Even though I am just a layperson in social science, I am drawn to hearing, reading, and writing about democracy.
The ongoing debate in the U.S. over democracy is becoming fascinating over time.
Some suggested that there was going to be a constitutional crisis. That was refuted because the courts remained functional.
Some others have suggested recently that it has been stress-tested. If some recent decisions serve as indicators, the third branch of government, which some referred to as the inferior branch of government, appears to stand unstressed, unlike the legislative and executive branches. The "inferior branch" appears poised to be the ultimate arbiter.
The dynamic of checks and balances of the three branches of government appears to be working how it was designed and supposed to be working. I have little idea if this dynamic of a democratic system was in the mind of the late President Ronald Reagan when he came up with the phrase "a shining city on a hill." In the view of this layperson, the concept embedded in the dynamic is a shiny one.
There can be a lot of arguments in the years to come about the origin and endurance of this shining virtue of humanity. Like many others, I have argued before that America's founding fathers, despite their shortcomings, may have come up with one of the best-structured concept of democracy in a written constitution. However, the very concept of democracy did not originate from their own gem of imagination.
As if to corroborate this argument, I was enlightened just yesterday about one of the simple ideas still embedded in the U.S. constitution that I have failed to connect with for so long, apparently for a reason. This simple concept is the power of pardon. I have heard very recently that it is a concept that remains unsettled and might be in a position to be tested in the future.
So, imagine a simple idea that was incorporated in the U.S. constitution in 1776 and remains unsettled in 2020.
A long time ago, I suggested that the best way to understand the contrast between a democracy and a monarchy might be through simple power hierarchies in each of them. In a democracy, we have people, a constitution, leadership, and a leader, in that order. In a monarchy, we have providence, monarchy, constitution, and people, in that order, at least in historical terms.
While commenting on CNN, Asha Rangappa explained that the power of pardon was one of the few monarchical provisions that got its way into the U.S. constitution. More than indicating the source of that power, the explanation reinforced my view that the ongoing debate is organic between those who have settled for democracy and those that still consciously or subconsciously remain beholden to a monarchy.
This organic debate may be confusing to many and may not even spare an American statesman who has the capacity to take on, among others, the judgment slacks of an FBI director, Black Lives Matter movement, potential loopholes in U.S. mail service, and unsubstantiated claims of election fraud.
Yet, the debate continues and the best of it is expressed through votes by citizens.
If I remember correctly, the motto of one of the international agencies is "know your rights." Just like President Obama's classy expression of "Don't boo, vote," it is a simple phrase with a profound impact on the progress of democracy. A more detailed version among those who know and practice democracy is "know your rights; protect your rights; not protecting your rights is inviting karma upon yourself."
Just to add one more contrast, imagine the difference between the concepts in pardon and Guma, payment in kind for one's offenses. I do not think that there is any place in Guma wherein an offense is relegated to providence.
I think the above ideas are simple and easy to understand concepts that make the contrast between democratic and monarchical orders clearer. Those who have consciously settled for democracy are in a position to make it humanity's virtue. Savages may creep up and disappear. In the long run, the virtuous humanity will ask what in the world the savages were thinking when they decided to remain savages.