2 ms·
I don’t know that reference but I could imagine it could be rooted in that concern. Probably why they established the three branches in the us.
by christkv 6y ago
I don’t know that reference but I could imagine it could be rooted in that concern. Probably why they established the three branches in the us.
- bhupy 6y agoYup. I recommend watching Justice Scalia talk about exactly that in this video: https://youtu.be/Ggz_gd--UO0 https://youtu.be/Ggz_gd--UO0
- refurb 6y agoYup. I thought this is a fantastic summary of the intentional design of the US system. When there is gridlock, that’s a feature, not a big.
- tsimionescu 6y agoThe three branches are the formula, but the real work was in establishing them and making sure they actually work independently. The real work also continued in the many men and women who powered these institutions during the early years and kept true to their purpose. There are plenty of countries that have the same nominal separation of powers, guaranteed by a constitution and a Supreme Court, but where the nominal separation of powers matters little in the face of political games. Hungary and Poland are relatively well known recent examples of countries that have subverted strong constitutional guarantees by inventing exceptions or finding reasons to oust people who are opposing political will for institutional reasons. In more corrupt states it can happen more egregiously. A big problem, especially in young states, is the natural tendency to dislike red tape. Institutional power is all about red tape, though - doing something through the proper channels, with the proper oversight, even if it takes 3 times as long and costs twice as much as it should. This is the biggest hurdle that a young democracy has to overcome - learning to trust the apparent inefficiency of complex institutions (and knowing how to reform institutions that really don't work).