The U.S. and its three equal branches of government that check and balance one another is the fairest and most effective form of government. It is the best, but remains imperfect. Certainly it is far better than an oligarchy, a dictatorship, the royal family governing the people, a monarchy et al.
All power corrupts. We’ve seen countless examples, even in America, that absolute power corrupts absolutely. With the implementation of checks and balances, it stands to reason that corruption will likely be detected and reported, and that consequences will follow for those who abuse their government-given power that citizens allocate to their leaders.
Corruption, its detection and prosecution, is not the only benefit of co-equal, separate branches of government monitoring those elected to office. Two of the three branches require that the will of the people be heard and carried out in the laws that are made. The executive and the legislative branches are both perfect examples of representative government, of the people and for the people. If it’s popular, we’ll vote for it. But is the will of the people always what is best for the country? There is a third branch, one that protects against the others blindly following what the people want, to the point of infringing on the rights and freedoms of others. There are multiple examples of this process being followed throughout our nation’s history, especially with regard to those who have minimal political influence and thus suffer at the hands of those in power passing discriminatory laws.
Also, the “haves” control the making of laws sometimes directly designed and enforced to keep the “have-nots” in check. It is rarely explained by the “haves” as controlling the “have nots.” It is typically justified by the “haves” as necessary for the safety of the general public or to maintain the status quo. A violent crime being committed is a proper transition into passing a law that “over kills,” one that does more harm than good, that is popular without being just and that does not negatively impact “the haves,” but does the “have nots.” No legislation is really effective to begin with because these heinous crimes have occurred since the beginning of time. Even with tough laws that severely punish the perpetrator, crime continues to exist. Existing effective laws are almost always in place and thus the new law may seem like a good idea, but it isn’t. New laws often affect far more people than originally intended or if one is even able to zero in on the next perpetrator.
What is the byproduct of this type of political action? Why do these two branches traditionally attempt to pass popular laws that are not very effective? It is because the masses will support it because it also “appears” to be a sound idea. Thus it gets and/or keeps someone in political office. It is the oldest and most fundamental trick in the book. It keeps the politician popular. Despite not doing what is right, it is what is popular and leads to their re-election.
With one of the government’s branches it is not intended to be that way. By design, these public officials serve 10-year terms as judges in Pennsylvania as opposed to two or four-year terms, and then run for retention, not re-election. This is to ensure they will not be voted out of office if they do not follow the will of the people. The founding fathers would want the judiciary to do what is right, not just what is popular. They are the only ones protected against being forced to do only what is popular. Let’s go back in time to see what two powerful leaders did 2,000 years ago when faced with the question: right or popular?
Some Lessons from the Bible: Is it Right or Just Popular?
“As soon as it was morning, the chief priest held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, lead him away, and handed him over to Pilate.”
Now at the festival, he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked. Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection. So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. Then he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he realized it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for him instead. Pilate spoke to them again, “Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?” They shouted back, “Crucify him.” Pilate asked them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify him.” So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them, and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.
(Retold from Mark 15: Verses 1-15)
Pontius Pilate did what was popular, not what was right, in his decision to crucify Jesus. How many powerful people paint themselves in a corner, and/or choose the easiest path over the most difficult? Is it right, or just popular? Is it the easy way? Is it justice or it just is. Let’s take a look at King Herod and the leadership decision he made.
King Herod had stolen his brother’s wife, Herodias, and John the Baptist criticized him for doing this. Herod at his birthday party told his daughter he would give her any gift she wanted. She had just finished entertaining his powerful friends with a sultry dance. Her mother (the wife that was stolen) wanted revenge against John the Baptist for criticizing her and Herod, and so she told the daughter to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a silver platter.
The king was sorry, but he was embarrassed to break his oath in front of his guests. Herodias wanted John killed in revenge but without Herod’s approval, she was powerless. This leader, in front of many other leaders and politicians at the party, had a choice to either tell her how immoral she was for her request or to grant the wish, and not renege on the promise. John the Baptist was beheaded. (from Mark 6: 16-30)
No comments:
Post a Comment