For instance in Germany, the specific words "Bundesregierung" (Federal Government, or just short "government") and "Landesregierungen" (State Governments) explicitly describe the "executive part" of the "political system".
The Federal and State Parliaments are the "legislative part" and the courts are the "judiciary part" (with the "Federal Constitutional Court" at the top). This whole idea of strict separation of power is the most important foundation of the German political system.
When talking about "the government" in Germany, people mean the institutions of the executive (mainly the chancellor and ministries, sometimes also including the president, but never the parliaments and courts).
And tbh, I would also have a hard time describing the US Democratic Party as the "current US government" just because they're sitting in the Congress.
In the US it’s common to only use it to describe the entire apparatus for holding, administering and enforcing state power.
But it can also be used to mean the current ruling power in a parliamentary system together with the administrative bodies under its direct control. So something more akin to just the executive branch in the US system. And then certain state agencies such as the judiciary are meant to be independent of the government under that meaning of the term. I believe this is the most common understanding of the word outside the US.
Wait ‘til you find out what some of my friends mean when they say “pavement”.
Things were courts with huge power, and consisted of a gathering of all free men and had basically unlimited power, because they were the people. Meanwhile, the government was the person of the king.
I think that's an example of a system where the courts (Thing) is clearly not part of the government.
You can see this when people say “[X] is unable to form a government”. They don’t mean unable to form a judiciary.
1. the AfD thing was the decision of individual banks, not of the German government. Basically, in a free world companies can decide who they want to do business with.
2. the Canadian trucker "debanking" was quickly resolved because the Canadian justice system did their job and overruled the unlawful "emergency" government order
Never forget: sovereign power outranks corporate power. Corporations are better at making money. Sovereigns are better at violence.
The preamble is not subtle: "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."
Now, legally/philosophically speaking, the Canadian concept of free-speech is laughably weak, as is all Canadian rights. Specifically, section one clearly states that rights are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Effectively, if the government decides that you're "not reasonable," you have no rights.
The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God, where the idea is that the government is to uphold the existing divine rights afforded to all human beings, as opposed to the British system of which Canada (and the rest of the common-wealth is based off of) is a part of, where the government _grants_ the rights.
Another example of this is the British crown, in which authority is given by God. Many of the older cities derive their local authority in the same way. If I recall correctly, I believe that the city of London is so old that they actually mixed it up, and derive theirs from "time immemorial."
No, the legal system is not; there are non-legal documents which claim both of those things, but being subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” is very much how the US elgal system treats them. There is even, in federal Constitutional case law, an established, gradated system of tests (rational basis test, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny) depending on which right is at issue and for whom it is being limited as to whether there is sufficient justification.
Edit: the constitution in my country mentions no religion or god. Neither does the Lisbon Treaty or the Treaty on European Union.
To what extent this was explicitly coordinated by the government versus people who are merely strongly ideologically aligned with it is unclear; in systems as totalitarian as the UK is becoming it's a distinction without a difference as anyone not so aligned is quickly removed for one plausible reason or another and replaced with someone who is.
> I emailed the chairman, a lackey phoned me to say that it was a commercial decision, which I have to say, I don’t believe for a single moment. So I thought, well, there we are, I’ll have to go and find a different bank. I’ve been to six, no seven banks actually. Ask them all, could I have a personal and a business account? And the answer has been no.
Denied accounts at seven banks, and in the end he was right - the reason Coutts tried to close his account was simply because some woke committee hated him, it was purely political. There are no legal or commercial reasons to deny him an account, yet somehow, every bank does so. With no bank in the UK he cannot make payments and without that ability he cannot live there, so the banks came very close to ensuring that the British people could not vote for him even though Reform is now the most popular party.
The British establishment is entirely homogenous on this, because they claim anyone who supports Farage is insufficiently committed to "diversity and inclusion" (leftism) and thus must be forced out. It's indistinguishable from the banks all being directly controlled by the Labour party. The only reason Farage was able to stay is because Coutts were impatient; it was the dying days of the Conservative administration and they suddenly realized what was about to happen to them if they didn't make changes sharpish, so they stuck the FCA on NatWest and some heads rolled. But if Coutts had waited a bit longer until the next Labour government, there would have been no help coming and British democracy would have become even more sickly and fake than it already is (I say this as a British citizen).
The notion that banking, of all industries, has been taken over by woke leftists (please supply your own scare quotes for the first of those appellations – I give up) is for the birds. As for the establishment, your own take on this is inconsistent, first saying that the establishment is entirely homogenous and aligned against Farage, and then pointing out that the government of the day helped Farage to get his Coutts account back.
Who hasn't?
> and regulators
Good! (I wonder why?)
This is quite different from the claim that Coutts, of all organisations, was in hoc to 'woke leftists' while the country was under a Conservative government.
Theresa May et al instituted net zero basically without a vote, huge liberalisation of various social matters, enormous spending on welfare, locked the country down, and then imported 4 million people!
Sunak himself certainly didn't present as a dyed in the wool wokist in the lead up to his permiership:
> Whether it’s pulling down statues of historic figures, replacing the school curriculum with anti-British propaganda or rewriting the English language so we can’t even use words like ‘man’, ‘woman’ or ‘mother’ without being told we’re offending someone [... etc. etc.]
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/29/rishi-sunak...
It would be good if you did at least a minimal amount of due diligence before spreading misinformation (but I guess spreading misinformation is the whole point).