This is not an article about abortion. We will not scrutinize Roe vs Wade verdicts. We will not speak about the Justices of the Supreme Court, their religion or ideologies. We will not speak about the right or the left's goals or motivations.
Fact it, Roe vs Wade fiasco reveals something way more significant and far reaching than any of the above.
I have always believed that good education is key to democracy. Sadly, good education is hard to come by. In order to critique something, you must understand what it is. It helps to know how this "somethings" was critiqued in the past, what has come of this criticism and what alternatives were tried before. I do not believe that the "elite" of the world got poor education. Especially the older generation. Many of the politicians got the best liberal arts education, that only the idle like them can afford - most of us focused on education that would put food on the table. The rich can afford otherwise. I do not believe they do not understand the "constitutional democracy", and how it developed over the last 3000 years. I do not believe they do not understand the purpose of the constitution and of the supreme court. But sadly, many of us were not afforded the time it takes to truly understand these concept, their history and alternatives. It leaves us vulnerable for exploitation by the far right and/or far left, which, according to many, regardless of the side of the isle they are on, is considered to be the real group pulling the strings. Lets assume they are right. If so, these ideologues, are perfectly willing to use the ignorance of the citizenry for their ends, and in history, this resulted in MASSIVE carnage(1), from both the left and the right.
So let us rid our selves of the shackles that the far-whatever, that the elite-whatever is putting on us. Let us fight back with understanding!
What is constitutional democracy?
In the United States, and indeed in most modern democracies, we do not live under a "democracy" but under "constitutional democracy". We all have a high level of understanding what this means but why is this distinction significant? What is "democracy"?
Democracy or a Republic?
Democracy is a system where the citizens, get to decide on the law of the land. Most famously, this experiment started in Athens, where an assembly of a minimum of 10,000 men, would decide on all kinds of matters from internal matters, to foreign policy like war. It is hailed as a wonderful example of democracy but the greatest thinker of that time, Socrates and Plato, harshly criticized it. They knew (they saw) it for what it really was - a dictatorship of the masses. Under such democracy, the majority, can strip anyone of any right. It can, legally, marginalize any groups of people or individuals. There are no "human rights" to limit then. They, "the majority" are the ultimate arbitrators of right and wrong. I think most of us, feel deep unease with a system that can strip "<insert an visible group> of all rights", by a simple vote of 51% . We know, that some "rights" cannot be taken away by a simple vote. But why do we know it? As Socrates said, an "unexamined life is not worth living" so lets examine why it is that we know this is wrong.
Plato and Socrates also knew this was wrong and criticized Athenian democracy as nothing more than a glorified Kingship.
Rule of one
You see, despite some claims otherwise, most of human political history is characterized by some sort of kingship. A powerful person, (or a group in some cases) would, by force and whit, gain control over some group of people, or geographical area and would exort their power on that population by force. "Law" meant "what the king said". The king/prince/warlord had the power of life and death over their subjects. And they were "subjects" not "citizens". A wise ruler, tried to rule with a balance to keep the revolution at bay. Nonetheless, a successful ruler was rarely benevolent. The large the empire, the less benevolent the rule. I do not have time to get into this, but please do not fall into a trap of idealizing tribal life of some group, as it is almost always characterized by at least a war of survival, to prevent one tribe taking over another, and establish a kingdom. The closer the group is to a family, the more benevolent rule is possible, but even there, woe to the one that wants to step outside of the social norms of this group....that story we know well.
Athens' short lived experiment with democracy was an attempt to solve the problem of the dictatorship of the king but soon reveled to be a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates and Plato argued that the best system would be a republic ruled buy a super-smart philosopher-king. A person full of wisdom and knowledge, that would ensure all laws were just, that the rights of everyone would be respected and decisions would be illuminated by the best education, clearest logic and benevolent character of such a ruler - attributes hardly applicable to the overall population of democratic Athens. Such a ruler may be hard to come by, but the greatest minds of this time were convinced this was the ideal system(2).
The Israelites
Not far away, but far enough, nomadic people of a very different tradition were working out their own version of such a political system. The Israelites were working out the idea of God being their king. A truly perfect and just "philosopher king". A perfect law-giver. Whether the law they received/created is truly just and good is out of scope of our deliberations, we only need to understand that they believed it was a truly a just, good law. They were asked to have no king, because if they just followed the law perfectly, there would not be a need for an early king. Not that very different from being led by a philosopher-king - God was a perfect incarnation of such a all-knowing king, so to speak.
The Romans
On the opposite side of the Greek isles, another group, having reject the rule of a King, erected the greatest republic ever to have existed - the Roman Republic. Details of the system are complicated, but suffices to say, it was designed to give the semi-illusion of democracy to the proletariat, thus allowing the ruling elite, the "nobles", the "rich-and-powerful" to share power. Different parties would, via a process of election, rule the republic for a predefined period of time, say, 4 years. Rings a bell? Anyway, the romans were very conservative group. Innovation, especially in the political system was not a virtue. They setup a body that would temper such change. "The Senate" (which literally meant 'an assembly of old men') was a group, appointed by elected officials, that would offer recommendations to the currently ruling government. The idea was, that these were seasoned, experience and wise individuals, who would be able to give good advise to young, enthusiastic, full of novel ideas politicians (with great hair), who would otherwise steer the republic into dangerous waters. Eventually, due to various factors, the trust in the senate deteriorated, and the republic was plunged into a series of devastating civil wars, bloody political and ideological purges, reemerging as an Empire! Star Wars saga draw a lot from this history. The greatest republic, reverted into kingship, with the king/emperor elevated to the status of a God - a useful idea for a population that held Greek philosophy and culture in high esteem.
The Christendom
Ancient time gave away to middle ages, with the Roman Empire breaking up into Christian west and Muslim east, roughly. The Christian Roman Empires, took the lead of their older brothers-in-faith Israelites and continued with the idea of God King - Jesus Christ. The Medieval thinkers, far from being portrayed as backwards ignorant people, were well aware of their history - of the Athenian democracy and Plato's criticism, of the Israelite God-King, and especially of the torbuland history of the Roman Empires. They attempted to keep the "good" of the Roman system and do away with the bad. The "The Christendom" was an idea of the united world under the ultimate leadership of a God-King Jesus Christ, as presented on earth by the Catholic Church. Day to day leadership would be conducted by local rulers, who would be subject to ultimate authority of law given by God, as interpreted by the Catholic Church, especially the Pope. The experiment failed to unite even Europe. Secular Kings were less interested in follow God's law than enjoying the fruits of their position, and the Church had its own set of bad apples that spoiled a lot. The battle between those two group, is a long history, perhaps for another day, but just one things to keep in mind - any interpretation that puts blame squarely in one group or another, is likely an ideological simplification of a very complicated web of good will, mistakes, benevolence and malevolence. Nonetheless, this was an attempt to solve the "arbitrary rule of the king" which, with the dissolution of Rome, was rampant in Europe. Roman empire broke up to hundreds of local rulers resembling a world akin to one portrayed by the Mad Max films.
With the failure of the Catholic Church to bring order, to bring some higher law to the kings and princess and Europe, the idea of a "constitution" was born - a set of fundamental principles that everyone, even the king is subject to. A set of fundamental laws if you will. A secular, better Bible.
Enlightenment and its Devine Law
Modern constitutions (like that of the United States) are products of Enlightened thinkers, that by in large, have rejected the idea of Christian Personal God. But far from being atheists, most were deists. They still believe in creator-god, that endowed us with inalienable rights that we can discover by the power of reasons. Sounds familiar? All human beings, have rights such as a right-to-life, not because 51% of people voted for this, but because this is how god intended it. A constitution is a statement of the ultimate truth, that we do not "vote on", but we consider self-evident.
It is from this idea, that we hold this deep belief, that a certain group of people (race, ethnicity, religion, etc) can be denied these basic rights, even if 51% of voters happen to think they should be.
The 'old men'
The enlightened thinkers, the elite of the day, knew that someone would have to interpret what does "all" and the rest of the 4,400 words of the constitution meant. The knew that new considerations, unconceivable at the time (contraception, abortion, cloning etc) would have to be considered. The supreme court, like the Roman Senate was tasks with this job. The supreme court, would be a group of wise, seasoned, proven individuals, appointed by elected officials, that would act as a buffer to stop young, enthusiastic politicians with good hair, from implementing radical change, if it was not inline with current understanding of "the constitution".
The rule of the super-majority
Does this mean that the constitution is unchanging? No. At the end, it is a human document, reflecting the widely accepted ideas, truths and principles of the day. A rule of super-majority (aka 66% of the voters) can to change the constitution.
How different is this from the rule of the mob experience in Athens? Fundamentally, it is not different. But in practice, it is very different. In Athens, in a day's deliberation, a whole section of the population could be legally enslaved. In a constitutional democracy, we have mechanism - aka, like the supreme court - to prevent such a mistake. Is it perfect? No. it is after all, made up of us - imperfect human animals who eat and drink too much, exercise far too infrequently, waste far too much time on dumb sitcoms, are far to ignorant to see our own limitations...
Faith, is everything
Notice that in Rome, the senate had no legislative power. People had to "trust" the recommendations of the senate. At the end, a Roman ruler could ignore the recommendation, but the fear of the people, fear of their trust in the wise leadership of the senate, kept the tyrants at bay. When it failed, people payed in blood. When a dictator shares your vision of the world, life seems good. But dictatorship, once established, can and will fall into the hands of those that do not share your ideals. The French revolution shows this well, where even the inventors of the enlightened and humane form of execution - the guillotine - had a chance to experience its effectiveness. Dictatorships, no mater how benevolent at first, is never a good option.
If we lose the trust in "the constitution" and the institutions that uphold it, and the system for changing it, we are walking on thin ice indeed. Study of history shows, that even the greatest of democracies, are vulnerable. History shows that however imperfect the current system may seem to us - and it IS imperfect - it is better than anything we have had before.
Democracy or tyranny
Plato, the father of philosophy, at the end of his master peace The Republic, when pushed to choose the best political system, having first argued for about ~700 pages that the dictatorship of the philosopher-king is the ideal theoretical system, choose democracy. He choose democracy as the ideal practical system. arguing that, it is the only system that allowed the dialog that the 700 pages of the republic reported, to take place. As flawed as it is, it is the best defense against hell we have.
Back to Roe vs Wade
The rulings of the United States of the Supreme Court will never satisfy everyone. There were horrible rulings before, that perpetuated slavery for example. But this imperfect system has in it, built in system to bring in change. When an idea becomes accepted by super-majority, the constitution may be amended. The system allows the ideas to be tested, to be scrutinized, before they become law. We reject this system, at our own peril. The grass is rarely greener on the other side. Education, not indoctrination is key. No one should graduate high school without deep knowledge of world history.
Roe Vs Wade, does not reveal issues with the system. There ARE issues with any system. But I think more importantly, it reveals the problem with the system that educates our young. People do not understand the purpose and the history of the institutions. They are considered as nothing but systems of oppression. For sure powerful groups want to subject systems to further their own power but there is more good in the world than bad. There are more people willing to give their life for an ideal, for what they believe it the ultimate good, then just to further their own selfish agenda. They, we, must hold the system accountable to what they were designed to do, but any criticism, first required a deep understanding of what they were designed to do, how they were designed to function.
(1) think of the religious wars (right), French revolution (left), fascism (right), communism(left) as the most recent examples.
(2) there is an interested scalarly debate how committed Plato really was to the practical application of the philosopher king ideal, as he ends The Republic admitting that only in a democracy, this deliberation of the best government is possible. Aka, free-speech is key.
No comments:
Post a Comment