Let me make it clear at the onset, I do not have any expertise whatsoever in either constitutional history or law. This is an entirely lay opinion.

The three branches of government (judiciary, legislative and executive), can work well under certain circumstances. There is much historical evidence for this. There is however an underlying assumption that the practitioners of the three branches enjoy a common heritage, common education and common traditions.

It is like a coach pulled by three horses. If the horses work as a team, and pull in the same direction it is a smooth ride. But if the horses become ill disciplined, pull in different direction then there may be chaos. This in is what happens when one factor becomes obstructionist. We have seen in Australia how a hostile senate can block government legislation. It maters little if the obstruction is due to philosophical differences or a play for power. There is talk of a “balance of power.” This means minor parties can manipulate the situation and exercise power disproportionate to their community representation. In my view the “wheeling and dealing” in the Senate is both the negation of democracy and an elevation of the personal interests of politicians over and above the National Interest.

This chaotic situation is essentially unstable and sooner or later one of the “horses” may find a way to dominate the other two. Did not the Republic of Ancient Rome collapse into the dictatorship of Julius Caesar and the Empire of Octavius (Augustus)?

Should no “horse” succeed in domination, then the society is very likely to disintegrate and suffer obliteration by enemies.

The image of Mr Bush flaunting international law inserted some welcome humour.

Quite so, Henery. "Look at me! I'm President! Check out this international law I'm flushing down the toilet! Who needs laws when we have faith, eh?"

An excellent and balanced article. Unfortunately, the standard of political debate in Australia extends only to statements like "right wing good, left wing bad" or vice versa.

Unlike the Americans, we reward our leaders for cheating and deceiving us.

Given that the republican supreme court stole the election from
Al Gore and handed it to George and Co, given that electronic
voting with no paper trail is becoming common in the US, I don't
have much faith in their system.

What the US public has learnt the hard way, is that if they
appoint an idiot, along with an attack dog to lead their
country, they will pay a heavy price. The US has come down
a long way in the last 6 years, the public are finally waking
up to just how much. Repairing the damage that the Bush/Cheney
team have inflicted, will take a long long time.

This thread is one of the best I've seen here. Agree with all your comments with a couple of riders.

What democracy? It's not practiced anywhere in the world. Australia doesn't have it. We have a two Party tag team which gives the elctorate no choice at all.

Bush has caused the Atomic clock to tick two minutes in his short holiday in the White House. Perhaps historical leadership at war should be mandatory. If so, no wars from us in the West.

The Australian media has pointed the Fox inspired finger at Iran and Korea for the Atomic clock movement. More widely read opinion points where it belongs. At George's bunch of $ oriented morons.

Bush and the US is the only country to use the overwhelming force of atomic power and George's shaky grip on the button is becoming shakier.

His lunacy in invading Iraq has done exactly what Bin Laden wanted. Divided the threat of US domination by exposing them as vulnerable as all civilsations are. George is sending the US broke, turning even Republicans against him but he insists he has the "power". Which he does much to the world's horror. But he certainly does not have the will of his people behind him today.

Exposing the underlying weakness of an army filled with National Guard and the youth is exactly where bin Laden was aiming. Why? Clinton trained Al Qaeda troops in Afghanistan and then abandoned them versus the Russians. Therefore the turn towards Bush and the US. George perhaps cannot reead or speak without his earphone.

Yes Bush may indeed reinvigorate American democracy but what kind of democracy was it that elected him in the first place?
Its totally undemocratic on a global scalre that the majority population of the world should be anxious about who the present of next president of the 'free world' is or should be