Citizens the biggest losers

The biggest losers are the citizens of TT .

By no stretch of the imagination can the people be seen as winners in this case.

TT through its Constitution is a republic that is a democracy. To be a republic the country must be a sovereign State governed by elected officials who represent the will of the people.

The exercise of power by such a government is rendered legitimate because it is the people’s will that this or that group of people are allowed to exercise power over their affairs in strict accordance with the rule of law.

Government’s power is not arbitrary.

The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern the State, rather than it being governed by the arbitrary decisions of individual government officials.

It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behaviour, including behaviour of government officials. Those who make the law are not above the law.

There are two crucially important caveats that must be fulfilled if a country is to succeed as a democracy and as a republic.

These are embodied in the phrases: “the will of the people” and the “rule of law”.

For a government to be elected according to the “will of the people”, the people must possess the freedom and power to decide.

Anything that influences that freedom impairs the legitimacy of choice.

This reality is at play when it comes to excessive access to funding for political advertisements.

It is also at play when it comes to the lies and half-truths intrinsic to propaganda (eg, the email fiasco).

It goes without saying that the extent to which the will of the people is influenced depends on the depth of respect for the rule of law.

A people who value “democracy” and who easily and glibly invoke the idea that an election represents the “will of the people” but who at the same time place little value on the rule of law, is a people who will fail as a society eventually because they will contrive to allow anything to influence the will of the people.

The greatest and most advanced societies are those that place greater emphasis on the rule of law so that the will of the people is not tampered with.

The rule of law will be a useless waste of time if the laws in that rule were frivolous, amoral and arbitrary.

The rule of law would also be useless if it was not seen as advancing the cause of justice.

The mosaic that represents the “rule of law” is a woman holding a sword in her left hand, representing punishment for the guilty and a palm in her right, representing reward for the meritorious.

We are unfortunately as a people doubly disadvantaged. We neither reward the meritorious nor do we punish the wicked. Justice as a concept would cease to exist in the absence of reward and punishment.

And this is what this High Court judgment on the election petition ironically is facilitating.

This is easily seen in the confusion it has caused.

The court in its ruling has admitted that the rule of law was infringed. To say that that infringement was a “mistake” is an act of dishonesty. For that infringement, no one has been punished and the meritorious have not been rewarded. Justice has been rendered sterile and impotent.

Where then is the need for justice?

Steve Smith via email