• piecat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    “checks and balances” theoretically protects us from tyranny.

    Also allows cronies to protect their own interests by blocking any proposed changes.

    • ExLisper@linux.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yes and no. Yes, normally you do have a series of institutions overseeing different parts of the government and making sure it acts within the laws but in USA this system is simply broken. In normal countries constitution is the ultimate guarantee and the judiciary 'check’s if laws are in accordance with it. The judiciary functions as a independent branch with judges being selected by other judges to the most important roles. In USA supreme court judges are directly selected by the president which totally invalidates the entire system. At the same time, in every other country, it’s assumed that party with the majority in the parliament simply has the mandate to govern and (surprise) does govern. They use this majority to do reforms and pass laws. In USA not only the system is designed in a way that does not let the party with majority support actually control the government (electoral college, the senate, election cycle), they also came up with fictional mechanisms to further weaken the ruling party (filibuster). As a result the ‘checks and balances’ make sure that no true reforms are possible while weakening the judicial oversight and constitutional rights. Worst system you could think of.