4 ms·
You're exactly describing the reason why there is checks and balances. "People in power" is supposed to be a heterogenous group with different interests and for
by ff10 9y ago
You're exactly describing the reason why there is checks and balances. "People in power" is supposed to be a heterogenous group with different interests and formal functions. Your post suggests that it doesn't work properly in your country anymore. I wonder where exactly one could pinpoint the weak spots and systemic issues.
- ryanlol 9y ago>Your post suggests that it doesn't work properly in your country anymore Your post seems to suggest that the default is it working, is that really true? Does it actually work anywhere?
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y agoIMO the weak spot is that there's only one executive branch, and they have discretion over whether to enforce the law in any given case. They can choose not to arrest themselves, or prosecute themselves. If the system were structured with two executive branches, each of which had the power to enforce the law against members of the opposition executive branch, and a sense of opposition / competition could be maintained, then this wouldn't be an issue. There's also the issue that the executive has all the real power. The courts and congress can send strongly worded letters, the executive has all the guns. This hasn't yet become a direct problem in the US, but it has in many other countries.
- talmand 9y agoExcept now we'll have two executive branches with even more power that will secretly agree to work together against the other branches.
- marcosdumay 9y agoEvery place has only one executive branch. That does not make everybody there share the same goals. You have a structural problem within your country, because the FBI should be clearly working towards arresting the NSA people, for example.