Talk:Fusion of powers

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fusion of Powers Misleading[edit]

The phrase "Fusion of Powers" seem to me misleading, since most powers of Government and Parliament are entirely distinct. Please can we have good academic authority for this (misleading) phrase? The article says the UK is the strongest example, but the phrase is not in common use here. The UK strongly maintains the principle of the separation of powers, a phrase invented by Dicey, but just not in the US way. It may be an international language issue? Jezza (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---I'm pretty sure the UK is literally the biggest form of a Fused government around. We have a legislature dominated by the Executive, and we have no grounds or ability to enact any form of judicial review. The fusion of powers lies with our Prime Minisiterial system, in so much as, the current prime minister has the ability to delve into both his role as head of the executive and member of the legislature. Our Parliament is our government in so many senses, as the head of our parliament is also the head of our government, as far as i understand things anyway. Furthermore, cite 2 is dead, wondering if anyone knows what the article mentioned, it had something to do with Bagehot being the probable creator of the term "Fusion of Powers". Cheers Benf199105 (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Example of fusion of powers in the Canadian government[edit]

The Fusion of Powers, Party Discipline, and The Canadian Parliament: A Critical Assessment by JONATHAN LEMCO. Hope this helps. Komitsuki (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential system[edit]

"A fusion of powers was specifically rejected by the framers of the American constitution, for fear that it would concentrate a dangerous level of power into one body. However, other countries reject the presidential system for the same reason, arguing it concentrates too much power in the hands of one person, especially if impeachment is difficult."

The claim that Separation of powers, specifically the "checks and balances" results in concentration of power is unsourced and/or misleading. The implication here is that dividing power among three entities (executive, judicial, legislative) results in the president having too much power (specifically more power than if those powers were fused). The president of the United States may in fact have too much power, but I can't see how that is a consequence of separation of powers. It seems to me that any excess power they have is actually in spite of separation. I am removing this contradictory claim. If you want to restate it then please provide sources. 23.91.158.23 (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]