If you think the age of the constitution means anything at all, then I am scared. Countries that do well, like Norway or Australia, have old constitutions — it means they have practice. Some good, safe democracies, like New Zealand, don't even have a constitution at all. Most of the remainder have constitutions that are old but have been comparatively recently re-enacted to make some superficial change here or there. (In the top ten, Iceland, Finnland and Ireland are probably the countries with the genuinely youngest constitutions.)
And anyone who has seen the Spanish handling of this situation, who thinks that Spain has separation of power, deserves the completely abandonment of the rule of law that is just around the corner.
And it's clear that this lack of separation is rooted in the minds of Spanish politicians and governors. Here's the Vice President of Spain basically threatening the Belgium Executive if the Belgium Courts don't extradite Carles Puigdemont
https://thediplomatinspain.com/en/2019/10/spain-tells-belgiu...
>In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of legislature, executive, and judiciary.
Contrast that with [0], which states "El Gobierno es el principal pilar del Estado; ... ejercicio del poder ejecutivo del Estado", the latter of which links to [1], which clarifies, "el poder ejecutivo es una de las tres facultades y funciones primordiales del Estado".
Are the Guardia Civil and the judicial branch not part of the government in Spain? I mean, it's still the Spanish government right?
Just for context, in the US we have police and national guard and judges and prosecutors, etc. But we would consider them all to be part of the government.