation of Turkey's parliamentary system into a presidential one, concentrating power in the hands of President Erdoğan. The constitutional amendments granted the president extensive powers, including the authority to issue executive decrees, declare a state of emergency, deploy the military, and dissolve parliament without parliamentary oversight. This shift has raised concerns about the lack of checks and balances in the system, with critics describing it as "absolutist presidentialism" or "presidential autocracy."
President Erdoğan's consolidation of power has had significant implications for democratic principles and freedom of expression in Turkey. The country continues to face challenges in upholding these rights, with journalists, writers, civil society activists, artists, and political figures encountering obstacles in freely expressing their views. Additionally, Turkey has been identified as the world's worst jailer of professional journalists, highlighting the constraints on free speech and expression in the country.
In summary, Turkey's political landscape has undergone significant changes since the early 2000s, with the AKP's initial pro-European and democratic agenda giving way to concerns about democratic regression and the consolidation of power in the hands of President Erdoğan. This shift has had implications for freedom of expression and democratic principles in the country, leading to criticism from international observers.
Appendix of Resources
“Branches of Government | House.Gov.” Accessed May 17, 2024.
https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/branches-of-government.“Federalism and the Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.Gov | Library of Congress.” Accessed May 17, 2024.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.7-3/ALDE_00000032/.Cueva, Ruben Quispe. “EVALUATION OF THE UDF-ECU-08-275 PROJECT,” n.d.
https://www.un.org/democracyfund/sites/www.un.org.democracyfund/files/ecuador_-_udf-08-275-ecu_-_evaluation_report.pdf“About UNDEF | Democracy Fund.” Accessed May 17, 2024.
https://www.un.org/democracyfund/about-undef.“Branches of Government | House.Gov.” Accessed May 17, 2024.
https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/branches-of-government.Ronald Reagan. “Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 10 – ‘Powers to the States or to the People.’” Accessed May 17, 2024.
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/constitutional-amendments-amendment-10-powers-states-or-people.“Eroding Consolidation: Putin’s Regime Ahead of the 2024 ‘Election’ - Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.” Accessed May 27, 2024.
https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/03/eroding-consolidation-putins-regime-ahead-of-the-2024-election?lang=en.“Autocracy behind a Democratic Facade: The Political Regime in Turkey.” Accessed May 28, 2024. https://www.civicus.org/index.php/re-imagining-democracy/stories-from-the-frontlines/3529-autocracy-behind-a-democratic-facade-the-political-regime-in-turkey.
NIFI. “Reports,” April 21, 2016. https://www.nifi.org/en/reports.
Bildung, Bundeszentrale für politische. “Demokratie Stärken – Zivilgesellschaft Fördern.” bpb.de, January 25, 2022.
https://www.bpb.de/die-bpb/ueber-uns/auftrag/51743/demokratie-staerken-zivilgesellschaft-foerdern/.