Difference Between Locke And Montesquieu

951 Words4 Pages
The separation of powers has been theoritically made by Locke and Montesquieu. The text

10 AV Dicey, Introduction to the study of the Law of the Constitution (10th edn, Elibron Classics, USA, 2000) pp 39-40
11 Lord Steyn, Democracy, the rule of law and the role of judges [2006]
De l’esprit des lois12 (translated in The spririt of laws) in which Montesquieu details his vision, theorizes the separation of powers from an historic example. This separation did not occur spontaneously, but very progressively. Unlikely to the image that we traditionally have, this separation of powers shows subtilities, incoherences that cast doubt on the idea of separation of powers. It used to be the King, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. This system had been installed in the 13th Century with John Lackland as a King. He was so rude and despicable that in the end, the barons ended by revolting against him and by imposing him the Magna Charta 1215.
It is in this text that the British parliamentary found their origins and the fundamental laws in the Brisitsh constitutionalism. However King John violated the Magna Charta in 1216 and progressively the assembly became permanent and divided into two chambers, that will become from the 15th Century the House of Lords and the House of Communs. We achieved then the perfect system balance of powers. One law that supported the King, the nobles and the people. Nowadays this balance no longer holds. The house of Lords was slowly losing its
Open Document