Hacker News Reader

Funny you mention justice in France. There are very strong suspicions that the current president of France is using the justice system against his opponents, with a wave of investigations hitting his opponents immediately after his election and another one now, right before a major election.

A centralized presidential system does make it easier to have all sorts of abuse, from which no western democracy is immune.

Correction for any non french reader: a candidate, Francois Fillon, which is being investigated for seven different charges, including fictitious jobs, embezzling public funds, trafficking influence, fakes and usage of fakes and a list of frauds that wouldn't fit on A4 paper [1] has accused the president of using "dark cabinets" to get some dirt on him, quoting a book. The author of said book immediately came out against that, Fillon got slammed by both the president and the ministry of justice, who reminded him he himself voted against numerous measures aimed at making presidential affairs more transparent. And then Le Pen has been spouting off her victim rethoric for years.

[1]https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Fillon

There were also all the investigations that hit Sarkozy and the conservative party when Hollande took power and he perceived Sarkozy as his main rival.

I have followed French politics for too long to believe in coincidences.

I have lived in France and followed politics for too long to not know this isn't unique to Hollande. Sarkozy absolutely abused his power and is suspected to have been the cause of the whole Dominique Strauss Kahn affair. Chirac has been accused of it. Mitterand has been accused of it.

So far, there are no proofs. You also have to realize that our political class is prone to backstabbing, much much more than any other country. Everyone has dirt on everyone in the same party. So far, the Fillon revelations rather seem like they're coming from LR, not the PS or Hollande.

I am certainly not suggesting this is limited to Hollande.

In term of proof, it has kind of been confirmed by Hollande himself indirectly. In his interview book "Un president ne devrait pas dire ca", he mentioned that Fillon contacted him after he took office, encouraging him to dig more dirt on Sarkozy, otherwise they will be facing him at the next election. Hollande then praised his own virtue by pretending he did not proceed and Fillon denied ever asking that. However whether this discussion happened or not, and whether Hollande did it or not, what Hollande confirmed indirectly is that it was a perfectly reasonable request from an insider of French politics (a former prime minister) to get the president to use the justice system against his opponent.

Without considering the ability for the president in France to pass laws without a parliamentary vote - with the only way to veto being a motion of non-confidence which forces the government to resign.

The US system has been shown to work exactly as intended on a number of occasions in the last two months. [..] the executive state has grown significantly over the last few decades in the US. But that was hardly unique to Trump.

'Exactly as intended' and the growth of executive influence and the federal government as a whole seem rather contradictory. And what's unique is Trump himself.

What dmix claimed is not unique to Trump is the growth of the executive power. dmix is correct in this statement.

The next claim you had an issue with:

> The US system has been shown to work exactly as intended on a number of occasions in the last two months.

That's why it's not contradictory. The courts have (finally) been reining in the president. (It would have been nice if it started a decade or two ago, but Trump is, as you say, something of a unique threat, and that may be concentrating minds in the judiciary.)

It seems contradictory to me because it essentially admits that seminal presidents and events have substantially changed the system but it's ok, because this one won't. I don't think there's any reason to panic but as logic this seems pretty questionable.

Building a strong opposition can be done, after all, the referendum was won with such a small margin, and without major cities for it. Guaranteeing the judiciary independence is the biggest issue of course. :-)

Meanwhile, in Canada:

> As such, the prime minister, supported by the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO), controls the appointments of many key figures in Canada's system of governance, including the governor general, the Cabinet, justices of the Supreme Court, senators, heads of crown corporations, ambassadors to foreign countries, the provincial lieutenant governors, and approximately 3,100 other positions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada

The constitutional court in France is appointed by the president, the president of the parliament and the president of the senate. One third for each.

You're certainly a busy bee, posting this repeatedly in this thread. Almost like you have an agenda.

Twice isn't that much.

The bigger issue is their failure to add some context to make the comparison actually interesting. Like they could say that Canadian Prime Ministers are rarely removed from office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_defeat... ). Nevermind that it has been done a number of times in an orderly fashion.

I am bothered by this. Always been incredibly ignorant about Canadian politics for no reason, is there something about Canadian gov that makes this less frightening then it sounds or does Canada just hand potential for ultra centralized control to their PM?

Harper showed us that the potential for abuse was there, though that's not to say that he was particularly abusive, and it's been part of the political discourse since.

I think many Canadians took for granted just how much process was informal tradition followed on honour and not binding rules.