Is rule by judges acceptable? Tolerable?

Paul Craig Roberts, always an irascible writer and prone to calling a spade a spade, recently used an unfamiliar political term in a commentary.

Kritarchy is a system of government in which judges hold the primary ruling authority. The term comes from the Greek words kritēs (judge) and arkhō (to rule). PCR objects to such a thing for a good many reasons, and points out we seem to have fallen into that condition and thus giving up not only a republican form of government but also democracy. He makes many good points.

Some background helps.

Some authorities claim this concept was used in ancient Israel before YHWH (God), through Samuel His prophet, gave them a human king and monarchy.

But to compare modern American judges with the judges of the Twelve Tribes is both very difficult and misleading. Israelite judges did not actually rule: they commanded armies and forces to fight against the Twelve Tribes and settled some disputes. And they were appointed/anointed by YHWH, not human kings or by elections. And each Tribe, city, village, and community had its elders who were judges for most disputes, and apparently levied punishments for crimes with the consent of the people and per the Torah: the Law of Moses.

Nor can we compare what PCR rightfully decries with the model found in the State (former Republic) of Texas. All of Texas’ 254 counties (yes, really!) are led by a County Judge. Elected to office and carrying out a mixture of judicial, legislative, and executive functions for their county. Their role is much closer to that of other States which have “county executives” or the chair of a board of county commissioners.

It is pointed out by some observers that kritarchy is found in societies with legal systems that operate independently of centralized political control. This, we are told, can be seen in Somalia’s customary law system. And perhaps in Inuit and AmerInd traditional tribal systems. Again, vastly different from the current state of affairs in the States. And certainly not like this seems to be evolving.

So are any of these varieties good or bad? Acceptable or not? Tolerable or intolerable? Superior to or worse than a republic or a democracy – or for that matter a monarchy/dictatorship or oligarchy?

Simply described, our present version of kritarchy is one where the judges wield more and more control over both the executive and legislative branches of governments. Not just the federal but also the State governments. And in which the federal judiciary also controls the various State justice systems. From the perspective of lovers of liberty? We at TPOL argue for bad, unacceptable, and intolerable. As bad or worse than the two-wolves-and-a-sheep model of democracy. And makes a mockery of the idea of a republic where government entities have very strict limits on their authority.

Why? Prioritizing “legal principles” does not ensure fairness and justice, for the legal “principles” are interpreted and applied by very fallible and corruptible people. (Read “twisted” or “warped.”) There is little or no role for collective judgment by an accused’s peers. The single judge or panel of judges (so beloved in the Napoleonic (European) model) are black-robed tyrants who exercise powers no human should ever be allowed to do. Even the homey “Justice of the Peace” is little more than a petty tyrant operating under his or her own private interpretation of the law and regulations. Aided and abetted by the ersatz nobility of “Esquires” (Attorneys and Lawyers) who lord it over their own clients (including government agencies).

Kritarchy is just another way to avoid accountability and to concentrate power in the judiciary: a monarch or oligarchs. Except for the trusted servants of the courts and the lesser nobility of the attorneys who are the only ones with any privilege of addressing most judges, the rest of us are mere peons if not outright serfs.

So we vote for intolerable. What say you?

READ MORE