Let me guess: you're thinking of civil foreiture and qualified immunity in the US?

I don't dispute the US is non ideal, I do dispute that as a whole the government is unaccountable. For example, what do you think would happen if Gavin Newsome (governor of California) had someone killed for disrespecting him? That's the kind of thing really unaccountable governments get away with.

So I'm asking you to not only show that bad things have happened and not been adequately punished, but that the government is fundamentally as unaccountable as a reference unaccountable government, like the U.S.S.R under Stalin or Britain under Oliver Cromwell.

Yes, that's an extreme requirement. But you made an extreme claim when you said not just that democracies are insufficiently accountable to be completely just but that they are unaccountable.

I didn’t have specific examples in mind, and my argument is not about what type of government is ideal or even whether it’s possible to do better. My claim was simply that democratic governments are not accountable to individuals in any ordinary meaningful sense, and I stand by that.

Of course many governmental officials would likely be held accountable for extreme misconduct if they weren’t able to cover up the evidence. And of course certain governments are more accountable than others.

Whats your definition of not accountable? Making an absolute and not relative definition sounds hard.

Just the everyday definition that people use in normal conversation, not subtle insinuation about political philosophy or anything like that. I’m accountable to my employer for showing up and doing solid work. A student is accountable to their instructor. I’m accountable to the government for my income taxes (and many other laws). It just means that there is a fairly clear set of expectations and a pretty reliable and straightforward process that disincentivizes violation of those expectations in practice (not just in theory).

Why does needing to be reelected not make a politician accountable?