Huh, who would’a thunk that “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” were just tools to simultaneously prevent progressive policy from being passed, and to give a semblance of democracy from a capitalist empire
You’re right, it’s so well-implemented in the rest of the world, such as in my home country of Spain where the supreme court is trying to enjail Catalonian politicians against international law. Surely the idea that law should be ultimately judged by a group of old people who select each other is the best way possible for law to work!
…Then it’s also shittily implemented in Spain. Separation of powers doesn’t mean you can’t have a better system than nomination in the adjudicative branch, and it doesn’t mean you can’t have assholes at the head of branches. It means you don’t grant all branches of power to the same assholes. Which would be worse in any case.
Bottom line: It’s a great and essential principle to maintain democratic institutions, but of course not enough by itself.
If democracy patently doesn’t work under the separation of powers, what compells you to believe it’s an essential principle to maintain democratic institutions?
He didn’t say that separation by itself is sufficient. So naturally just having separation is not enough.
However, it’s a fact that a dictator needs, by definition, to break the separation of power in order to truly become the authoritarian leader with control over the country.
So NOT having separation of power is actually necessary to destroy a democracy.
I feel that trying to defend those things that someone would need to break in order to remove democracy is not a bad idea if we want to maintain democracy.
There are also a lot of other things that are necessary for a dictatorship… such as the dictator not being held accountable (meaning… transparency and mechanisms for accountability would be another principle to maintain democracy), or the dictator suppressing political opposition or dissent (so protecting opposition, whistleblowers and dissent, instead of prosecuting it would be another one). And I’m sure there are many others.
I mean… sure, you can, in theory, have a democracy without those things… but the more safeguards you remove the more and more you are allowing traits of dictatorship to creep in…
The thing is, how much of a hurdle has the separation of powers been for fascists? I’d say not a whole lot. In my opinion, it’s been much more of a hurdle to pass progressive policy instead, e.g. the rather recent case of the Berlin rent cap repeal. The democratic will of the people of Berlin, via direct referendum, was repealed because a group of old men in a tribunal said that it’s illegal. American politics, as an outsider, are essentially like that: democrats making progressive promises in campaign, and then “we didn’t get to do it because we didn’t have a supermajority :(”, whereas characters like Trump will just get there and say “yeah, no, I’ll do whatever the fuck I want”.
Huh, who would’a thunk that “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” were just tools to simultaneously prevent progressive policy from being passed, and to give a semblance of democracy from a capitalist empire
The lack of separation is the problem, as Washington warned against the allowance of political parties
For those slightly confused they’re talking about Washington the President, not Washington the DC.
My point wasn’t that separation of powers is the cause of undemocratic institutions, my point is that it’s a terrible tool for that purpose.
No, it’s great. It’s just shittily implemented in the US.
You’re right, it’s so well-implemented in the rest of the world, such as in my home country of Spain where the supreme court is trying to enjail Catalonian politicians against international law. Surely the idea that law should be ultimately judged by a group of old people who select each other is the best way possible for law to work!
…Then it’s also shittily implemented in Spain. Separation of powers doesn’t mean you can’t have a better system than nomination in the adjudicative branch, and it doesn’t mean you can’t have assholes at the head of branches. It means you don’t grant all branches of power to the same assholes. Which would be worse in any case.
Bottom line: It’s a great and essential principle to maintain democratic institutions, but of course not enough by itself.
If democracy patently doesn’t work under the separation of powers, what compells you to believe it’s an essential principle to maintain democratic institutions?
He didn’t say that separation by itself is sufficient. So naturally just having separation is not enough.
However, it’s a fact that a dictator needs, by definition, to break the separation of power in order to truly become the authoritarian leader with control over the country.
So NOT having separation of power is actually necessary to destroy a democracy.
I feel that trying to defend those things that someone would need to break in order to remove democracy is not a bad idea if we want to maintain democracy.
There are also a lot of other things that are necessary for a dictatorship… such as the dictator not being held accountable (meaning… transparency and mechanisms for accountability would be another principle to maintain democracy), or the dictator suppressing political opposition or dissent (so protecting opposition, whistleblowers and dissent, instead of prosecuting it would be another one). And I’m sure there are many others.
I mean… sure, you can, in theory, have a democracy without those things… but the more safeguards you remove the more and more you are allowing traits of dictatorship to creep in…
The thing is, how much of a hurdle has the separation of powers been for fascists? I’d say not a whole lot. In my opinion, it’s been much more of a hurdle to pass progressive policy instead, e.g. the rather recent case of the Berlin rent cap repeal. The democratic will of the people of Berlin, via direct referendum, was repealed because a group of old men in a tribunal said that it’s illegal. American politics, as an outsider, are essentially like that: democrats making progressive promises in campaign, and then “we didn’t get to do it because we didn’t have a supermajority :(”, whereas characters like Trump will just get there and say “yeah, no, I’ll do whatever the fuck I want”.
Because the alternative has already been tested thoroughly throughout history?
Because the alternative makes it that much easier for an aspiring fascist to take full control of every branch of power?
In what world do you think that not separating powers can have a more democratic outcome?
In which historical occasion has a fascist risen to legislative power, and the rest of powers were like “nah get outta here” and just kicked them out?
Would you agree that China doesn’t have a fascist problem? Would you agree that China has separation of powers?