Power pools just like water. It eventually condenses in the hands of a single person, who might be demented, corrupted or just plain inexperienced in wielding it. That's how we got a long train of kings and tyrants, the ousting of which led to the creation of a rich legal tradition, namely that aimed at establishing the right to petition.
The following text is an analysis of the right to petition from the 13th century all the way to present day.
In 1215, alarmed by constant transgressions against their rights and lands by King John, English noblemen rallied their men and threatened to oust the King unless he signed a Magna Carta (Grand Charter) listing their rights. This he did, allowing the noblemen to choose 25 barons among themselves to hold the King to his word.
Article 61 of the Magna Carta says any four of the 25 barons could petition the King for the righting of wrongs in the following way:
Then, if we, our chief justiciar, our bailiffs or any of our officials, offend in any respect against any man, or break any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is notified to four of the said twenty-five barons, the four shall come to us — or to our chief justicicar if we are absent from the kingdom — to declare the transgression and petition that we make amends without delay.
In the Bill of Rights of 1689, we again see the right to petition, brought about through political maneuvering to sabotage the ascending king, stating:
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.
It was actually the House of Commons and the House of Lords that processed these petitions. The former received and formalized complaints from the common folk while the latter tried to neuter or just delay them before they appeared in front of the royal court.
The two arose shortly after the Magna Carta, with the idea of only having taxation with representation, meaning the royal court can't just set out taxes without someone from the region present there to dispute them. You can imagine the king saying such and such town will surrender 10,000 barrels of wine as taxes when there was a flood or a drought and there's barely a 1,000 barrels. If there's nobody from the region to rein in the king, as it were, the town will be ravaged by the tax collectors.
Because the colonies were taxed without their representatives being present in front of the British royal court, their relationship steadily deteriorated. After the British brought a legal noose around the neck of American settlers in order to pacify them, they rebelled, which resulted in a fight for independence that was bolstered by the newly formed legal guarantees of freedoms. This brought about the First Amendment in 1791, which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Note how the right to petition is inextricably tied to the right of assembly; in the olden days, there might have been one literate person in the entire village, each resident of which might have a complaint. How else could they petition the government other than by holding a meeting in the town square or wherever else is suitable for as long as it takes?
If they do hold a meeting, it might also involve breastfeeding mothers, who would need separate amenities for them and their children. What about handicapped people? The right to petition therefore must allow for all people under all circumstances and at all times, which immediately annuls all coronavirus movement restriction measures (which the parasitic elite dared to call "lockdown" under the prison term for strict imprisonment of uppity cellmates) instituted in 2020 under the false pretense of preventing the spread of a disease.
All other rights can be limited in some fashion but the right to petition the government cannot. You may complain in writing left-to-right, right-to-left, upside down, backwards, forwards, in all dimensions, using any available form, format or material, addressing past, present or future real or imaginary issues. Indeed, it is the prime right of the people, with the government serving as the working body that resolves their complaints.
Governments that refuse to receive, acknowledge or address complaints have no legitimate power, though they may command terrifying weapons and staggering armies. With such a government, its citizenry can rebel against or sabotage it in any fitting manner, and it's much easier and safer than it seems. Conversely, a government that does resolve complaints is legitimate, no matter who voted for it and what budget, if any, it might have.
The wording of the right to petition in the First Amendment also allows for some interesting possibilities. For instance, there is no limitation on the number of people who may assemble. Any given person may assemble with himself or any number of seen or unseen, imaginary or real entities, including animals, plants or items. That same person might assemble with himself or 10,000 people and there's nothing any government can do.
The location is similarly undefined. A petitioner may assemble with his imaginary pet rocks on top of a mountain, inside a hollow tree or wherever else suits his needs and wants. The only stipulation is that it be done "peaceably", meaning without causing a disturbance and without the intention to create a violent gathering under the pretense of petitioning the government. This is why the police inserts its plain clothes agents into a peaceful protest to make it violent and then responds with oppression and violence through uniformed agents.
The Polish Constitution, Article 63, says this about the right to petition:
Everyone shall have the right to submit petitions, proposals and complaints in the public interest, in his own interest or in the interests of another person — with his consent — to organs of public authority, as well as to organizations and social institutions in connection with the performance of their prescribed duties within the field of public administration. The procedures for considering petitions, proposals and complaints shall be specified by statute.
Again, the procedures for considering petitions can be prescribed by the government; the petitions themselves are unlimited in form and substance, just like we saw with the First Amendment.
In Austria, there's a dedicated office that receives and investigates complaints. This is most likely done to make sure they follow formal guidelines before being passed upstream and is the case in several other European countries as well. Article 148a of the Austrian Constitution states:
Everyone can lodge complaint with the ombudsman board (Commission for Complaints from the Public) against alleged maladministration by the Federation, including its activity as a holder of private rights, mainly for alleged violation of human rights, provided that they are affected by such maladministration and in so far as they do not or no longer have recourse to legal remedy. All such complaints must be investigated by the ombudsman board. The complainant shall be informed of the investigation's outcome and what action, if necessary, has been taken.
Note that complaints are not limited to citizens but do require there is some harm to the petitioner.