[onetimeusename]

I think the entire West is experiencing this problem. Things like immigration laws are determined not by elected officials but by bureaucrats and judges/lawyers who it turns out are often on the same side. It's a very sticky problem. The Nomenklatura of the USSR is probably the most similar description.

[amy214]

At least in the US, we have discovered an even more complex situation where many of our government organizational low-mid-low/high level leaders all lean left, same for judges, but then our supreme court leans right as well as high level leaders (appointed by right president). It's as off the extreme political polarization our nation suffers from has also manifested itself in our own institutions.

[ethbr1]

> are determined not by elected officials but by bureaucrats and judges/lawyers who it turns out are often on the same side

"Fixing" that is an awfully slippery slope towards dictatorship though.

The entire reason that system exists -- to preserve competence and skills in government despite political leadership change and to provide independent checks on elected officials' power -- is because of historical abuses by elected officials.

Ergo, I'm enormously suspicious of suggestions about tearing down the barriers to change...

... because those barriers exist for a damned good reason.

Imho, people should talk more about adjusting the balance in the system, but preserving all the independent components, and less about vilifying specific pieces of the balance of power.

[onetimeusename]

I am concerned about how lawyers may be a closed off group. Especially with grads from the top law schools who often work at NGOs or become judges in high courts that end up deciding major things. I think precedent could be set in a way that reflects the tastes of a small and detached group of people.

[ethbr1]

That's literally what we want in a rule of law system -- people more beholden to the legal system than to common concerns of voters.

Put another way, the role of the legal system is to be a linter for the messy / incomplete / illegal reality of legislative and executive desires.

[onetimeusename]

ok I think being independent is fine, what I meant was a little different. Let me just ask you something instead which might clarify my thoughts. What did you have in mind when you said dictatorship? Like what is the historical precedent you are basing that on?