Seriously this question is one that I have thought about before now, because on paper, veto power seems like something that shouldn't exist in a system that supposed to be based on checks and balances, what's the point of now having different arms of government, different voices, different opinions, if at the end of the day, it is that one person can just wave their hand and say "no, we are not doing that" and everybody else has to fall in line? Well, that is not democracy to me, that is democracy in a nice suit and hat with the power still in one location (one person).
But, on the other hand, I get the logic behind veto power, not all decisions made by the majority is a good decision, sometimes the majority get it wrong, sometimes political bodies pass things in the heat of the moment because of pressure, or popularity, but not necessarily what is right.
But my question about it is this, Who now checks the person holding the veto power? that is the question nobody seems to have a solid answer for, if one person can override everyone else, and there is no real mechanism for other bodies to override that override, then we have basically just moved the risk from "the majority might be wrong" to "one person might be wrong, and now nobody can do anything about it," that is not balance, that is just concentrated power dressed up in fancier language.
And let's face it, what if the man with the power is not competent, then nothing much can be done with it, If the person is fair, level-headed and truly serves the people, OK, perhaps it will work out, But when that same power is put into the hands of a person who's driven by ego, personal interest or just straight up bias, the safety net becomes a means of control, and the safety mechanisms themselves that were supposed to prevent bad decisions are now the mechanisms that allow them to make the bad ones.
I can't help but wonder what happens when this happens outside of government, in everyday life, in families, in workplaces, in relationships, when some member has a powerful role that no one can challenge, pretty much always goes off left arm, regardless of the good intentions it started out with, power that can't be challenged becomes power that doesn't need to explain itself, and that's a dangerous place for any system, or any individual.
I don't think one person should have that kind of unlimited authority, it shouldn't be like that without some accountability, some rules, maybe rules for using a veto, it may be that if there is enough opposition, that's enough, that's enough, some rules for transparency, whatever, that's enough that keeps that power from being in a vacuum because at the end of the day, real leadership isn't about having the end all, be all authority over everyone else, it's about being open to being questioned, challenged, held accountable, even if you can't be.
Image Is Generated With ChatGpt
