A notable example is the approach to soft drugs in the Netherlands. Despite being illegal, the public prosecutor has chosen not to enforce the law. To the point that many if not most think they’re legal.

This situation presents a complex issue to me: it involves a small group of individuals (the prosecutor’s office) effectively deciding to disregard the broader democratic process and the will of the voters. When such things happen, I believe they should be rare, pragmatic and temporary.

What’s your view on the matter?

  • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
    41·
    2 days ago

    This kind of thing can be considered a form of “checks and balances”. If one branch of the government passes a law and another branch enforces it, both branches have to agree for the law to function.

    • iii@mander.xyzOPEnglish
      31·
      2 days ago

      Hmm. I don’t see the balance here: the conjugate would be the executive enforcing non-existant laws, and the legislative to be able to stop them. That isn’t the case.

      So clearly, the power balance is asymetric, and lies completely in favour of executive.

      • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
        3·
        2 days ago

        In the US this is supposed to be balanced by the judicial branch, which can decide if the executive is doing a good job of enforcing the laws or not. (Not that I think the US is a good example of a balanced government, given our current state…)

        Some countries have more branches of government intended to help with this problem:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers