Refractory Gauls, or the French politics thread

[Sheilbh]

Early doors on Trump - but all the others very quickly kneecapped the opposition to disable democratic politics. And I'd be willing to bet the way out of those systems back to a democratic society will involve a lot more mass mobilisation and politicisation than it will noble lawyers, judges, military men, technocrats (all of whom will have risen within the system) etc.

I find a diagnosis of Russia, Hungary or Turkey that concludes the problem is an excess of democracy a bit perverse

(Although an obvious alternative, which might be right, is that democracy is a relatively short lived aberration and they're the future...)

[Admiral Yi]

I mean, I think it's totally wrong but it's a strong view.

Does this mean you are opposed to the rule of law, and an independent judiciary, and independent prosecutors?

[HVC]

"Excess democracy" got them there, the populaces ability to ignore and enforce criminality under the right slogans (ie sheep ) got them there. The state they're in now now is because the checks and balances ( to borrow American parlance) failed them. Removing more checks and balances wouldn't have halted the process but made it easier.

[Sheilbh]

Does this mean you are opposed to the rule of law, and an independent judiciary, and independent prosecutors?

No not at all I support those - although I tend to think their role should constrained and I think there's a slight "we must not let sunlight in on magic" element. I'm not sure that helps instill confidence in their independence or the rule of law - there's a politics by those institutions to managing that too.

But they're not there to protect the stupid from destroying democracy (I should say I generally back a "skinny" definition of rule of law and not the more expansive ones).

"Excess democracy" got them there, the populaces ability to ignore and enforce criminality under the right slogans (ie sheep ) got them there. The state they're in now now is because the checks and balances ( to borrow American parlance) failed them. Removing more checks and balances wouldn't have halted the process but made it easier.

I'm very dubious on ideas of checks and balances - looking at the world I'm not sure the voting public need checked or balanced v, say, oligarchs.

Erdogan was imprisoned by his political opponents for reading a poem. This turned him into a political star who triumphed at the next election.

Putin rose from security state to political fixer, cleverly aligned with interests in Yeltsin's administration and with oligarchs. He was appointed Prime Minister and then, when Yeltsin unexpectedly stepped down, became acting President- confirmed in the election (fully backed by those forces) where he ran as an independent backed by various factions.

There's more of a case with Orban - although even there opposition landslide after IMF bailout isn't exactly novel.

And again to me what this all points to is the importance of political culture and belief in a democratic system. Not that there could be some check that would prevent this - that was tried with Erdogan and backfired, those other actors were exactly the people who elevated Putin and no check can prevent bad government. It's the subsequent de-politicisation that's allowed them to bed in.

[Admiral Yi]

No not at all I support those - although I tend to think their role should constrained and I think there's a slight "we must not let sunlight in on magic" element. I'm not sure that helps instill confidence in their independence or the rule of law - there's a politics by those institutions to managing that too.

But they're not there to protect the stupid from destroying democracy (I should say I generally back a "skinny" definition of rule of law and not the more expansive ones).

I'm scratching my head trying to reconcile these deeply qualified statements with your prior statement about "totally wrong."  Actually, totally wrong but really strong baffles me too.

Are you germinating a new political philosophy which celebrates cognitive dissonance? 

[mongers]

I've been out of the loop for a few hours, so may well have missed it, but I'd guess by the end of the week trump will be demanding her 'reinstatement', certainly when he next meets Macron.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I don't see the connection.

I don't think the very old Western view of democracy as rule of the mob that needs protecting from itself and is dangerous (normally dangerous to the "best" of a society) has anything to do with the rule of law, independent judiciary, prosecutors (or other institutions).

It seems more of a non-sequitur than something that needs reconciling - one's about where political power lies (which is what I think the Socratean/Founders argument is - you need to constrain a wide electorate from exercising their power), the other's operational and politically neuter (it could function in multiple political systems - it could constrain, or enable the exercise of political power).

[Admiral Yi]

A well-storied view - I mean that's Socrates, it's larded through the Founders as well, right down to our very own Yi. Democracy as containing within it the threat of the mob which needs to be mitigated against by counter-democratic measures.

I mean, I think it's totally wrong but it's a strong view.

Shelf it's this part of your brief that I'm arguing against, not whether the people should be allowed to elect embezzlers and bomb makers to office.  Independent branches of government like the courts and independent agencies of the executive like the Federal Reserve are counter-democratic.  IMO their independence is justified and produces superior outcomes to mob rule.

[Sheilbh]

Okay - sure. What I mean is about political power.

I think to the extent those institutions exercise that they do so over a narrow, technocratic area with a broad consensus and a mandate from democratic institutions (central banks) - which can be changed by democratic institutions (acknowledging some slight complications around the ECB). Or they are primarily interpreting and applying laws passed by democratic institutions. To the extent their power is broader then I think they have to avoid doing it in a way that reveals their political power or they'll lose legitimacy (or a little bit the John Roberts view).

But in both cases I think they are often constrained (and rightly so) by a limited sense of their legitimacy because they're not democratic. They're downstream of democratic politics and don't claim their own independent source of legitimacy.

So I don't think the existence of those institutions is counter to democracy - I think they're politically neuter. They can function in an authoritarian regime as well as a democratic one. They're operational bits of the state - but crucially I don't think the primary justification for independent central banks or courts is about exercising a restraint on democratic power. A lot of the theory on rule of law develops in courts acting and writing against traditions of executive monarchical absolutism, not mob rule.

Edit: And I think that's particularly the case with the founders who are thinking about this stuff so much but I think is very much, as the great Garrett Fitzgerald would put, "that's all fine and well in practice, but how does it work in theory" - it's adapting and implementing philosophical ideas, rather than a description of the practice.