I didn’t mean the institutions were self-policing, I meant that the government had to be self-policing in keeping its mitts out of the business of independent institutions like the CBC.
As for the CBC becoming autocratic, as I mentioned they have a strict journalistic code of ethics that they’re required to adhere to, they have an ombudsman to handle complaints, and most importantly they report to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture (formerly Minister of Canadian Heritage). Notwithstanding this reporting structure, the independence of the CBC from government influence or interference is protected by statute under the Broadcasting Act.
One can certainly postulate all kinds of “but what if …?” scenarios where it all falls apart. It all comes down to the fact that democracy and its institutions ultimately depend on good government in which one can have faith and trust. Absent that, there is nothing to protect against many possible forms of tyranny.
Trump gets money from the Tesla guy, Elon Musk. Musk has publicly threatened to “primary” (give money to opponents in the primary party elections) so that Congresspeople Trump is unhappy with will not be reelected. They therefore do what Trump wants.
After Nixon, America did have a “independent prosecutor” for a bit. That independence was protected by law (not just a norm). That law wasn’t renewed though and expired under Clinton.
I’ll add one other point. Someone in some other thread said something about, like it or not, this was a democratically elected president. No, it was not. Democracy isn’t just about casting votes. It requires at least a plurality of informed voters who understand the issues and understand the candidates. Democracy isn’t defined by packs of delusional ignorant low-information monkeys casting ballots. But that’s what happened last November. And now, reap what ye have sowed.
This is one of the many respects, unfortunately, something that seems like a check and/or balance in the US system is actually just a convention. As in other things we are discovering it’s entirely dependent on the executive and legislative branched being essentially good actors, who may have an agenda that may not be good, and may be dishonest, but still fundamentally believe in the system and aren’t willing to tear it down to get their way. And that’s simply no longer a good assumption so none of these conventions that tie the whole thing together work.
I would add (out of interest, not in a “how dare you criticize our perfect form of government!” way) I’m not sure other countries would be all that different.
e.g. in Britiain where I’m from, the head of the CPS (roughly equivalent to DoJ, who make these decisions about who to prosecuted) is appointed by an independent panel, and is theoretically independent of the government. But the official who appoints that panel (Commissioner for Public Appointments) is appointed by the government. The convention is that the choice of the commissioner is non-political non-partisan, but it’s just that a convention. There is no means to enforce that, if a Farage-type PM (who didn’t give two craps about convention, democracy or the rule of law) had a large majority of parliament he could totally appoint the equivalent of Pam Bondi, and there is nothing anyone could do
That’s the A#1, biggest issue at hand here. I’m sure nobody ever assumed that if a President tried any of the stuff Trump’s done, that Congress wouldn’t snap him back into line tout suite.
The thought that Congress and the Supreme Court would be complicit in making otherwise independent Federal agencies politically motivated has historically been SO far outside the pale that nobody ever really considered what to do or what might happen if that came to pass.
I’ll say this… I do have faith that once Trump is out of the picture, his successor won’t have the cult of personality or the charisma to continue along the same lines, because Congress will be eager to claw back that power that they had pre-Trump.
Doesn’t have to be. He was a constitutionally elected president and that’s what’s required to lawfully hold the office. As is the case with every single “democratic” nation in the world. We make the word “democracy” do too much work.
Most other civilized democracies don’t blast the voters with intensive disinformation campaigns to nearly the same extent that it happens in America. They aren’t told that their immigrant neighbours are eating their cats and dogs. Trump lies every time he opens his mouth, and his adoring cultists believe every word. That’s not a characteristic of a functional democracy. It’s more akin to the ravings of fierce Nazi propagandists and war criminals Joseph Goebbels and Julius Streicher. This may have seemed like hyperbole until the ICE deportations got more violent and lawless and the shootings started, and Trump started threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act.
Out of curiosity, what civilized democracy does not have to deal with this? Especially these days, it’s trivial to flood any country with disinformation, and so it happens routinely. I think the only thing that sets nations apart is how they respond to it.
Granted, the federal government in its official role is putting out an unprecedented amount of misinformation, and I assume that’s what you mean. And yes, that’s uncharacteristic of a functioning democracy, that is very true.
It’s not that they don’t have to deal with it to an extent, since politicians sometimes lie as a matter of course. But I’d turn the question around and ask if there’s any advanced industrialized democracy that in recent decades – or indeed even in the entire post-war era – has elected anyone like Trump. A modern established democracy that now fears for its stability, its social peace, and the future of its democratic institutions. The UK? Australia? France? Germany? Canada? They all have their problems, but they’re not beset by a government that is thoroughly corrupt, entirely incompetent, irredeemably evil, and actively seeking to dismantle democratic institutions and safeguards. And where the legislature and the courts are, so far, completely failing in their supposed role to provide checks against arbitrary executive power.
Hungary. And it’s no coincidence that many on the right (including those serving in the current administration) have been very admiring of Hungary, and Viktor Orbán in particular, and look to him as a role model.
I see Hungary as an example of where the United States is likely to go in the near future if things don’t turn around soon.
I thought about Hungary because of Orban, but I’d argue that even though it’s regarded as a relatively wealthy country (or at least, not terribly poor) it lags behind most of the EU in terms of metrics like per-capita GDP and household consumption, so I’d put it in a slightly different class economically and culturally. Ranked by GDP, Germany is #3 in the world, the UK #6, France #7, and Canada #10. Hungary is #56.
Granted its population isn’t very large, but that tends to reduce institutional inertia and stability. And remember that Hungary was once part of the communist bloc, so its democratic institutions were relatively new and not well established as they are in these other countries I named. After Orban seized power, he ruthlessly contrived to maintain it, in part by manipulating the electoral process much as Trump is doing now.
Yes, its recent past probably made Hungary more susceptible to autocratic takeover than a nation with a long history of democracy, and I do see parallels between how a democratically-elected leader subverted the electoral process to stay in power in that country with the efforts in the US.
Going back to the OP question, yes the whole structure has forever rested on that even if the elected executive did want to target someone (or paper over something), you were expected to fulfill certain procedural strictures or else the case would fall apart, so the investigators (FBI, HSI, etc.) and prosecutors (US DIstrict Attorneys, Special Prosecutors) would be meticulous about it.
So a big problem in the US federal system right now is that the person at the top of the chain is someone who thinks that’s being a weak loser; who views investigation itself as an instrument to inflict pain, never mind if the case goes anywhere; who virulently resents that the system dared ever act against him.
(Aside from the situation in the federal system we have been discussing thus far, there’s also how in many of the states and the subdivisions of the states, Attorneys General and District/State Prosecutors are themselves elected officials. That would theoretically give them independence, but then you have cases such as in Florida where the Governor is the official given the power to remove an elected State’s Attorney or sherriff he judges as not doing their job.)
I believe that if one gets enough bad, malicious people in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time, any system, regardless of how robust or noble the intent is, or how wise the text is or how wise the text sounds etc, can be broken.
It’s my understanding that the writers of the constitution (IANA American) were, for their time, mostly intelligent, thoughtful, well-meaning individuals.
Today’s Republican party is, for our time, none of those things and here we are.
The charter which grants power to our federal elected officials explicitly vests the entire executive power in the President. Prosecution in federal courts is considered an executive power. While there are fundamental guardrails providing for prosecutorial independence, they do not and can not provide independence from the President. Federal prosecutors are basically acting on the President’s behalf. (Compare commonwealth prosecutors who represent “the Crown”)
There is a major exception for impeachment proceedings, which are prosecuted by the House of Representatives.
While all non-impeachment federal prosecutions fall under the President’s executive power, some federal investigations are considered legislative oversight and therefore fall under legislative power. For example, this is why “special counsel” enjoy some level of independence from the President (e.g. Mueller, Starr) yet perplexingly have to refer cases for actual prosecution.
All of this only applies to the federal government. Each of the 50 constituent states have their own parallel prosecutors, many of which are local elected officials who answer only to the electorate.
(Our system also provides procedural rights for the accused which, in certain circumstances, can overcome prosecutorial discretion. Malicious prosecution, the double jeopardy clause, etc. These rights are independently enforced against the executive branch by the courts’ power to resolve cases, or by the legislature’s impeachment power.)
Indeed. The “unitary executive” doctrine is founded on the textual vesting of executive power upon “the president”, full stop. ( * )
Specifically on prosecutions there’s also how for like the first century-ish of the republic, what constituted “offenses against the United States” was limited — there was not the broad range and reach that exists today.
( * Of course the idea apparently was that the Congress and the Executive would ever have a quasi-adversarial relationship, as had been the experience of Crown v. Parliament, that the legislative would never want to yield or delegate MORE unilateral power upon the executive and that they’d quickly put the Prez in his place if he got too cocky. Yeah, brilliant minds, the Framers, but prophet seers they were not…)