THE next time the United States of America lectures the world about democracy, it should be reminded of a couple of thoughts.
The basic foundation and principle of democracy is the rule of law, as the “restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws”, rather than of men.
In the US Declaration of Independence one critical grievance was that the king of England had “refused his Assent to Laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good”. All laws had to be ultimately be approved by the king.
Thomas Jefferson explicitly stated in his original draft of the declaration that the king refused to comply with attempts by the colonies to abolish the slave trade because the monarchy was making too much money from it. One man was able to subvert the will of the people.
The idea that a written law approved by the people could not be overturned by the king changed the relationship between the government and the governed forever.
Building on this rule of law bedrock, the US Constitution clearly and precisely defined the power of government and the processes for law making. It enshrined the concept that the institutions of government were more important and superior to the people that held elected and appointed positions within the government.
The election of Donald J. Trump as president has created a debate as to the wisdom of the constitutional Electoral College process of expressing the people’s will. And if the election process is to be changed, the Constitution also provided an explicit system to effect changes.
The losing side in the recent US presidential election is questioning the validity of the current system, and that is their prerogative. But in order for the democratic process to properly function, the law must be followed until it is changed.
Yet, because the election outcome did not meet their wishes, some prefer to abandon the rule of law. American actress Rosie O’Donnell said last week that “I fully support imposing martial law—delaying the inauguration—until Trump is ‘cleared’ of all charges.”
We wonder what the US government response would have been to the Philippines if the prior administration had declared martial law to prevent President Duterte from assuming office.
Thousands of protestors are planning to descend on Washington, D.C., this Friday for the inauguration of Trump. That is also their right under the law. However, other large groups are in perfect agreement with O’Donnell. An online petition is calling for President Obama to stop the inauguration through whatever means possible.
Another group—DisruptJ20—states that “the peaceful transition of power is a threat to all of us”.
Of course, the overwhelming majority of Americans do not support blocking this “peaceful transition of power”. Yet, these events do show that a people must be constantly vigilant about protecting the rule of law and the institutions of government.
Filipinos are battling with the dilemma of balancing legal rights with expediency in the current war on drugs. But the final responsibility for a successful democracy rests with “The People”, not the government. If the people do not play by the rules, we cannot expect the government to do so either. What ever may happen on Friday, the US has lost part of its moral authority on democracy.