In this new government, the constitutional law holds the concept that the judicial body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or legislative bodies. The Head of Government is selected by the Head of State (or directly selected by the Judiciary from amongst its members), and is directly responsible to the Supreme Court. The government leader selects, dismisses, and oversees the military and other members of the cabinet, who ultimately reports to him.

The Judiciary "reviews" the chief executive directly, judging his job performance, and ultimately decides whether or not to dismiss him, possibly even convict him. Thus, in order to please the court, the executive is compelled to uphold their mandates and the constitution during his expected role as the executioner of the law and administrator of the country.

So, the big question is how plausible such a government is?

If it is relevant and must be said, this is in a fictional country no different in size or technology from modern day France or Japan.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your premise of "We've all heard of the Parliamentary system, a fusion of legislative and executive branches" is terribly wrong. What I heard about the Parliamentary system, is that whoever wins the parliament majority (party or coalition), has the right to name the (head of the) Executive. As opposed to whoever wins the Presidency names the executive. Is your faulty premise essential your question? If not, better delete it. $\endgroup$ Nov 5, 2021 at 3:38
  • $\begingroup$ Ok thanks, my bad $\endgroup$ Nov 5, 2021 at 3:40
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ VTC because this Q isn't asking a specific, practical, answerable question. Per the help center, "If you are looking for discussion, brainstorming, or an overall process rather than specific questions and answers, the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange might not be a good place for your question." Further, from the help center, "To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where you are asking an open-ended, hypothetical question." $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Nov 5, 2021 at 5:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I would not say that this question is opinion-based, despite its potential to attract a lot of speculation. Political science studies exactly this type of questions. However, in its current form, this question is too broad as you want us to address all areas where the government system may make a difference. Perhaps you could edit your question and focus on one particular area, for example, executive function and the effects of the proposed government on it. You could ask a series of questions that address different areas each. It would also help if you described your system in more detail. $\endgroup$
    – Otkin
    Nov 5, 2021 at 16:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SuperYoshikong I do not think it is a good idea to ask how the executives are chosen. This kind of question is frequently considered opinion-based on the WB.SE. I think the most feasible approach (and probably the easiest way to get this question reopened) is to come up with your own design, i.e. you decide how the executive branch is chosen, how it operates, what is the chain of command, and who controls it (although it seems logical for the judiciary to be in control). Then, you can ask whether your design is plausible and/or what are its flaws (do not forget to limit the scope). $\endgroup$
    – Otkin
    Nov 6, 2021 at 16:27

2 Answers 2


You don't have a judicial government . You describing a strong executive government.

In governments with a strong executive (a king, empire, and so on) the judicial branch of government is usually absorbed into the executive branch.
In theses types of systems the executive also act as the chief justice (just as you described) with lesser judges as either buericrates appointed by the executive or are local executives (mayors , military governors, lords, lesser kings). Tipicly the executive and judicial branches are only separate if the government system is made to limit the power of the executive.

Pros to grossly over simply stong executives offer more efficient and unity.

Cons extremely Vulnerable to leaders who are, incompetent, insane or simply wicked.


The obvious drawbakc would be that the judiciary is supposed to be a check-and-balance on the executive. The only recourse against government action would be something like an internal affairs investigation staffed by the executive. So this country could be very good for having adventures, even if it is not very good for actually living there.

But there is a different way to look at a fusion like this. Imagine a judicial overview getting more and more common, and judgements getting more and more specific, until no government action is really final unless it has been challenged in court, litigated through several levels, and finally rewritten by the judges. Consider the German Verfassungsgericht, which found the climate action plan of the previous government unsatisfactory because it did put too many hard decisions on future generations, hence deprieving them of their constitutionally protected liberty. There are other decisions where the court gave the parliament strict deadlines for changing laws or made stopgap decisions to fix things.

It might be possible to override such court-derived policy by changing the constitution, but that is often deliberately gridlocked by supermajority requirements.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .