…Then it’s also shittily implemented in Spain. Separation of powers doesn’t mean you can’t have a better system than nomination in the adjudicative branch, and it doesn’t mean you can’t have assholes at the head of branches. It means you don’t grant all branches of power to the same assholes. Which would be worse in any case.
Bottom line: It’s a great and essential principle to maintain democratic institutions, but of course not enough by itself.
If democracy patently doesn’t work under the separation of powers, what compells you to believe it’s an essential principle to maintain democratic institutions?
…Then it’s also shittily implemented in Spain. Separation of powers doesn’t mean you can’t have a better system than nomination in the adjudicative branch, and it doesn’t mean you can’t have assholes at the head of branches. It means you don’t grant all branches of power to the same assholes. Which would be worse in any case.
Bottom line: It’s a great and essential principle to maintain democratic institutions, but of course not enough by itself.
If democracy patently doesn’t work under the separation of powers, what compells you to believe it’s an essential principle to maintain democratic institutions?
Because the alternative has already been tested thoroughly throughout history?
Because the alternative makes it that much easier for an aspiring fascist to take full control of every branch of power?
In what world do you think that not separating powers can have a more democratic outcome?
In which historical occasion has a fascist risen to legislative power, and the rest of powers were like “nah get outta here” and just kicked them out?
Would you agree that China doesn’t have a fascist problem? Would you agree that China has separation of powers?