Page 235 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Comparative Politics and Government

Notes An American critic thus says: “The new Russian Constitution adopted in December, 1993 shifts the
balance of power decisively in the direction of the executive branch. The structure embodied in the
new Constitution resembles the French presidential system in many ways, but some critics in Russia
call it an authoritarian Constitution, because it places so many powers in the President’s hands. As in
France, the Russian Constitution creates ample room for conflict between the legislative and executive
branches. However, a combination of factors (including constitutional provisions, political culture,
political party fragmentation and regionalism) work to give more powers to the Russian President
than the French president. The constitution designates the President as the head of the state, but,
unlike in Germany, he does not have a figurehead position. At the same time, the Constitution places
executive power in the government of Russia, which is headed by the Prime Minister. The structure
envisages conflict between the President and the legislative branch, because the President’s party or
supporters do not necessarily hold the balance of power in the Parliament.”
Judicial System of France

After making a study of the executive headed by the President assisted by the Prime Minister and the
Council of Ministers and the Parliament having National Assembly and Senate as the lower and
upper chambers repectively, it shall be worthwhile to present a brief account of the judicial and
advisory organs that have a rather less significant role in the political system of France in view of the
fact that the French do not appreciate the ‘trinity theory’ whereby government is regarded as consisting
of three separate and independent organs; in stead they subscribe to ‘duality theory’ whereby executive
and legislature are treated as separate and independent organs of the government, while judiciary is
regarded as a subordinate branch of the former.
The French judicial system, as it obtains now, may be said to have three main characteristics:
1. It ensures independence of judiciary. If justice is to operate efficiently, the judicial authority
must be protected from the pressures of the legislature as well as of the executive; this
independence is ensured by the creation of the Higher Council of Magistracy and a Special
Statute for members of the judicial body. The method of the appointment of judges has been
laid down so as to keep the incumbents free from outside pressures. Moreover, a Special Statute
for judges and public prosecutors has been framed which guarantees the satisfactory unfolding
of their careers. It has been devised to make the nature of judicial offices more attractive. The
judges and public prosecutors have been assured of a more rapid promotion. No member of the
Bench may receive a new posting without his consent even if it is a matter of promotion. The
principle of ‘irremovability’ of Judges has also been incorporated.
2. There is the separation of administrative and judicial authorities. The rule forbids judicial
tribunals to settle diputes of law involving administration. It is based on the law of 16-24 Aug.,
1970 that (vide its Art. 13) says: “The judicial functions are distinct and will always remain
separate from the administrative functions; judges shall not, without exceeding their powers,
interfere in any way whatsoever with the operation of the administrative bodies, nor summon
administrators before them by reason of their functions. The proper application of this principle
requires, on the one hand, that the administration must have the means to resist encroachment
by the judicial courts and, on the other that those involved may have at their disposal procedures
enabling them to find the competent judge. The procedure of the conflict of competence comes
into play only to guarantee the autonomy and independence of the administration vis-a-vis the
judicial courts which can thus never lay claim to a field in which the administrative courts
deem themselves competent.”
3. There is the double degree of jurisdiction which makes it possible for any party to an action or
trial to appeal to a superior court against a decision rendered by an inferior court; it is an old
rule; but while under the ancien regime the appeal was a means for the king to assert his rights,
it has now become a guarantee of good justice. That is why, an appeal is always brought before
a court that is higher in the hierarchy than the one which made the first decision; litigants are
thus assured that their case will be settled by the judges who are more competent and more
experienced. A decree of 22nd December, 1958 introduced an all-important reform in the matter

230 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY