Imagine a country whose judiciary is elected on an annual basis by members from across that country. Sound sensible? Well, it may sound wonderful to the democrats among us. But imagine for another moment that the laws of this country are locked away for no one, apart from the country’s executive, to see. In fact, it is the country’s executive who control the elections to the judiciary. Imagine that the leaders decided to cancel the last judicial elections because they did not like the candidate, and simply allowed the previous judiciary another term in office.
To add to this, the leaders of the country decided to ignore a few of their own laws when allowing the next set of leaders to be elected. The process was rife with irregularities, but still the old leaders ensured their successors were elected with ease, and without any intervention from the very friendly judiciary. The electoral roll is maintained by the executive, and is available for consultation only by people who the executive see fit to view it. This proves very useful to some “friendly” citizens standing for election, but absolutely disastrous to those citizens who are not friends with the executive.
We’re not talking about a huge country here – its population has been dwindling of late, and looks set to dwindle even more, but most of its citizens are very hard working people, and are absolutely determined to see their country succeed. But the trouble is that they are subject to rules they are just not aware of, and as the leaders become more and more despotic, the citizens are becoming more and more scared that things just might get completely out of hand. There aren’t many ways out of this for citizens – they can either move out of the country that they love and would fight for, or they need to work their way up the ladder in the hope that they may, one day, become a leader. Some try their hand at changing the system to a more democratic one, but they are usually castigated – despite being very proud and some of the hardest working and successful people in their country.
The worrying thing is that no imagination is needed – these are only some of the terrible things actually going on in this country right now. I take a particular interest in mentioning it on this blog, because a number of citizens of this country are members of BULS, and made me aware of their plight after a brief visit to their country last weekend.
I suggest we really cannot let this continue, and we must change this country for the better, before all of its citizens leave. Indeed, if there is a real mood for changing things for the better, perhaps we can make the biggest step possible towards ensuring the issue is resolved…
Propose it as a Labour Students priority campaign.
John Ritchie is former Chair of BULS
Very effective post Mr Ritchie. I must say it made me read it at least 3 times. Just one question, on a topic i am largely undecided on at the moment, concerning the Judicial appointment. An election to me sparks accountability. The judiciary are, and must forever be, independant. (Im aware of the counter-point, ill come to it). If they were to be elected, and by principle accountable to an electorate, are they then independant? How could they be elected whilst retaining their independance.
However, they should also be independant of the Government, who currently appoints them. Is that a case of indirect accountability in that we elect a government to appoint a working, successful Judiciary?
Or is it a case where Judicial Independance cant exist, and as such we should come to a compromise. Someone please solve this conundrum for me…Pint to anyone that does…
Matt
Thank you, Mr Reeves. I believe many states in the USA have their judges directly elected, but as you are no doubt aware, this is different at the Federal level, where the President makes a recommendation and the judge is confirmed by Senate (I think?).
I believe the most important thing is for the principle of the separation of powers to be exercised, and my blog was illustrating (with only a few of many, many examples) how the country in question is abusing that principle in a disgraceful manner. I am not in favour of any system of patronage (as you may detect from my post), which puts me directly at odds with our current House of Lords. Nor, however, do I think electing judges is particularly practical. But there is usually a solution to all of these problems, based on the principle of separation of powers.
If we followed something similar to the US (and as Labour is proposing at the moment) of open confirmation hearings for senior officials, then I think that goes some way to satisfying the need for checks and balances. This should apply to senior judges, and there should be no veto by goverment.
The trouble is, as long as you have a system where the executive makes/recommends/vetoes appointments, you have a system where people will let personal ambition and the need to please that executive get in the way of their independence and what may be in the best interest of the people they are supposed to represent. This attitude can become so accepted that it becomes entrenched and a characteristic of that entire country. Take Zimbabwe, Hitler’s Germany, or the country I write about in my post.
In essence, if you operate a meritocracy, with the protections of democracy, the rule of law, operating under the principles of natural justice, and a separation of powers, then you can be fairly confident of the integrity of any country…
… or “country” for that matter