We call the state the organization necessary for people to live together. It is a requirement of being a state to determine the mutual rights and responsibilities created by this union. Of course, we are talking about a structure that reminds people of their rights and responsibilities, not a structure that assigns rights and responsibilities to people. What makes this organization successful is the ability to carry out these rights and responsibilities on the right ground. This only depends on the state's ability to do so. Therefore, the concept that best explains the state today is power. The realization of the will of the state is possible with the power it has.
Since the state represents a unique power in the social structure, the protection of individuals against the state is of great importance in this respect. For this, the power of the state needs to be limited. But how to limit a unique power is also an important issue. We know that the institutional structure we call the state is not under the control of a monolithic will. In fact, when we say the state, we are talking about a structure in which different wills and powers are used on behalf of the state. At this point, we can say that the unique power of the state is limited by the balancing of different power centers.
The principle of separation of powers is a fundamental element of today's management approach. From past to present, different management styles had different characteristics. There were practices to limit the power depending on the perception of the time, the level of consciousness and social conditions. Practices such as the Department of Justice and the civility of law were directed towards this. Today's management approach has solved the problem of limitation of power by separation of powers. We do not open the issue to explain the separation of powers, but to discuss the problems encountered in its implementation.
As it is known, the separation of powers has three pillars. Legislature, executive and judiciary. Of these three powers, the principle of the sovereignty of the nation makes the legislature, the rule of law the judiciary, and the acceptance of the majority in the elections superior to each other. While the legislature is made up of representatives of the people, the executive is temporarily given to certain parties and individuals by the people. Judiciary already refers to the implementation of laws determined by the representatives of the people. As can be seen, the main point where the three elements meet is the people. Therefore, the level of public awareness is of great importance in this system.
When we evaluate it in private, we cannot say that the public is fully aware of its original position. We see this in his relationship with the deputy he elected and the administrators he brought to power. In the principal agent dilemma, the attitude taken towards the agent weakens the principal against the agent. Or, the fact that the administrators do not use/not use their right to object to their actions places the administrators above the people.
The election system and the hierarchical content of political parties in our country make the legislature largely subject to the executive. The independence of the judiciary is well known to everyone. We cannot expect forces to balance each other in such a medium. When this is the case, the control mechanism cannot work properly. This poses the risk of an uncontrolled use of executive power. This is only possible when a fourth power balances these three powers. That's why our late teacher suggested control as the fourth power. The aim here is to prevent the power from turning into tutelage between the three institutions.