What he's missing is that the appearance of what he calls 'suppleness' is actually anything but that. By definition, democracy requires widespread assent among the people. Where this is lacking, officialdom has the upper hand. The 'suppleness' will be found only at that level. Of course they have free reign; they've effectively been unchained. That bodes ill for democracy, since it's been undermined. It's become unresponsive and stagnant. From that point, autocracy is but a step away. We move from at least some semblance of procedural direction, to wildest concatenation, as every vested interest in the upper echelons turns to internecine warfare. The public interest is void. The bloke who wrote that is biased somehow. I don't know how exactly, but he fucking is. It's obvious. He's describing one aspect only, and it reeks of agenda.