> Anyone who thinks differently is arguing for a shadow gov, i.e. unelected bureaucrats who answer to no one and can make decisions unilaterally without consequence... not exactly democracy.
Lots of countries have an establishment "civil service" comprised of those "unelected bureaucrats" that you mention, and it actually works out quite well for them.
That said, they aren't unaccountable: they answer to departmental heads, MPs, committees, etc. A big advantage of the system is to prevent mad-swings in policy just because the head-of-government changed.
Yes, of course - but if a country already had a well-oiled establishment civil-service which kept its finger on the pulse of the nation then it would already be aligned with the electorates' interests and voting-intent.
Any power structure naturally seeks permanence. Democratic elections with short office terms goes against the nature. If we are not vigilant, shadowy forces will take control of this mechanism too. Some could argue it already has happened.
Lots of countries have an establishment "civil service" comprised of those "unelected bureaucrats" that you mention, and it actually works out quite well for them.
That said, they aren't unaccountable: they answer to departmental heads, MPs, committees, etc. A big advantage of the system is to prevent mad-swings in policy just because the head-of-government changed.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_(United_Kingdom)