Part 2 Fundamental Elements of a successful democracy---Constitution, Judicary and Military. Why Stability?

2nd Part (The idea of an independent judiciary )---This section will explore on yet another core element that warrant a democratic country/society stable, examining the balance of the political system with the judicary in place.

Before addressing the core tenet of this argument, we have to first understand that every democratic state has to conform to a set of norms known as a constitution, an idea I had brought up in my earlier post, and this constitution sets two restrictions---The Judiciary as well as The Military, where both are to be politically neutral in events of political crises. These 2 restrictions, however are two of the key cornerstones to a country's social and political stability, acting as a key to preventing social disruption and political rebellions.

A constitution not only serves to maintain the political status quo of a state, as brought up earlier, but also serves as a guideline between 3 top-levels in a government---The Executive Council, The Legislative Council as well as the Judiciary Council, where the executives and the legislative are intrinsically tied (due to political interests), it too explicitly stated that the judiciary has to be politically independent from any political entities, giving rise to the idea of judicial independence. As stated, a democratic country comes with a set of constitution which the government has to conform to, meaning that by principle, all true democratic states will have an independent judiciary, of which will serve as another form of power-balance between the governing body and the people. The judges will henceforth be able to ensure transparency within the government preventing political frauds and have the legal rights to declare a government illegitimate if they find the governing body guilty of political fraud or human rights violations. This example could be seen from the 1988 Malaysian Constitutional Crisis where the Supreme Judge Tun Salleh Abas declared Mahathir's New UMNO an unlawful society after a political struggle between two camps within the Original UMNO, resulting in the newly-elected government declared illegitimate. (Sadly though, this did not last long as Mahathir collaborated with the Yang di-Pertuang Argon, sacking the judges on the basis of misconduct) This further exemplified my point on the notion of an independent judiciary as a key to social-political order as not only does it serve to prevent the government from turning authoritarian and violating the citizen's human rights, but also prevent political fraud from taking place. Principally, an Independent Judiciary ought to exist in any democratic state, idealistically serving as an independent entity, checking on the government's actions.

With an independent judiciary in place, the political arena will be ensured of its transparency where the actions of the government will be "monitored" by both the watchdogs (people) and the judiciary council, preventing any political frauds or politically motivated killings/riots/protests from taking place within the political arena as well as the society. It is also essential to note that the fact that the fully politically neutral judiciary council is vested with the legal rights to dissolve a government on the basis of human rights intervention or fraud, makes it difficult for the democratically elected government to illegally pursue their own political interests, ignoring the rights of the people and impossible for them to repeat the massacres carried out by the Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Soviets. For short, the independent judiciary is the ultimate arbiter and the "nanny" of the people, such that ideally it will serve as a counter-balance to the power of the government, ensuring the political and social status quo in a society.

With democracy, the executive council as well as the legislative council will be totally independent from the politically neutral judiciary, who by right should act impartially, serving as a counter-balance to the government for the people. Now, we have to see that it is only with democracy where the idea of an independent judiciary. Socialist China (Communist) for example ,was infamous for their selection of judges at their own discretion to the extent that the Judges were considered "Public Servants", a derogatory term used mainly for those who served as government officials. This as such, goes to show how closely related the judicial system is to the CCP Government, so much so that it is impossible to consider these Judges as an independent entity from the government. At the same time, China's judiciary were powerless in terms of reviewing administrative acts of the CCP government and were subjected to influence to each level of the government. I quote from the International Herald Tribune's report "...in China, the government, not a court, is the final arbiter of law...Many judges are poorly educated in the law and corrupt. All judges still must answer to government officials as much as to the law. Political pressure is common, and private trial committees often dictate what ruling a judge must make.", thereby exemplifying my earlier point on the lack of judicial independence in China, such that a super-majority of these judges were even CCP Party Members, highlighting the intertwined relationship between China's political arena and the judiciary system. It is thereby evident that in Communist/Socialist Countries where the Courts and the Government are closely-tied and the Courts being mostly dependent on the omnipotent government, it is thereby impossible for the Courts to serve as a counter-force towards the government, and more appropriately, a CCP subsidiary of the authoritarian regime.

Here, we need to see the potential implications of not having a independent judiciary entity in that without an independent judiciary, there will be in no way where the government can ever be checked on, and neither can transparency be ensured of. A judiciary that is intrinsically linked to the government t0 the extent of being a subset of the Party will mean that the Courts will condone actions of the Government even if it goes against common interests or when it violates human rights. In other words, the lack of an independent judiciary will mean that there will be nobody left to defend the rights and power of the people and everything is subjected to the government's dominance. The most recent example will be the Saffron Revolution in Myanmar where the lack of an independent court/judiciary system that is powerful enough to counter the Junta's regime, resulted in many human rights violation cases to go unscathed, ultimately sparking off socio-political disorders where the people, with no judiciary to turn to, take matters in their own stride, resulting in weeks of endless protests as well as massacres by the Junta.

To conclude, we have to see that it is only with democracy where a constitution separating the executive, legislative and judiciary from one another, maintaining the status quo of them being independent entities such that the courts will always politically neutral, presiding in the eyes of justice, as well as to check-on the government, ensuring transparency on the government's side, preventing political fraud, human rights violation etc. For short, democracy is key ultimately the key cornerstone of any country and society in allowing judiciary independence, which in turn, maintain the political and social status quo of stability and peace.

Cx