Good job! Yes, the human factor is what ends up ruining the political model.
It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy..."
This happened in my country, a country where institutionally there are no 3 powers (legislative, executive, judicial) but there are 5 (legislative, executive, judicial, electoral, republican), however, thanks to the vote of the people and the imprudence of the opposition, the same people control the 5 powers of the State.
Something I always say is, when Montesquieu described the division of powers, it was assumed that in practice there really was a difference between who executes the laws, and who legislates these laws, however, the systems of political parties, contradicts the system described by this man, because Rousseau said that if within society, groups were formed, and conducted as a united block, then, when voting the election result would not give the popular representation of society, but representation of the majority group. Then, the political society, is organized in political parties, breaking the idea explained by Rousseau, and then, these parties, can participate in both the elections of the executive power, and in the elections of legislative power, that is, the division of powers it is destroyed in practice, and also the idea of a genuine democracy.
They all seem to start out with the noblest of intentions and even work to some extent at first... then what I call the "asshole quotient" (I don't know why I'm quoting myself lol) or human nature kicks in and things begin to degenerate.
Yes @richq I would rather not see the US "AQ" right now, maybe more than one per person. Ruling a disintegrating civilized people is actually quite fun, I am sure. The early generations in Rome fought their backsides off to unite and rule ruthlessly an empire for centuries, but the last few generations had all of the fun and blew it. That is why I think Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" designation may wind getting disqualified. They gave birth to and raised the "Baby Boom Generation," that has become the achilles heel to the US. A country that survived 3% of its population dying in a war--against each other, a country that won independence from "the most massive global empire in history," countless economic collapses/panics, having over 1/6 of the population being owned in chattel slavery, possible self assured nuclear annihilation, (plus countless other threats to its' existence) now cannot shake the boomer generation attitude that has become rampant among the country in the last three generations of the "ME, NOW Generations."
I don't know what if any your religious beliefs are, but there's an excellent video on Y-Tube by Fr. Chad Ripperger called Generational Spirits. Each generation has a kind of zeitgeist by which it can be identified... it makes much the same point but includes the last 6 generations- from the Lost Generation through the Millennials. Fr. Ripperger is a brilliant guy, he has something like 8 post grad degrees, Psychology, Law, Theology... I can't remember them all. He's a Traditional Catholic, not one of the Vatican II Satanists that have taken over the church.
Rome actually started out pretty good, they lasted almost 200 years before declining into tyranny.
Funny me and Fr. Ripperger have a lot in common, minus the degrees of course. Sounds like a heck of a guy, I will definitely have to check it out. Never heard of this on youtube, I will definitely have to check them out, thanks a lot for the info. By the way, I had to double check the user name on the post and make sure it was not something I posted, I agreed with and thought the value was that incredible. By the look of the avatar I thought we might be related. Anyway, you have a follower here, if you would like message me on a comment if I do not reply to your next post, I am all over the place on here, but would definitely like to see more of this brilliance on here. Astounding content, terribly important for the masses to understand! THANKS A LOT @richq11 keep stellar posts like this coming! UPVOTED+FOLLOWED
This will save you digging for it!
AWESOME THANK YOU SIR!
You've touched on the hidden crack in otherwise solid balance-of-power theory: the balance gets deformed when a single ruling class assumes leadership of substantially all the organs of government.
Balance-of-power only works in systems with several groups of elites, groups composed of members who wouldn't be caught dead crossing over into another group. The United States used to have this pluralism of elites, but cultural and war-fueled centralization wrecked this plurality. It's now a "revolving door" system wherein a single group of elites - a ruling class - has assumed leadership over all organs of government.
To see what I'm saying, imagine an alternate U.S. where matriculating at Harvard gives you the shoo-in as a federal politician but kills your chances at becoming a state-level politician, even Governor. If you matriculate at Yale, you have a leg-up for a judgeship but ruin your chance at becoming a politician. And so on...
It's this kind of social fabric that gives you a pluralism of elites.
Interestingly, I had never considered a system that way, I had analyzed ways to divide power and keep different groups of people in them. As for example, that a political party that participates in elections to the parliament, can not do it for those of the presidency. In the same way the politicians, that is, a senator could never be a president, and a mayor or a governor, could never be a congressman, that is, maintain the separation of people who exercise a function or another. However, there is the problem of the influence of money, when people finance politicians to have power over them. However, I like your system a lot, I'll think about it.