Libya's congress approves separation of powers: PM will not be drawn from the legislature - Polidicks

[url]http://www.libyaherald.com/?p=13595[/url] [quote=Libya Herald]The National Congress has voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion that disbars any of its members from holding the position of prime minister in the next government. Congressmen are still in session and it is has not yet been confirmed whether or not the separation of powers will also be applied to other government ministries. “Forty-four Congressmen voted against the motion, and the rest voted in favour”, a Congress spokesman told the Libya Herald. “We should have some more clarity regarding whether or not the decision is just restricted to the post of the prime minister once this session has ended. With none of the main contenders for the prime minister’s job currently members of the Congress, today’s decision is not believed to have significantly altered the dynamics of who will be elected to the post. The two names most commonly cited as the front-runners for the prime ministership are Deputy Prime Minister Mustafa Abushagur and Electricity Minister Awad Barasi. In the past few days, however, there has also been mention of a possible late entry to the race by NFA leader Mahmoud Jibril, who is not himself a member of the Congress. The name of Ali Zidan, the independent Congressman who stood unsuccessfully for the Speakership last month, has also been mentioned as a possible candidate in the past, although today’s vote means he will not be able to run. The decision of who will be prime minister is due to be announced on 8 September.[/quote]

Why? This is probably a stupid question, but why should there be rules stopping people from running?

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;37510879]Why? This is probably a stupid question, but why should there be rules stopping people from running?[/QUOTE]It's to separate the legislative branch from the executive branch, a common component of modern democracies' checks and balances systems; one of many ways to prevent any single individual from becoming judge, jury and executioner basically.

No one man should have all that power The clocks tickin I just count the hours [editline]2nd September 2012[/editline] Oh and Jibril for PM

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;37510879]Why? This is probably a stupid question, but why should there be rules stopping people from running?[/QUOTE] Angola has had 2 presidents, a man and his father, for decades I believe now, even though they have "free" elections. The reason why this is possible is because of a constitutional amendment that outlawed a direct presidential election and instead the leader of the winning party/coalition in parliament is appointed president. When you don't have these separations, it is often asking for rulers and parties to game the system to hoard power.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;37510879]Why? This is probably a stupid question, but why should there be rules stopping people from running?[/QUOTE] Basically in a sense consider you have 3 (sometimes 4) powers in a nations Legislature - Creates laws Executive - enforces laws and sets underlegal ordnances to allow nation to run Judiciary - passes judgement if laws were broken (and in the case of a con court also checks the legislature) Banking - rarely seen as the fourth power Most nations have a system in whcih they seperate the powers. Presidential system - Executive (president) is removed from the Legislature (house) and the judiciary Cabinet system - The body of the legislature appoints an executive head of cabinet (PM and ministers) which is still seperate from the judiciary though. The president is usually an external and less powerfull seperate executive branch. The new lybian system seems to be a presidential one. Of course the presidential system also has a very big problem. Very often power blocks change between votes and unless you have a strong bipartisan culture you will usually get a deadlock between the legislature and execituve. South American nations and the philiphines are good examples of jsut this. For the record, the cabinet system is by far the most common one, with the presidential being generally a US export in a sense. [QUOTE=yawmwen;37511603]Angola has had 2 presidents, a man and his father, for decades I believe now, even though they have "free" elections. The reason why this is possible is because of a constitutional amendment that outlawed a direct presidential election and instead the leader of the winning party/coalition in parliament is appointed president. When you don't have these separations, it is often asking for rulers and parties to game the system to hoard power.[/QUOTE] That in itself wouldn't be problem. As generally speaking the cabinet has to get a show of faith from the legislature (usually a vote that has to be at least above 50% in some cases above 3/5ths. But if the votes into the legislature are unfree... Like I've said, the cabinet system (PM or president appointed from strongest block in legislature) is a common system, more common than the presidential one. And it usually works very well.

It may all change when the constituent assembly starts work on the new constitution anyway

[QUOTE=wraithcat;37511658] That in itself wouldn't be problem. As generally speaking the cabinet has to get a show of faith from the legislature (usually a vote that has to be at least above 50% in some cases above 3/5ths. But if the votes into the legislature are unfree... Like I've said, the cabinet system (PM or president appointed from strongest block in legislature) is a common system, more common than the presidential one. And it usually works very well.[/QUOTE] This is a problem in emerging democracies with a single party having a majority. When powers aren't adequately separated and the constitution is easily amended it can cause leaders to empower themselves. The cabinet system works in established countries with diverse political parties, and it works very well. However, not so much in countries that have just come out of revolution or reform.