- Britannica:
Checks and balances, principle of government under which separate branches are empowered to prevent actions by other branches and are induced to share power. Checks and balances are applied primarily in constitutional governments. They are of fundamental importance in tripartite governments, such as that of the United States, which separate powers among legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
- Investopedia:
The U.S. government exercises checks and balances through its three branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. It operates as a constitutionally limited government and is bound to the principles and actions that are authorized by the federal—and corresponding state—constitution.
By separating the duties of various employees into clearly defined roles, businesses and organizations are better able to ensure that rogue employees or executives cannot harm a business without the intervention of other employees. Having these types of internal controls in a business can help improve operational efficiency.
- Why do checks and balances matter?
Checks and balances play two key roles. First, they limit the power of the majority to act without regard to the views or interests of others. They ensure that the perspectives of those who are in the minority on a given issue are represented – for example, by guaranteeing that opposition voices are heard in the process of law-making. Second, at a more practical level, they ensure that policy is tested and behavior supervised. This helps to improve the quality of decision-making, and prevent behavior which might threaten the integrity or reputation of the political system.
Nonetheless there can be drawbacks associated with checks and balances when they are particularly strong. Because they make unilateral action more difficult and allow a greater range of actors to participate in governing, strong checks and balances can increase the risk of gridlock. They can also make it easier for vested interests to protect themselves at others’ expense, by creating multiple opportunities to exercise a veto over proposed changes. When designing checks and balances it may therefore be necessary to find a middle ground.
Healthy democracies weigh these competing considerations carefully, preserving effective checks and balances without preventing essential action. By contrast, in countries suffering democratic backsliding, leaders weaken the checks on their power – generally citing the need for decisive government. This can happen gradually, and take subtler forms than the straightforward abolition of institutions.
