In Federalist 47, Madison considers the adequacy of protections against consolidation of power. He defended the framework as adequate. Maybe not.
… One of the principal objections inculcated by the more respectable adversaries to the Constitution, is its supposed violation of the political maxim, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments ought to be separate and distinct. In the structure of the federal government, no regard, it is said, seems to have been paid to this essential precaution in favor of liberty. The several departments of power are distributed and blended in such a manner as at once to destroy all symmetry and beauty of form, and to expose some of the essential parts of the edifice to the danger of being crushed by the disproportionate weight of other parts. No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded.
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. …
The scoreboard is not looking good.
| Executive | GOP | “He who saves his country does not violate any law.” – DJT & Napoleon |
| Legislative | H: GOP 218/215 S: GOP 53/45 |
“Of course, the branches have to respect our constitutional order. But there’s a lot of game yet to be played … I agree wholeheartedly with my friend JD Vance … ” – Johnson |
| Judiciary | GOP 6/3 | “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” – Vance “The courts should take a step back and allow these processes to play out,” – Johnson “Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity.” Trump v US 2024 |
| 4th Estate | ? | X/Musk/DOGE WaPo, Fox … Tech bros kiss the ring. |
| States* | Threatened | “I — well, we are the federal law,” Trump said. “You’d better do it. You’d better do it, because you’re not going to get any federal funding at all if you don’t.” “l’etat, c’est moi” – Louis XIV |
There have been other times in history when the legislative and executive branches fell under one party’s control. I’m not aware of one that led members to declare that they were not subject to separation of powers. I think what Madison didn’t bank on is the combined power of party and polarization. I think our prevailing winner-take-all electoral systems have led us to this point.
*Updated 2/22
Grok3 is at least a little optimistic:
Is there an example in history, where people have ceded power to a single ruler in order to get things done, and then gotten their freedom back afterwards?
Yes, there are historical examples where people temporarily ceded power to a single ruler to address a crisis or achieve a specific goal, with varying degrees of success in regaining their freedom afterward. One of the most notable and well-documented cases comes from ancient Rome: the appointment of Cincinnatus as dictator in 458 BCE.
The Example of Cincinnatus
In the early Roman Republic, during a time of military crisis, the Roman Senate and people turned to Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, a respected former consul and farmer, to save the state. A hostile neighboring tribe, the Aequi, had trapped a Roman army, and the situation was dire. The Roman Republic had a constitutional mechanism called the “dictatorship,” where, in times of emergency, a single leader could be granted absolute power for a limited term (typically six months) to resolve the crisis.
Cincinnatus was appointed dictator, and he swiftly organized an army, defeated the Aequi, and rescued the trapped Roman forces. Remarkably, after achieving victory in just 16 days, he relinquished his power and returned to his farm, refusing to hold onto authority longer than necessary. This act of willingly giving up absolute power made Cincinnatus a legendary figure in Roman history and a symbol of civic virtue.
Why It Worked
Limited Scope and Time: The Roman dictatorship was designed as a temporary measure with a clear end date, which encouraged leaders to step down once the crisis was resolved.
Cultural Values: Roman society at the time prized the ideal of the citizen-soldier who served the state and then returned to private life, a norm Cincinnatus embodied.
Precedent and Trust: The system relied on trust in leaders to honor the tradition of stepping down, which Cincinnatus did.
Other Examples with Mixed Outcomes
Sulla in Rome (82–79 BCE): Lucius Cornelius Sulla was another Roman appointed dictator during a civil war and political crisis. He took power to “restore the Republic,” enacting reforms and executing opponents. Unlike Cincinnatus, Sulla held power longer and used it ruthlessly, but he did eventually retire voluntarily. However, his actions destabilized the Republic, paving the way for future autocrats like Julius Caesar, suggesting the freedom regained was fragile.
George Washington in the United States: After the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), Washington was a unifying figure with immense power and influence. Some even suggested he become a king. Yet, after serving as the first U.S. President for two terms (1789–1797), he stepped down, setting a precedent for peaceful transitions of power. While not a dictator in the Roman sense, his voluntary exit echoes the spirit of Cincinnatus and helped solidify democratic norms.
Why It’s Rare to Regain Freedom Fully
In many cases, power ceded to a single ruler doesn’t revert to the people so cleanly:
Julius Caesar (49–44 BCE): Initially appointed dictator to address Rome’s chaos, he kept extending his power, eventually becoming “dictator for life,” which ended the Republic’s democratic traditions and led to his assassination.
Napoleon Bonaparte (1799–1814): After the French Revolution, Napoleon seized power in a coup, promising stability. He crowned himself Emperor and never returned power to a fully free system, though he was eventually overthrown.
Modern Examples: In the 20th century, leaders like Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey (1923–1938) centralized power to modernize the nation and then allowed a transition toward democracy after his death, though with limitations. More often, though, figures like Stalin or Mao show how temporary power grabs become permanent.
Key Takeaway
The cleanest historical example of power being ceded to a ruler and then returned is Cincinnatus, largely due to the specific circumstances and his personal character. In most cases, once power is centralized, rulers find ways to retain it, or the system shifts irreversibly. The success of returning to freedom depends heavily on institutional safeguards, cultural expectations, and the individual leader’s willingness to step aside—conditions that are rare in history.