I don't know where to put this. It applies to the situation in Ukraine but in my view it speaks volumes about the speakers.
The Russian can't understand that power doesn't reside in Leader and so doesn't recognize that the Executive serves only with the permission of the electorate.
The Whitehouse recognizes the "will of the people" but calls for a government of technocrats.....
The only position that I can recognize as "democratic" is that of the Poles which recognizes the supremacy of one body: Parliament.
Perhaps we should get the Poles to send missionaries to Canada to teach us the merits of the British system we have been gifted.
Stuff yer constitutions
PS - T6: I hope you're right.
It is the rise of the "technocrats" that worries me, and others (see e.g Philip Coggan, The Last Vote, The Threats to Western Democracy
, London 2013). The most obvious, and most powerful technocratic
institution that intrudes
, sometimes massively, into the machinery of government
is the central bank. But it's not the only one. Consider, for example, sundry human rights commissions and tribunals and so on ~ many, and "one is too many" in this case, with judicial powers. Too many democratic government are willing, even eager to delegate
powers ~ most of which in my opinion
ought not to be delegated or even delegatable (if that's a word) ~ to (as they are called in the UK) quasi autonomous non-governmental organizations. Many (most?) people, being ill informed, believe
that some non-governmental agency is, inherently, more trustworthy than a team of elected politicians: what errant nonsense! What puerile rubbish! Most of these quasi autonomous bodies are staffed by failed politicians or ex political back-room boys ~ the "hacks, flacks and bagmen" ~ and quasi
is the operative word, many of these bodies are nothing more than thinly disguised special (often partisan political) interest groups.
By the way: I have no better answer to making monetary policy than an independent
, apolitical central bank.
bodies with considerable powers include law societies or bar associations and the like which regulate
the legal profession, which is fair enough, but which, also, vet and, in many cases, have considerable power over judicial appointments.