When one thinks about it, the concept of ‘government’ is a strange one for it assumes as its fundamental premise that certain men and women – human beings like you and me – can and should be allowed to take upon themselves the right to direct the rest of us what to do, presumably for our own good. On the face of it that is a very unreasonable premise and a remarkably arrogant presumption. Indeed, the history of the world shows that those who most desire to govern us are often those who are least suited to do so.
Why should flesh and blood men and women, with feet of clay like anyone else, presume to think for us and act for us and push us around and mollycoddle us and punish and reward us as if they were inherently superior beings? It doesn’t make sense does it? Yet unless there is government with strong executive power the lives of men in general soon become, as Thomas Hobbes pointed out long ago, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
Now it seems likely that after the coming general election – whoever wins – there will be a renewed desire to have another go at framing new constitutional provisions to improve how we govern ourselves.
To begin with there will always be the basic question which lies at the heart of all government: how do men voyage safely between the Scylla of limitless dictation and the Charybdis of back-to-the-jungle anarchy? It is a riddle that mankind has spent thousands of years trying to solve. And the whole answer certainly does not lie in one day every few years letting a majority of voting citizens indicate what group of flesh and blood men and women with feet like clay (“pack of rascals” as the other side always claims) should rule supreme. Such ‘general election’ may be necessary but is not by any means sufficient.
The closest mankind has come to a reasonable answer seems to be through the establishment of more than one countervailing centre of power to check and balance the central executive. These may be one or more of the following: a legislature with a power base different from the executive; an independent judiciary administering law that is above all men; a free and varied media open to all opinion; a truly independent civil service; a vibrant and articulate private business sector; strong non-governmental organisations of various kinds.
The whole point of a system of countervailing powers is that the winner of an election does not take all, does not get to keep all the spoils for sole and partisan disposal.
But there is also a problem with a system of strong countervailing powers. It can and often does lead to muddle and contradictions, indecisiveness and drift. Since nothing infuriates result-oriented people more than muddle and drift it is little wonder that authoritarian rule, which ruthlessly overrides other centres of influence and power to achieve stated ends, very often is favoured by the powerful and influential in society. But with such rule ordinary men and women are all too likely to lose out.
Personally I think it is infinitely worth accepting the drawbacks for the sake of preventing supreme power feeding continuously on itself until it becomes unbearably arrogant, out of touch with ordinary reality, and therefore very unfair and very dangerous. If men were angels, unchecked authoritarian governing might be best. As men are not angels, governors must always be subject to be taken down a peg or two or many.
The basic political problem in Guyana – how to ensure that the majority or even a plurality does not ride roughshod over the rest – is one of the fundamental problems that faced the founding fathers of the United States more than two centuries ago. An excellent text to consult on the issue is The Federalist, a collection of essays by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, founding fathers of the American Revolution, written in the course of the great debate on proposals for a new constitution for the United States of America.
Here is James Madison writing in an essay dated February 1, 1788:
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the Federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with mixture of powers having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system.”
And here is Thomas Jefferson quoted in that same Federalist essay of February 1, 1788, as writing in his ‘Notes on the State of Virginia’ the following words:
“All powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. As little will it avail us that they are chosen by ourselves.
“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limit, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”
Let us recall that the final result of the debate, embodied in the Constitution of the United States, has been called “the first deliberate attempt by assent of a majority to tie its own hands, to give to the minority guarantees of fair and equal treatment.” And again: “this guarantee to the minority in the Constitution is one of the most remarkable examples of self-control in history, and constitutes its chief claim to pre-eminence.”
Our present constitution is flawed in that it skews the balance between the executive presidency and it counterweights too much towards executive power. I have not seen this put better or more forcefully than in a letter by Mr GKH Lall in Stabroek News earlier this year when he wrote the following:
“This constitution is so sweeping in scope, so protective of the ruling class, and so enfeebling of the ruled classes that no political participant has the least interest in tampering with the thing. Not the least interest, not any of them; despite all the palaver, not a single one of the barefoot political aristocracy, be it ruling party, or opposition parties. It is just too self-serving and too self-perpetuating; it provides cover for rogues and racists pretending to be redeemers; and makes political groups indistinguishable from criminal enterprises.
“… I consider myself a more principled person than most, if not all, of the local political people. Having said this, I would not trust myself near to this beloved constitution that is the source of so much misgiving. I could end up adoring, embracing, and worshipping the thing as untouchable, and the epitome of all that is sacrosanct. I may have serious difficulty amending anything, just like today’s political crowd.”
In our small but precious corner of the world, two hundred and twenty-five years after the great America debate, the issue is recognizable and still needing to be addressed.
