5 ms·

As a Swede it feels so weird to read about eg. Trump meddling in such details in affairs like this. In Sweden ministerial rule is outlawed: https://en.wikipedi

As a Swede it feels so weird to read about eg. Trump meddling in such details in affairs like this. In Sweden ministerial rule is outlawed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_governance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_governance Our prime minister would not be allowed to have an opinion on any specific case like this, he would rather have to have opinions on the overall legal framework or such instead and leave the interpretation and application of the legal framework to the appropriate agencies. To me that feels like the right way to go about things like this.

donavanm 6y ago
I believe youre seeing an artifact of how governance is divided. It looks like sweden (and many other parliamentary systems) puts the administration & execution of law under the direction of a minister, who’s primarily a legislator. In the USA these areas are more clearly divided. The federal legislature is comprised of a bicameral house and senate. There is a discrete executive branch charged with enforcing the law set by the legislature. The president is the head of that executive branch who enforces those laws. Thats where the aspect of specific enforcement by the president comes in.
- 1DRACOSEA8 6y ago
  Right, because the Supreme Court didn’t ever rule against the Lincoln administration regarding the acknowledgement of a negro as a human and a citizen, which led your principled example, this dream of a divided government; when the current senate conspired with the executive to avoid jail. That’s collusion with the criminal.Back to Lincoln, he didn’t sit there and take the decision regarding the freedom of a slave released in one state, the rights of that black individual — disregarded as a human; To roam freely in every state and abolish the practice of indentured servitude, you could say Lincoln saw the writing on the wall. Just him running for office and winning big, in California, was a declaration of war on its own country to reestablish federated supremacy. The system broken a war fixed it.
- VoxPelli 6y ago
  That separation exists in Sweden as well. The parliament makes the laws while the government is the executive branch. But yeah, slightly different as its our prime minister who sets up the government, the parliament who picks the prime minister and the people who elects the parliament – through proportional representation. The ban on ministerial rule is an additional separation on top of the one you mention – a separation within the executive branch, that even further avoids opportunities for eg. corruption. (And confuses foreign leaders who are unfamiliar with it)
- rsynnott 6y ago
  The other factor is likely the US's general lack of a professional civil service leadership. The leadership of the US civil service is largely appointed, en masse, by the new president every four to eight years. This is unusual in other developed democracies; there usually is a mechanism for the executive or legislature to get rid of senior civil service officials, but doing so is controversial, very visible, and not routine.
Barrin92 6y ago
The US has always suffered from an extremely politicised administrative body, the extreme powers given to the president are an example of this, but in many other ways there is a lack of administrative independence as well, you can just look at all the diplomatic vanity appointments of the administration. In pretty much every other functioning democracy diplomats and heads of agencies are trained, in the US these posts get handed out like candy to however throws the president an election party.
throwaway5752 6y ago
This is not typical in America, either, the last four years have been exceptional for a number of well-documented reasons.

donavanm 6y ago

I believe youre seeing an artifact of how governance is divided. It looks like sweden (and many other parliamentary systems) puts the administration & execution of law under the direction of a minister, who’s primarily a legislator. In the USA these areas are more clearly divided. The federal legislature is comprised of a bicameral house and senate. There is a discrete executive branch charged with enforcing the law set by the legislature. The president is the head of that executive branch who enforces those laws. Thats where the aspect of specific enforcement by the president comes in.

1DRACOSEA8 6y ago
Right, because the Supreme Court didn’t ever rule against the Lincoln administration regarding the acknowledgement of a negro as a human and a citizen, which led your principled example, this dream of a divided government; when the current senate conspired with the executive to avoid jail. That’s collusion with the criminal.Back to Lincoln, he didn’t sit there and take the decision regarding the freedom of a slave released in one state, the rights of that black individual — disregarded as a human; To roam freely in every state and abolish the practice of indentured servitude, you could say Lincoln saw the writing on the wall. Just him running for office and winning big, in California, was a declaration of war on its own country to reestablish federated supremacy. The system broken a war fixed it.
VoxPelli 6y ago
That separation exists in Sweden as well. The parliament makes the laws while the government is the executive branch. But yeah, slightly different as its our prime minister who sets up the government, the parliament who picks the prime minister and the people who elects the parliament – through proportional representation. The ban on ministerial rule is an additional separation on top of the one you mention – a separation within the executive branch, that even further avoids opportunities for eg. corruption. (And confuses foreign leaders who are unfamiliar with it)
rsynnott 6y ago
The other factor is likely the US's general lack of a professional civil service leadership. The leadership of the US civil service is largely appointed, en masse, by the new president every four to eight years. This is unusual in other developed democracies; there usually is a mechanism for the executive or legislature to get rid of senior civil service officials, but doing so is controversial, very visible, and not routine.

Barrin92 6y ago

The US has always suffered from an extremely politicised administrative body, the extreme powers given to the president are an example of this, but in many other ways there is a lack of administrative independence as well, you can just look at all the diplomatic vanity appointments of the administration. In pretty much every other functioning democracy diplomats and heads of agencies are trained, in the US these posts get handed out like candy to however throws the president an election party.

throwaway5752 6y ago

This is not typical in America, either, the last four years have been exceptional for a number of well-documented reasons.