Jack Balkin is discussing seperation of powers in a recent post to his blog. He is critical of the American government's reluctance to quote a number for the cost of the Iraq war.
My point here is that the concept of "separation of powers" is implemented in an inferior way in America, making America an inferior democracy.
Inferior to what?
For example Turkey. If the Turks had let their government decide about the war, they would have gone ahead, even with 95 percent of the population opposed. As it is, that question was debated and decided in the Turkish parliament. And the parliament decision was what the Turkish people wanted.
For example Germany. The German Federal Constitutional Court requires that "important" questions are decided in parliament. For example, in one of the cases, a government decision to introduce sex education in schools was overruled by the Court. That question is "important", so it needs to be decided by parliament. And German participation in a war (which is just about the most important question of all) of course also needs to be approved by parliament, see Federal Constitutional Court decision of 12 July 1994. Also, the government can't change the NATO treaty without asking parliament, see Federal Constitutional Court decision of 22 November 2001 (English translation).
The "separation of powers" concept can be implemented in a more or less far-reaching way. And it has been implemented in an inferior way in the US.
So what? What is the point of having the parliament decide on important questions?
There are much more members of parliament than of government. Which makes for more discussion. And these representatives are more likely to be in closer contact with the citizens of their respective districts than the President is with all citizens. So if democracy is government by the people, parliament is closer to the people than the government.
So I agree with Jack Balkin. The American Congress needs to defend actively what little is left of its powers to decide about war.
And I think it is obvious that only the American Congress can declare war under the American constitution. Any delegation of that power to the President would need an amendment.
But then, that's not an issue if you are not declaring war anyway, but just go ahead with hostilities. With the awe-inspiring, world-threatening, terrible powers of the Iraq regime (military budget seems to be 0.3 percent compared to America), probably you can't risk anything else. As the Japanese have demonstrated at Pearl Harbor, not warning the enemy by a formal declaration of war is really much more effective.
Update 09.03.2003: See this article by Edward Said for some more criticism on the inferior American democracy.
And this article in the New York Times gives some estimates about the cost of the war.
Update 13.03.2003:
Senator Mark Dayton demands that the Senate debate the Iraq question again.
Posted by Karl-Friedrich Lenz at March 7, 2003 08:34 PM | TrackBack