> No, because neither China or Venezuela are considered to be under the rule of law.
Considered... by who? Do their governments view themselves that way?
Considered... by who? Do their governments view themselves that way?
Of course their governments see that as the way it should be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_law#Rule_of_law : > Despite the newly elevated role of courts in Chinese society, there still remains some consensus about defects in China's legal system in regards to progressing towards the rule of law.
I have never read anything similar about Spain.
http://en.administracion.gob.es/pag_Home/espanaAdmon/comoSeO...
>Parliament approves the budget of the judiciary.
"Independent" is a strong word here.
All western democracies have the executive branch influence the judiciary in more or less degree. But it's a huge jump from that to single-party systems like China or, de facto, Venezuela.
And now, please inform us of how long this murderer actually served, just for the laugh. Was it 1 year? 6 months? 3 months?
And for even more laugh, just tell us how his sentence vanished, thanks to... the government's pardon.
Your example is going against your point!
But if your argument is that the courts in all these countries are puppets of their governments based on the fact that they have the power to pardon later on, I don't think it's a strong argument.
You really don't seem to be willing to consider that two reasonable people can have differing opinions about the same situation. Who appoints these "reasonable outside observers"? And who defines who or what is "corrupt"? It all just boils down to what you yourself view as corrupt or reasonable.
Also, if Spain is like most countries (but I really don't know this for a fact), but elected representatives will have signed or sworn or something similar to uphold the constitution.
I think the legitimacy difference has to do with inalienable rights. People have a right to representation in their own governance. That's what the dictator gets wrong. People also have a right to liberty - i.e. To not be slaves. A "law" that says you can't ever secede is making people slaves by taking away their right to withdraw from the political union they're a part of.
The argument above is that it's legal because it's written down. What I hoped to call attention to is that simply writing something down and calling it a law isn't necessarily better than what a dictator does.
So...people's personal opinions then?