Monday, June 22, 2020

Bedrock of US Democracy: Checks and Balances of Governing Branches

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Aditi Mohta

Article Title

Bedrock of US Democracy: Checks and Balances of Governing Branches


Global Views 360

Publication Date

June 22, 2020


The US Capitol, Washington

The US Capitol, Washington | Source: Martin Falbisoner via Wikimedia

When the American Revolution ended in 1783, the United States Government was in a state of flux. The founding fathers (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison) did not want to establish another country that was ruled by a king. The discussions were centered on having a strong and fair national government that protected individual freedoms and rights and did not abuse its power. When the new Constitution was adopted in 1787, the structure of the infant government of the United States called for three separate branches of government, each with their powers and systems of checks and balances. This would ensure that no one branch would become too powerful because the other branches would always be able to check the power of the other two. 

The legislative branch is described in Article 1 of the US constitution. It has 100 US senators (two for each state), and 435 members in the House of Representatives, which is better known as the US Congress. Making laws is the primary function of the US Congress, but it is also responsible for approving federal judges, US Supreme Court justices, passing the national budget and declaration of war.

The executive branch is described in Article 2 of the US Constitution. The leaders of this branch of government are the President and the Vice President. They are responsible for enforcing the laws the Congress sets forth. The President works closely with a group of advisors known as the Cabinet. They assist the President in making important decisions within their areas of expertise, like defense, the treasury and homeland security. The executive branch also appoints government officials, commands the armed forces, and meets with leaders of other nations. 

The third branch of the US government is the judiciary and is detailed in Article 3. This branch comprises all the courts in the land, from the federal district courts to the US Supreme Court. These courts interpret the nation's law and punish the ones who break them. The Supreme Court settles disputes amongst states, hears appeals from states and federal courts and determines if federal regulations are constitutional. 

Separation of powers in the United States is the backbone of the Checks and Balances System which provides each branch of the government with special powers to check the other branches and prevent any branch from becoming too powerful. Congress has the power to make laws; the President has the power to veto them, and the Supreme Court may declare the laws as unconstitutional. If both the houses of the Congress have a ⅔ majority, they can override the President's veto. The idea of checks and balances is that it is not enough to separate the powers and guarantee the independence of three branches but also that each branch needs to have the constitutional means to protect the system in case of overreach by any other branch. 

 The Check and Balances system also provides the branches with special powers to appoint or remove members from other branches. Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) can impeach or convict the President of high crimes like bribery or treason. The House of Representatives has the power to bring impeachment charges against the President, and the Senate can convict and remove the President from office. Supreme Court candidates are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Judges can also be removed by impeachment in the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. 

The legislative branch, which consists of the Senate and House of Representatives, passes bills, controls the federal budget, and has the power to borrow money on credit on behalf of the United States. It also has the sole authority to declare war, as well as to raise and regulate the military. It oversees, investigates and makes rules for the government and its officers. The Senate can ratify treaties signed by the President and give advice and consent to presidential appointments to the federal judiciary, federal executive departments and other posts. It also has the sole power of impeachment (House of Representatives) and trials of impeachment (Senate). 

The executive branch consists of the President and the Cabinet. The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, executes the instructions of the Congress, may veto bills passed by Congress (but the veto may be overridden by a two-thirds majority of both houses), perform the spending authorized by the Congress, declare emergencies and publish regulations and executive orders. They make executive agreements which do not require ratification and sign treaties, which require approval by the ⅔ of the Senate. They also have the power to make a temporary appointment during the recess of the Senate and can grant "reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

The Judiciary determines which laws Congress intended to apply in any given case, exercise judicial review and review the constitutionality of laws, determines how Congress meant the law to apply to disputes and determines how laws should be interpreted to assure uniform policies in a top-down fashion via the appeals process.

The system of Checks and Balance was designed and implemented by the founding fathers with such diligence that even after more than 225 years, it is still effective in preventing undue outreach by one of the three branches.

Note: Sites that have been referred to: 


Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

July 19, 2021 12:00 PM

The Blasphemy Law of Pakistan and its Implications

In Pakistan, Blasphemy results in a capital punishment in majority of cases. It is perhaps considered a crime worse than terrorism. A crucial case in point is the fact that the Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Court gave around 15 years jail term to two close aides of Hafiz Saeed—chief of the terrorist organization—Lashkar-e-Taiba—and mastermind behind 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks—where at least 150 innocent people lost their lives.

Similarly, Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi—Lashkar-e-Taiba’s operation commander and another important figure involved in the 2008 Mumbai attack—was sentenced to 15 years in jail period. Not to mention—this happened amidst the international pressure on Pakistan for letting terrorists to function and roam freely within their country.

While something as violent as terrorism is dealt with lenient punishments, there are draconian laws for blasphemy in the country. Moreover, one can be accused of committing blasphemy—doesn’t matter if they did it or not—and might not even face a fair trial.

This article discusses what are the blasphemy laws and what are their implications while looking at some specific cases.

What are Pakistan’s Blasphemy laws?

What's called Blasphemy law today has its origins in the colonial era. The “offences relating to religion” were introduced by British in 1860, and were later expanded in 1927. These were sections 295 and 295-A from the Indian Penal Code. The laws were made to avoid religious disturbances, insult religious beliefs, or intentionally destroy or desecrate a place or an object of worship. Under the 295 and 295-A, the convicted were to be given a jail term from one year to ten years—with or without a fine.

Pakistan ended up inheriting these laws after the partition of India in 1947.

The laws were amended in 1982 and another clause was added which prescribed life imprisonment for desecration of the Quran intentionally. Another clause was added in 1986 to punish blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad through imprisonment for life or death. These clauses, were added under General Zia-ul-Haq’s military regime, in an order to make the laws more “pro-Islam.”

Since then, this law has often been used to persecute people from minority communities—such as the Ahmadiyas, Shias, Christians, and Hindus—they have been accused of blasphemy without much evidence.

Infamous cases and implications of blasphemy in Pakistan

One of the famous cases was of Asia Bibi, which grabbed international attention as well. Asia Noreen—known as Asia Bibi—was a Pakistani Christan and a farm laborer in Punjab province. Her husband, Ashiq Masih, was a brick laborer. A dispute with her Muslim neighbours turned into an accusation of blasphemy—leading to her arrest and imprisoned. There were a lot of protests in Pakistan, demanding death penalty for Asia Bibi.

Two politicians—Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti—who supported and tried to help Asia Bibi, were murdered. Taseer was shot by his own bodyguard named Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri in broad daylight. Qadri was tried and sentenced to death. He was executed in 2016. Mumtaz Qadri became a hero for millions and hardliners praised him as a martyr. He is regarded as a saint and a mausoleum has been built over his grave in his village near Islamabad, where even devotees come to offer prayers.

Asia Bibi was first sentenced to death by a trial court in 2010, however was later acquitted by the Supreme Court in a historic judgement of 2018. In 2019, Pakistan’s Supreme Court ruled that she was free to leave Pakistan and was given asylum in Canada where she moved along with her family.

Although after a long struggle, Asia Bibi still got justice and was able to start a new life—unfortunately many others didn’t. Many met with Mob Justice.

In 2017, a journalism student at a Pakistani University was lynched to death by fellow students in Mardan—in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The student—Mashal Khan—was a Shia Muslim and was falsely accused of blasphemy. The mob was enraged by a rumour according to which he had promoted the Ahmadi faith on Facebook. In a similar instance, a man named Tahrir Ahmad Naseem was killed by vigilantes in July last year for blasphemy. He was a former Ahmadi, and was in Peshawar Central Jail since 2018 for claiming to be a prophet. He was shot dead inside the courtroom during trial in the Peshawar Judicial Complex.

Furthermore, in a case similar to that of Asia Bibi, a Christian couple—Shahzad and Shama Maseeh—were accused of blasphemy as well. They were then beaten and burned alive by a mob in 2014. Shama was four months pregnant. The mob, which also included a local cleric, believed that the couple had burned some pages of the Quran along with some rubbish, although the couple’s family still denies this. Five people including the cleric were sentenced to death, while the eight others were given two years imprisonment.

Last year, former Foreign and Defense Minister Khawaja Asif as well was accused of blasphemy for merely stating that “all religions are equal.”

Why is this happening?

According to data by Pakistan’s Centre for Social Justice, there have been 1549 known cases of serious blasphemy in the years 1987-2017, out of which 720 were Muslims, 516 Ahmadis, 238 Christians, 31 Hindus, and the rest 44 are unknown. 75 out of the total cases ended in the person being murdered before their trial.

There are 13 countries in the world which punish blasphemy by death penalty and Pakistan happens to be one of them. But unlike countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia where they are executed judicially—as mentioned earlier—accused in Pakistan are often killed in mob violence or assassination. While Saudi Arabia and Iran continue to top in terms of the highest number of executions, most of them for sacrilege or crimes against Islam, Pakistan’s total ‘judiciary’ killings stand at zero.

The problem of this mob mentality in Pakistan, especially when it comes to religion, is actually deeply rooted in its constitution. The country’s aspiration to become a democracy as well as an Islamic state is in itself contradictory. The people want the right to freedom and expression and the hanging of a person committing blasphemy at the same time. The constitution denies criticism of Islam while claiming to allow freedom of speech and religion. The elevation of one religion over others in itself is principally undemocratic.

Another interesting point is the fact that the people supporting these ideas haven’t been aware of how things can backfire. Muhammad Din Taseer—father of Salman Taseer—supported Ilam Din, who murdered a Hindu publisher over blasphemy in 1929. An ancestor’s support for radicalism ended up in his own offspring being assassinated in the name of blasphemy.

Mental illness and blasphemy

In Pakistan, often some mentally ill people are punished to death by mobs for unknowingly ‘committing’ blasphemy. In 2012, a man widely reported by the media and police as ‘mentally unstable’ was arrested for blasphemy in Bahawalpur district, Punjab province. A mob gathered outside the police station, dragged him outside, and burned him to death. There have also been cases of misuse where such vulnerable individuals were subjected to sexual abuse and later accused of blasphemy by the abusers to cover up their crimes.

Such abuses towards mentally unsound people would have been a criminal case and the abusers would have been punished—unless they use the blasphemy law—as the mentally unstable victim cannot defend themselves.

Role of Anti-Terrorism courts

Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism courts were set up to ensure quick justice in cases such as terrorism, sectarian violence, targeted political killings, hijacking, kidnapping, extortion and even arms trafficking. Earlier gang rape was also included in it—but removed later.

They are also key to controlling mob attacks on blasphemy accused as such trials are held here.

Yet, these courts have been facing several problems due to lack of basic resources and understaffing. The posts of judges often remain vacant for months, and the state prosecutors complain of poor working conditions—with no offices, stationery, clerical staff or legal resources. These problems may have risen due to the fact that there are not sufficient funds allotted for the ATC infrastructure, one of the major challenges in Pakistan’s legal system. Due to this, these courts are not able to fulfill their primary objective—to provide ‘quick’ justice.

Moreover, these courts lack independence and are vulnerable to political influence—the judges are held accountable to the executive. Sometimes the witnesses often refuse to testify against the accused, as they fear assassination by terrorist groups the accused belongs to. The judges, state prosecutors and others also have personal security concerns which also lead to delays in trials.

Also, these courts deny terrorism suspects the right to equality before the law. They are not even tried in a public place with full defense and are not presumed innocent. Peshawar High Court advocate Ghulam Nabi even challenged the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance 2009 under Article 199 of the constitution in December 2009, saying that it violated basic human rights.

The blasphemy laws of Pakistan need to be repealed in today's Global civic society. People are fighting for equality everywhere around the globe. And now it is up to Pakistan to choose—whether to become a democracy or continue with a pseudo-democratic authoritarian regime which is based on extremist interpretation of religion.

Read More