Governance, Activism and Appeasement

Governance is the function of the state. The body of the State comprises of three distinct organ systems called the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. These organs systems are designed to be independent of each other, yet the three have to work in an interdependent fashion for the delivery of good governance.

Judiciary is a pure hierarchy based structure. Executive is a delegated decentralization. Legislature is a unitary federal structure. Each of these organ systems is fallible due to obstinacy and activism.

The Constitution provides the legitimate power to each of these systems as well as the guidance for their interplay. Legislature has the Reference power, a fabled power from the people, and can use it, but only sparingly, to alter the constitutional guidance on interplay between the three organ systems or the quantum of power with the Executive. However, it is the Executive that has the dominant powers of Information, Reward, Expertise and Coercion. Judiciary has the Referent power to define the constitutionality of actions of the Legislature and the Executive thereby providing some checks and balance.

The command of the Executive is with the leadership (elected, appointed or nominated) of the Legislature. In practice, therefore it is the command of the Executive that informs the direction of the functioning of the legislature.

The Executive at times intends to act in any arbitrary, partisan or unjust fashion. The command of the Executive does not find itself helpless in such instances, before the Legislature because it adopts the route of executive ordinances that bypass Legislature or manages the Legislature to endorse Executive Action. But the Executive does not have such comfort with the Judiciary. Judiciary usually strikes down arbitrary, partisan or unjust actions of the Executive using its legitimate and referent power. In such situations, more often than not, it is the command of the Executive that suffers from a perception of helplessness in spite of all the power bases on its side.

Executive reaction in such situations usually ranges from alleging Activism (in case of judicial correction) to Over-reach (in case of judicial prevention). In more extreme situations, the Executive partners with Legislature to alter the Constitution itself (on an average more than once a year).

Just on the sidelines, an individual can be a part of the Legislature at 21 years of age without any formal education or experience provided one is so elected by an electorate half of which is illiterate and a quarter of which is economically a destitute. One could be the commander of the Executive if one is so accepted by the political party having a majority in the lower house of Parliament. Again 21 years of age without any formal education will suffice. However to be in the apex of Judiciary, one needs to be above 45 years of age with relevant law degree and professional experience. An individual continues in Legislature after a review every five years by the electorate. The continuation of Leadership of the Executive is determined by the political usefulness of the individual to the ruling political party and is therefore continuously under evaluation. An individual in the Apex Judicial system once there is quite sure of being there but has to necessarily quit at 65 year of age, something that is not applicable to legislature or command of Executive.

Could there be a reason here that the "Appeasement" is an allegation against the Legislature and the Executive but not against the Judiciary?