Mereja.Forum

In my view, law is one of the best inventions made by humanity. It established the boundary between civility and barbarism. If planet earth can be a paradise, it can only be one under the rule of law. On the other hand, barbarism can make it its own hell.

I do not know the genesis of law. Somebody recently stated that the Magna Carta is the first written law. I have read that the Code of Hammurabi, which was written in ancient times, is also a written law. I am sure that there are also other written and unwritten laws that were conceived in ancient times. When and where the earliest conception of law, written or unwritten, came to be may be an excellent academic exercise.

The checks and balances across the three branches of government as established in the U.S. constitution by its founding fathers appears to me the richest judicial provision in making any government accountable to law.

One of the greatest geniuses of all time, Albert Einstein, is often quoted to have said that if one can't explain something simply, one doesn't understand it well enough.

One of the times that this imagination came to life for me was when a law professor recently stated that in a monarchy, the king is the law whereas in a democracy, the law is the king, or something to that effect.

Evidently, the writers of the U.S. constitution rejected a monarchy and established a democratic order even if they had the capacity to exclude the natives and the abducted in a country in which they imagined to establish the democratic order. In that sense, they rejected a monarchy from above but retained the monarchical order to lord over those below them in their own households. The democratic order they established among themselves didn't apply to those whose services they retained under them in their households and to those whose native lands they wanted.

Tax is the other invention, or convention, that enabled governments to function. It is the bond between citizens and the leaders that they hire to work in government positions. I presume that the citizens that pay taxes to hire leaders in their government's positions have all the rights to vet anyone that they hire to work for them by managing their tax money. I also presume that anyone who offers to be hired by the people would be willing to be vetted by the people. If both of these presumptions are valid, it becomes paradoxical that anyone who offers to be hired by the people to manage their tax money is also willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court of the land in order to get the release of his own tax returns blocked from the sight of the citizens that employ him.

Irrespective of the outcome of the current debate around the U.S. constitution, I continue to be fascinated by the process that is shedding light on the vision of the writers of the U.S. constitution some 243 years ago. In what appears to be prophetic, it is said that one of them stated that they got a republic if they can keep it.

I am one of those people who makes a careful distinction between theory and practice. In theory, the idea of the rule of law is simple. In practice, it is complicated. If it were simple, accountability to the rule of law would be practically evident everywhere.

It appears to me that the writers of the U.S. constitution have made the checks and balances across the three branches of government as practical as possible. To the extent that law can be seen as a barrier between civility and barbarism, I would argue that by envisioning this provision that continues to function to this day, they have saved civilization.

There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it."

There's a reason why Franklin never said "A democracy, if you can keep it," because the US founding fathers who created a Republic form of government, felt that democracy "soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself."

The promotion and the use of the word democracy by US government officials didn't even start well until during the Cold War, when they needed a powerful ideological tool to counter the spread of communist ideology in Third World countries, such as Ethiopia that fell under the Soviet sphere of influence. By making elections synonymous with democracy, the US was able to overthrow leaders in Third World countries who refused to kowtow on their knees to US foreign policy.

Here's an interesting article on the subject.
The Cold War and the Origins of US Democracy Promotion
https://www.baas.ac.uk/usso/cold-war-de ... promotion/

Fiyameta,

Thank you for the reference.

When I say a democratic order as envisioned by the writers of the U.S. constitution, notwithstanding all its shortfalls that led to its amendment numerous times, I mean to say the political order as they envisioned it and wrote it in the constitution. That political order boils down to understanding whether the legitimacy of leaders came through elections by the citizens of the United States or from the King of England. The provision of elections also means that the President of the United States is destined to be the Servant of the people of the United States who elect him or her.

Note the word keep when Benjamin Franklin said "a republic if you can keep it." They were struggling for the independence of the republic they wanted to lead. I would imagine that they were insecure about interference from outside the republic. Also note that he didn't suggest that the republic they envisioned was poised to interfere in other republics. I would be surprised if that suggestion exists in the constitution they wrote. I stand to be corrected.

So, if their primary mission was to be independent from the British monarchy and if they didn't have any motive to interfere in the sovereignty of other republics, I do not think it matters practically if you call it a republic or a democracy. Interestingly, as it stands now, it appears that the leaders of the Democratic Party in the House are the defenders of the constitution and whether the leaders of the Republican Party in the Senate will also defend the constitution equally remains to be tested. In others words, whether the leaders of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party will identify more with the words of Benjamin Franklin remains to be seen in the current debate.

Perhaps, the robust political order, whether it is called a democracy or a republic, made the new republic stronger over time and may have unwittingly led to interference in other sovereign republics. In the reference, I noticed that the Nixon administration was one of the leaders of such interference by supporting authoritarian governments in other countries. If I remember correctly, he also said: "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." That is an expression of an authoritarian. Then the republic showed him the door out of the office of the Servant of the people of the United States and kept itself in accord with the words of Benjamin Franklin.

Naga,

The framers of the US Constitution were the product of their times. You can not fail them for that. Judge democracy by its product. Dictators in Africa can come up with all kind of excuses. All they have been doing is excuses and excuses. Africa does not need a king, Africa needs the servant that is elected by the people. Transparency, rule of law, and a government of the people by the people as well as due process is critical for the bantus to come out of jungle.