As someone who has worked next to the law for a very long time, though not actually as a lawyer, and having read extensively upon the nature of how countries are constituted as well as a pretty good kind of sweeping overview on what a general ontological reading of law should be, I have come to two general conclusions about the law.
Firstly: That law shapes society because having laid down the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable, the law also shapes how people's norms and expectations of behaviour are formed.
Secondly: That society shapes law because having laid down the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable, people agitate for changes to the law based upon their norms and expectations of behaviour.
While those two conclusions sound similar, they are subtly different and one affects the other which causes effects which then forces changes to affect to other.
The only time that we the general public get an active say in law, is either through direct democracy when we are asked about specific questions, or at an election when we are asked who we would like to speak on behalf of us. Representative democracy albeit somewhat diluted, is the closest that we usually get in having a say about the kind of law that we want to live inside. The ballot box is about as close as we get to the art of praxis when it comes to law, that is the doing of it, as opposed to the arguing, thinking or making of it.
Should you vote? Absolutely.
I don't really care about your theories about abstaining from voting on the grounds of some glib conviction, the simple fact is that your act of not voting is by default tacit agreement with whatever the rest of the electorate has decided for you.
Also, if you ever think that just one vote in a sea of millions cannot make much of a difference, consider the presidential election in 2000 when Al Gore narrowly lost the Electoral College vote to George W. Bush. That election came down to a recount in Florida, where George W Bush had won the popular vote by only 537 votes. Such a small margin triggered an automatic recount and a Supreme Court case (Bush v. Gore). There were 2,496,447 lazy people who preferred to stay home and eat chips or whatever it is they did; and their actions indirectly contributed to shaping two wars.
Who should you vote for? It probably should be obvious that you should vote for a candidate who will represent your views in parliament/congress/the presidency etc. and if the person who you didn't vote for gets in, in theory if they want to stay there they will need to look into the policy issues you care about if they want to keep their job. As someone who has never actually been properly represented in parliament, the question for me becomes one of what kind of views in the legislature am I looking for.
What do I look for in a candidate or a government? I actually have a very very short list of requirements; namely, who is going to run a government with the motives of being kind, just, compassionate, promoting peace and order and good governance. That actually might mean setting aside personal privileges if it happens to build up the commonwealth of the nation.
I want to the government to protect people’s basic rights and needs. I want it to make society more fair and provide things like education, healthcare, proper justice, decent living conditions, economic protection in case of serious sickness and accident or the ravages of old age an unemployment. I want government to have the ability to protect victims from others’ irresponsible behaviour and to incentivise responsible action, to act in a kind manner and to look after the vulnerable in their distress. I want the government to be in charge exclusively of those things because private interests have no concerns for the general public except as far as they can extract fees and profits from them.
I want the government to act responsibly with the public's money and not waste it on things which cause greater inequality, corruption, militarism, selfishness, and a degraded civic culture. I like the idea of nationhood; not because of some notion of tribalism but because I see the instrument of government as being sufficiently bigger and actually better at doing some things.
What I don't like is that the wealthy and powerful dominate government; just as they always have done and as they have been doing since the beginning of time. Most of the time, the wealthy and powerful dictate how things should be controlled; which is terrible if they are reaping super-profits through monopolies, or exacting control over what should be public goods, and more importantly degrading what should be public goods for their own private advantage. I find it utterly reprehensible for instance, that I am forced to subsidies private education which then goes on to perpetuate the attitudes which cause private advantage.
The difference between the wealthy and powerful dominating government and the general populace is that instead of the wealthy and powerful dominating government and controlling governance, ordinary people have for only 200 years have had a say as well. I like that.
Every political issue for me, always resolves to the basic question of government kindness for the most number of people. The people who actually have the interests of the people at heart, are in fact the people. Since every big project is always a collective endeavour, I would prefer that those collective endeavours are placed into the hands of government who are answerable to the people instead of capitalism as a form of government which is really no more than socialism for the wealthy and powerful at the exclusion of the people.
If you do get the chance to vote, then you have the opportunity to get to say who gets to lay down the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable. You also get to decide what level of government kindness might begin to be displayed. Maybe those things will always be in conflict with each other but when good people run things, everyone is glad but when the ruler is bad, everyone groans. Leadership gains authority and respect when the voiceless poor are treated fairly.
No comments:
Post a Comment