Mixed government (also a question on the American Republic)

[Die Neue Zeit]

How exactly is a government that mixes democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy a good thing, and how exactly is this supposed to be related to separation of powers?

Originally it was viewed that the Senate represented the rule of the few, but is it correct to say that it is now the Supreme Court that does this?

[Demogorgon]

Well in the past it was a compromise between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy that looking back we can see as a stepping stone. The classic example would have been Britain with two co-equal legislative houses, one directly elected by restricted franchise representing mostly commercial interests and one composed on a hereditary basis. Alongside this was a monarch still exercising some personal power but increasingly dependent on Ministers answerable to the legislature. America made some attempt to copy this, but it was never as clear cut. Calling it a mixed Government today is not terribly helpful. It is a polyarchy like most other Western countries. It sits towards the less democratic end of Western countries but it is still a full polyarchy without much in the way of older forms of Government left.

A more interesting question might be what a future mixed system might be like, that is to say something mixing elements of liberal democracy with socialist democracy. Certainly there have been attempts at that before (the original East German constitution tried and miserably failed to set it up) but it would be interesting to see it actually working. Perhaps that may be something that evolves on the road to socialism.