The Independence of the Judiciary in a Democratic System: A Necessary Balance

Often, the relationship between the judiciary and the government in a democratic system is a subject of debate. Is it appropriate for the judiciary to remain completely independent of elected governmental control, or should it be subject to oversight and influence by the elected representatives? The fundamental importance of an independent judiciary in ensuring the stability and fairness of a democracy cannot be overstated. This essay explores this complex relationship and argues why complete independence is crucial for a robust legal system.

Dependent vs. Independent Judiciary

Firstly, it is clear that the judiciary plays a critical role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that government officials, including elected representatives, act within the confines of the law. The analogy of a three-legged stool versus a two-legged one serves as a powerful illustration of this necessity. Just as a three-legged stool is more stable and balanced, an independent judiciary is more effective in maintaining the balance and integrity of the legal system.

In contrast, a dependent judiciary risks becoming a mere extension of the executive or legislative branches, which can lead to the abuse of power and the encroachment on civil liberties. An independent judiciary acts as a safeguard against this potential misuse of power, ensuring that all branches of government are held accountable and operate within the bounds established by the law. This is essential for a strong and democratic system to function effectively.

Risks of Judicial Dependence

While it is true that the judiciary is not completely independent, and that it can be influenced by the government in various ways, the concept of independence is still crucial. The current state of the judiciary being "strongly tied to the government" can be seen as a compromise rather than an absolute dependency. However, the risk arises when the judiciary loses its independence, leading to a situation where the laws are manipulated for politically motivated outcomes.

The argument that "democracy is a legalized extortion racket" is a hyperbolic statement meant to emphasize the flaws in the current system. While the system is far from perfect and can be improved, it is important to recognize that the judiciary plays a vital role in maintaining the rule of law, ensuring that no one, including elected officials, is above the law.

The U.S. Constitution and Judicial Independence

Under the U.S. Constitution, the judiciary operates with a degree of independence that is unparalleled in other democratic systems. Judicial nominations are made by the President and must be approved by the Senate. The number, nature, and funding of the various courts are established by Congress. This system ensures that the judiciary remains independent in its functioning without being overbearing.

However, this does not mean that the judiciary should have absolute independence, which is why the inclusion of civilians in the judiciary is essential. The rationale behind including civilians, and not just allowing judges to monopolize justice, is to maintain a balance and prevent the creation of a privileged bureaucratic elite. This helps to ensure that the judiciary remains accountable and that justice is applied fairly and without bias.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the complete independence of the judiciary is a fundamental principle essential for the survival of a democratic system. While it is true that the judiciary can be influenced by the government in various ways, the potential risks of losing independence are greater. An independent judiciary ensures that laws are applied fairly and that the government remains accountable to the rule of law. This balance is crucial for maintaining the stability and integrity of the legal system and for the protection of individual rights and freedoms.