violates the strict doctrine of separation of powers it has the advantage of ensuring that the Executive does not get too powerful and is ultimately answerable to Parliament. • Few modern constitutions provide for the direct election of judges and magistrates. They are usually appointed, subject to safeguards to ensure their independence, by the Executive or the Legislative branch, or by both branches. Because there cannot be a complete separation between the different branches of Government, the doctrine of separation of powers can best be defined as a governmental system of separated institutions sharing power fairly between them. Relative powers of each branch should be balanced. Value of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers Even though the doctrine of separation of powers cannot be applied absolutely, it retains considerable value. In the first place, it emphasises the need for a State to have strong independent institutions in order to check arbitrary rule by the Executive. This is particularly important in a country such as Zimbabwe which does not have a long history of democratic rule. The Executive will always try to increase its powers by encroaching on the functions of the other branches of Government, sometimes for the best of motives. Without strong institutions to oppose it these encroachments by the Executive will continue until the other branches lose their power to check it. Secondly, the doctrine provides a yardstick against which constitutional proposals can be assessed in order to determine whether or not there will be adequate checks and balances within the governmental system to ensure that individual rights are protected. Separation of Powers Not the Only Test of a Good Constitution As a test for determining whether a constitution or governmental system is good or bad, the doctrine of separation of powers must be applied with caution. It is fair to say that constitutions which completely ignore the doctrine are usually bad ones – one of the branches of government will be found to overshadow the others or liable to do so. But constitutions in which the doctrine is observed are not necessarily good ones. If the doctrine is observed so strictly that the different branches do not cooperate with each other, there may be governmental gridlock. And the doctrine has nothing to say about the nature of the powers that can be exercised by each of the branches within its own sphere. If, for example, all the powers of the Executive are vested in one individual and there are no limits on his or her power, then the State will be a dictatorship or nearly so; and if the Legislature, though completely independent, is not elected by universal suffrage, then the State will be undemocratic; and if judges, though completely independent and irremovable from office, are ignorant and corrupt, then there will be no rule of law. So the doctrine of separation of powers has its limits in determining whether or not a State is well governed. It is only one of several tests to be applied. Separation of Powers in Current and Various Draft Constitutions We now compare our present Constitution and the three main constitutional proposals that have been put forward since 2000 — the Kariba draft, the NCA draft 31