What are checks and balances?
Checks and balances are the specific mechanisms within a system of separated powers that allow each branch of government to limit or oversee the actions of the other branches, such as a legislative override of an executive veto or judicial review of legislative and executive action, ensuring that no single branch can act entirely without constraint from the others.
Last reviewed . Not yet independently reviewed.
Core tenets
- Mutual constraint among branches
- Each branch holds specific powers allowing it to limit or scrutinize the actions of the other branches, rather than operating in complete isolation from them.
- Distinct from separation of powers itself
- Separation of powers describes the division of authority into distinct branches; checks and balances describes the specific mechanisms that make that division meaningful in practice rather than merely nominal.
- Reciprocal, not one-directional
- Checks generally run in multiple directions, the executive can veto legislation, the legislature can override that veto or impeach executive officials, and courts can review the actions of both.
How it works in practice
Specific checks vary by country and constitutional structure, but commonly include veto power, legislative confirmation of appointments, judicial review, and impeachment.
- Executive check on the legislature
- A presidential veto allows the executive to reject legislation, subject to legislative override.
- Legislative check on the executive
- Legislative confirmation of executive appointments and the power of impeachment allow the legislature to constrain executive action.
- Judicial check on both
- Judicial review allows courts to invalidate legislative or executive action found to violate the constitution.
What it is often confused with
Checks and balances is often used interchangeably with separation of powers, but the two describe related, distinct concepts: separation of powers is the structural division into branches, while checks and balances are the specific mechanisms enforcing that division.
Criticisms and debates
Debate over checks and balances centers on whether their specific mechanisms strike the right balance between preventing overreach and allowing effective governance.
Overreach-prevention defense
Argues that specific mechanisms like judicial review and legislative confirmation power are essential for constraining potential abuses by any single branch acting alone.
Response: Critics respond that an excessive number of check points can allow a small minority within any one branch to obstruct action supported by a broader majority across the government.
Efficiency critique
Contends that extensive checks, while protective against overreach, can slow government response to urgent problems requiring swift, coordinated action.
Response: Defenders argue that this tradeoff is deliberate, favoring careful, constrained action over speed, particularly for decisions with long-term or difficult-to-reverse consequences.
Historical examples
- Watergate and impeachment proceedings, 1973 to 1974
- Congressional oversight and the threat of impeachment, both checks on executive power, led to President Nixon's resignation before a formal impeachment vote was completed.
Sources
- 1.Montesquieu. The Spirit of the Laws. 1748.
- 2.Madison, James. The Federalist No. 51. 1788.
- 3.Encyclopaedia Britannica. Checks and balances.