Source: TW
Over the past few years, Americans have been learning that the separation of the judiciary and executive powers is a two-edged sword. In general, we believe that an over-empowered judiciary is bad for a nation, for it typically has less “skin in the game,” is prone to activism, and is subvertible by inimical interests.
Bukele
This is a widespread problem confronting various nations as the global left-liberal forces realized that the best way to achieve their goals in (quasi)-democractic systems is to subvert the judiciary eventually leading to a judicial dictatorship which operates in their favors.
The philosopher king’s swift action allowed him to crush it before it could even regroup and it worked out well for them for one can compare the two neighboring Spanish-speaking Mesoamerican countries of Honduras and El Salvador to see which is doing better.
However, problem confronting most nations is maniford:
- They are larger and the capacity for such a swift action to defang the judiciary is usually not available or unachievable.
- If they are close to equilibrium in politics (e.g., USA) or have deep structural issues, then the democractic process poses dangers of putting the shoe on the other foot, in which case the defanged judiciary might not be able to prevent a left-liberal tyranny.
- They might not get a philosopher king but a tyrant or tyrannical courtiers with no one to regulate them.
- Even a philosopher king has a finite lifespan with successor issues.
So the perennial problem continues… and every self-respecting nation has to invest in more grassroots efforts in preventing left-liberal infection.