The topic that interests me is the separation of powers. This topic interests me for several reasons. First, many modern governments are designed around the principle of separation of powers, with the judiciary, legislature, and executive established as separate branches. The principle has thus received widespread acceptance across the globe, way beyond the western world where it was philosophically founded.
Secondly, the principle is often a great source of political conflict, with inter-branch comity a hard result to realize in many countries. The executive is often at loggerheads with the judiciary or the legislature and the other way round. Thus, separation of powers is a hotbed of politics in most countries, with each branch exercising powers not only constitutionally/legally but also in a political manner. Decisions by one branch of government affecting the other in any country often bring about a lot of politics, making it an ideal topic for political science. Some of the questions I have about the topic include the best way of adapting separation of powers in the modern age, and if the principle is still as viable as it was in the past. I am also interested in the empirical examination of the principle and its results. Does fusion of power lead to tyranny as it was feared by the likes of Montesquieu and Locke? Also important would be to understand the impact of the separation of powers on the efficiency of governments. Would governments be more efficient if power was fused? The system of checks and balances appears to me to be a source of red tape at face value. I would be interested to know in greater detail if benevolent dictators (obviously, no separation of powers) are often successful or the hype is often misplaced.
