I think this neglects an important aspect of checks to power: functioning feedback loops.
Your model seems to be “as long as the good people can defend their power than the system is good” but I think every person fails in some ways, and a more important criteria for successful leadership is the ability to get feedback about what’s going wrong (or right) and iterate.
If a system no longer accepts critique (or actively selects against it) that’s very likely a sign things have gone wrong. Ideally critique should be embraced and encouraged, and any organization’s first concerns should be to setup ways to maintain healthy feedback cycles and decrease blind spots.
I think this neglects an important aspect of checks to power: functioning feedback loops.
Your model seems to be “as long as the good people can defend their power than the system is good” but I think every person fails in some ways, and a more important criteria for successful leadership is the ability to get feedback about what’s going wrong (or right) and iterate.
If a system no longer accepts critique (or actively selects against it) that’s very likely a sign things have gone wrong. Ideally critique should be embraced and encouraged, and any organization’s first concerns should be to setup ways to maintain healthy feedback cycles and decrease blind spots.