“I know only two ways in which societies can permanently be governed –by public opinion and by the sword” –Thomas Babington Macaulay.
Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, British author and historian, even at 24 had carved a niche for himself as an advocate for ‘good governance’. At 30 he was elected to parliament; but even at that, he did not believe ‘democracy’ was sufficiently self-regulating to be left all on its own to function. In fact, in a letter once to a Jefferson biographer, he jived the American Constitution as being “all sail and no anchor”.
Lord Macaulay seemed to suggest that ‘democracy’ even as it is a guide, must be guided to achieve the effective management of the affairs of societies. And just as it is dangerous for the ‘ship of democracy’ to be left anchorless, without harbour, so it is that it should be left adrift without a rudder!
Many philosophers have argued that the ‘due democratic process’ alone may not always take democratic societies to the Eldorado promised by ‘democracy’, and that left on auto-pilot, the process may even be a ‘spanner’ in the works rather than the ‘lubricant’ at work to breathe life to the system.
Thus a little moulding of the ‘democratic process’ by ‘public opinion’, some interference by the ‘party’ in loco parentis or even the occasional intervention of a fatherly-President, may be necessary from time to time to ease ‘swallow’ and to facilitate ‘digestion’ in the complex system of democratic governance.
This may be why although Lord Macaulay was “against government by the sword”, yet he argued for “assertive -meaning ‘forcefully strong’- leadership”, which he said would be legitimate if it “earns the support of the people”. Thus ‘democracy’ –like ‘law’- is not averse to the application of reasonable ‘force’ where such is approved or condoned by the very ‘people’ in whom ultimate sovereignty lies.
Meaning that a little tinkering -when necessary- with the ‘democratic process’ by political leaders imbued either with conventional or constitutional powers, is not the enemy of democracy. Rather it is democracy in action. And if backed by the very people for whom and by whom the democratic system is brought about, ‘democracy in action’ has the liberty to function even against the grain of ‘its own norms’, –whether those norms are enshrined in the ‘statute books’ or etched in political text of books!
The ‘law’ –both in statute and in action- is only sufficient to regulate the conduct of elected representatives. It has never been sufficient to regulate the revolutionary or majoritarian temperament of the people who have freely elected their governments into office. The people can, even against the grain of law, re-mould, retain or altogether overthrow the governments they have elected to office!
And since the people are their own ultimate sovereigns, they alone determine what is democratic from what is not. What is ‘democratic’ is not necessarily what Constitutional Law says it is or what political scientists say it should be; rather it is what the people chose to live with; – nor is it material that what they choose to live with is not approved by law or that what they choose to oppose is lawful.
Said Lord Macaulay “The law has no eyes; the law has no hands; the law is nothing … till public opinion breathes the breath of life into the dead letter.” And maybe this is the reason philosophers of law like David Ingram argue that “Democratic majorities can (and do) behave tyrannically”, – a privilege which he said “has led many to conclude that democracy does not protect the rule of law”. It cannot; because the ‘free will’ of the people should always be superior to the letter and spirit of the law which it permits.
The ‘rule of law’ is not to be protected in spite of the ‘will of the people’. On the contrary since laws are promulgated to serve the people, any laws inconsistent with the democratic whim and caprices of the people are sacred only to the extent allowed not by the Constitution, but by the people.
I have related in my previous writings postulations which argue that “in a presidential system, the President –constitutionally- is not only a composite check on the legislature, he even exercises ‘conventional’ powers which are not contemplated by the constitution and yet which are not in conflict with it.”
In fact many other postulates insist that a populist President can even get away with the exercise of conventional powers which are EXPRESSLY IN CONFLICT with the Constitution, provided that such liberty resonates with the whims and caprices of the people. He can for example blatantly refuse to implement a legislation which he has vetoed but which veto has been overridden by the legislature. Provided he acts in the national interest, the President’s belligerence would be aptly on the side of righteousness.
And because this power is rooted more in ‘democratic convention’ than in the letters of the law, reliance on it is usually contingent upon a vibrant public opinion which not only sides with the President but which is ready to swim with him or to swing for him whenever necessary. Several American presidents including as recently as Bill Clinton had deployed this conventional power to great effect to call especially erring parliaments to order –Clinton exercised this power even at the expense of a total shutdown of government of the United States for months under his administration. In fact in deference to the revolutionary anger of the people, a strong and daring President can even dissolve a manifestly anti-people Parliament –even though dissolution of parliament is not an action supported or even contemplated by the Constitution.
The Adolphus Wabara National Assembly, after President Obasanjo announced in a national broadcast he had caught many of its leaders and rank-and-file red-handed in the infamous ‘Bribe-for-Budget’ scandal, was virtually ripe for such presidential over-kill, – if only Obasanjo had exploited the anger of Nigerians and the sudden dip in the public perception index of that assembly.
And so since the law need not actually advance the common good to be legitimate, the morale is equally legitimate that elected presidents need not actually be lawful to advance the common good of those who elected them into office! “When the law will do no right” as Shakespeare wrote, “let it be lawful that the law bars no wrong”!
In a presidential democracy, a president whose ‘unconstitutional’ actions or intentions are in total synch with the will of the majority needs not apologize for anything. And although in going against the grain of the law he would be walking right ‘in the valley of the shadow of death’ as the Bible would say, yet he needs fear neither harm nor evil coming to him.
Second Republic Governor of Kaduna State, Balarabe Musa, virtually said as much to the APC; and to President Buhari. So President Muhammadu Buhari should take a hint. Let your ‘righteousness’ exalt our ‘democracy’.
ord Thomas Babington Macaulay, British author and historian, even at 24 had carved a niche for himself as an advocate for ‘good governance’. At 30 he was elected to parliament; but even at that, he did not believe ‘democracy’ was sufficiently self-regulating to be left all on its own to function. In fact, in a letter once to a Jefferson biographer, he jived the American Constitution as being “all sail and no anchor”.
Lord Macaulay seemed to suggest that ‘democracy’ even as it is a guide, must be guided to achieve the effective management of the affairs of societies. And just as it is dangerous for the ‘ship of democracy’ to be left anchorless, without harbour, so it is that it should be left adrift without a rudder!
Many philosophers have argued that the ‘due democratic process’ alone may not always take democratic societies to the Eldorado promised by ‘democracy’, and that left on auto-pilot, the process may even be a ‘spanner’ in the works rather than the ‘lubricant’ at work to breathe life to the system.
Thus a little moulding of the ‘democratic process’ by ‘public opinion’, some interference by the ‘party’ in loco parentis or even the occasional intervention of a fatherly-President, may be necessary from time to time to ease ‘swallow’ and to facilitate ‘digestion’ in the complex system of democratic governance.
This may be why although Lord Macaulay was “against government by the sword”, yet he argued for “assertive -meaning ‘forcefully strong’- leadership”, which he said would be legitimate if it “earns the support of the people”. Thus ‘democracy’ –like ‘law’- is not averse to the application of reasonable ‘force’ where such is approved or condoned by the very ‘people’ in whom ultimate sovereignty lies.
Meaning that a little tinkering -when necessary- with the ‘democratic process’ by political leaders imbued either with conventional or constitutional powers, is not the enemy of democracy. Rather it is democracy in action. And if backed by the very people for whom and by whom the democratic system is brought about, ‘democracy in action’ has the liberty to function even against the grain of ‘its own norms’, –whether those norms are enshrined in the ‘statute books’ or etched in political text of books!
The ‘law’ –both in statute and in action- is only sufficient to regulate the conduct of elected representatives. It has never been sufficient to regulate the revolutionary or majoritarian temperament of the people who have freely elected their governments into office. The people can, even against the grain of law, re-mould, retain or altogether overthrow the governments they have elected to office!
And since the people are their own ultimate sovereigns, they alone determine what is democratic from what is not. What is ‘democratic’ is not necessarily what Constitutional Law says it is or what political scientists say it should be; rather it is what the people chose to live with; – nor is it material that what they choose to live with is not approved by law or that what they choose to oppose is lawful.
Said Lord Macaulay “The law has no eyes; the law has no hands; the law is nothing … till public opinion breathes the breath of life into the dead letter.” And maybe this is the reason philosophers of law like David Ingram argue that “Democratic majorities can (and do) behave tyrannically”, – a privilege which he said “has led many to conclude that democracy does not protect the rule of law”. It cannot; because the ‘free will’ of the people should always be superior to the letter and spirit of the law which it permits.
The ‘rule of law’ is not to be protected in spite of the ‘will of the people’. On the contrary since laws are promulgated to serve the people, any laws inconsistent with the democratic whim and caprices of the people are sacred only to the extent allowed not by the Constitution, but by the people.
I have related in my previous writings postulations which argue that “in a presidential system, the President –constitutionally- is not only a composite check on the legislature, he even exercises ‘conventional’ powers which are not contemplated by the constitution and yet which are not in conflict with it.”
In fact many other postulates insist that a populist President can even get away with the exercise of conventional powers which are EXPRESSLY IN CONFLICT with the Constitution, provided that such liberty resonates with the whims and caprices of the people. He can for example blatantly refuse to implement a legislation which he has vetoed but which veto has been overridden by the legislature. Provided he acts in the national interest, the President’s belligerence would be aptly on the side of righteousness.
And because this power is rooted more in ‘democratic convention’ than in the letters of the law, reliance on it is usually contingent upon a vibrant public opinion which not only sides with the President but which is ready to swim with him or to swing for him whenever necessary. Several American presidents including as recently as Bill Clinton had deployed this conventional power to great effect to call especially erring parliaments to order –Clinton exercised this power even at the expense of a total shutdown of government of the United States for months under his administration. In fact in deference to the revolutionary anger of the people, a strong and daring President can even dissolve a manifestly anti-people Parliament –even though dissolution of parliament is not an action supported or even contemplated by the Constitution.
The Adolphus Wabara National Assembly, after President Obasanjo announced in a national broadcast he had caught many of its leaders and rank-and-file red-handed in the infamous ‘Bribe-for-Budget’ scandal, was virtually ripe for such presidential over-kill, – if only Obasanjo had exploited the anger of Nigerians and the sudden dip in the public perception index of that assembly.
And so since the law need not actually advance the common good to be legitimate, the morale is equally legitimate that elected presidents need not actually be lawful to advance the common good of those who elected them into office! “When the law will do no right” as Shakespeare wrote, “let it be lawful that the law bars no wrong”!
In a presidential democracy, a president whose ‘unconstitutional’ actions or intentions are in total synch with the will of the majority needs not apologize for anything. And although in going against the grain of the law he would be walking right ‘in the valley of the shadow of death’ as the Bible would say, yet he needs fear neither harm nor evil coming to him.
Second Republic Governor of Kaduna State, Balarabe Musa, virtually said as much to the APC; and to President Buhari. So President Muhammadu Buhari should take a hint. Let your ‘righteousness’ exalt our ‘democracy’.
‘In a presidential democracy, a president whose ‘unconstitutional’ actions or intentions are in total synch with the will of the majority needs not apologize for anything. And although in going against the grain of the law he would be walking right ‘in the valley of the shadow of death’ as the Bible would say, yet he needs fear neither harm nor evil coming to him’
