Part I: An alternative to representative democracy? Here is a starting point…
PART I: What we have…
What we are talking about here is changing the current operating system that underpins politics in democracies.
(It could also work in illiberal democracy or more autocratic regimes but maybe better to take these things slowly — but why not after all it’s not up to me).
The operating system is basically what allows for decisions to be made; which processes the decision makers follow to take decisions if you wish.
A key point here — it is therefore non-political as we are not trying to influence the result in line with a particular ideology (at least not that way) but consider that the current system has done its time and is no longer adapted to the complexity of our reality and challenges we have to address collectively (see here and here for some of my own take on that matter).
So, we are looking at the decision-making process in our democracy. In other words where power lies. In a well-functioning representative democracy (on paper before humans start to mingle in) it is straightforward. To simplify, since Montesquieu who formalized it, you have three powers which hold check and balances against one and other by controlling one aspect of the political sphere (and thus the decision-making process).
You have (it’s a simplification but there’s not always the need to make it sounds so complicated):
The executive power — The legislative power — The judicial power
In a nutshell, the first one executes the laws passed by the second one under the control of the third one.
Below are some generalities — there are many exceptions and local particularities.
The executive power is usually made of elected politicians (seasonal) who act under the leadership of a particular figure (president, prime minister in general). The structure is pyramidal with a distribution of different portfolios (ministries) who are under the control of a person appointed by the political leadership (politicians or not). The executive powers are then implemented through the different administrations and their agents who sit (could not find a better word) in those entities and represent the authorities of the State — it ranges from law enforcement to social and cultural services, etc. You got the picture.
The legislative power is usually powered by elected representatives who are supposed to be a collective snapshot of the political landscape in the country at the time of the elections and are there to carry the views of their constituents within the legislative process. With usually one or two chambers, the legislative branch is considered to be the place for deliberation from which a new legislation or issue can be addressed in accordance with the political sensitivities of the population. The legislators are often supported by experts (and interest groups) in their functions. The legislative power as the emanation of the will of the people are also expected to hold accountable the executive power by calling on them to explain their decisions and ensure that they act within the political limits set by the voters when they were elected.
The judiciary is here to ensure that the executive branch is not abusing its own power and is acting within the boundaries set by the law (adopted by the legislator under the impulse of the executive power). The judiciary is usually made of civil servants who are under an oath and are not political (blind justice you know). The judicial system works on the basis of principles enshrined in the constitution/Common Law (and are the guarantor of this order) such as fair trial, presumption of innocence, equality in front of the law, etc.
What else to add.
There is also a geographical reality to this triangle of power or rather different levels from local to national which emanates from the Constitution (or similar Common Laws) and where the basic structure is replicated in a fractal way but where ultimately higher levels tend to have precedent over lower levels (top-down) but with lesser level of direct control. This is the often referred to tensions between centralized versus decentralized models.
So, in theory the three expressions of power are independent from one another and holding each other accountable. In practice it’s of course more nuanced than that with many bridges (or tunnels) between the different branches at different levels in the structures. A few obvious examples:
- As the executive often comes from the majority (coalition or not) it can also make sure that the legislators follow its lead rather than try and control its actions. This is a strong tendency in presidential regimes and even more in illiberal democracies.
- There are in fact many bridges between the legislative side and the executive — in some systems the executive comes from the legislative. There is a tendency to subsume the legislative power under the executive as merely a rubber stamping institution to allow the executive power to implement their programme reducing de facto its relevance (not to mention the extreme case of Trump’s acquittal).
- Some nominations to higher instances (constitutional or supreme court can also come from the executive). You can see the efforts to control the judiciary in Hungary or Poland for instance despite the strong legislative guarantees under EU Treaties.
- Judges can have a political agenda. As well as any civil servants at a high level in the institutions in a more or less visibility way from underground allegiances to open political affiliation.
- And I’m not even mentioning collusion between public and private interests here.
And there are many other structural weaknesses in representative democracy (see also here and here).
Good, that should be enough to already start and think of an alternative.
