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