By GDW
People ask me how the politicians can do this or that. "What does the law say about this and that?"
Before I answer I say, "the law doesn't seem to matter any more...but I'll just try tell you what it says..."
Is the law relevant anymore?
We got people who make their own laws and amend and follow them as we go along. The true law, the Constitution, doesn't matter to them anymore. They're a law unto themselves.
They are collectively now "The King"...they make the rules, interpret the rules, execute the rules...and they break it whenever it suits them. I can explain the law till I'm blue in the face. But if it's lost its authority to a group of whimsical men then what's the use?
And if we are content to say "let it go, it's all good", then why should anyone be subjected to the law in the future? It has no authority except the authority we give it. Now isn't it true that all we need is majority decision and we can do anything? No matter how unlawful or immoral it is. Shall we just "let it go" whenever a person commits a crime for a "worthy" cause? How can we ever entertain such a thought?
There is no authority above us except a few rich men who are each elected by a tiny few thousand in some constituency, yet they claim to speak for the nation, as if they are all-knowing and omnipresent. They certainly believe they are all-powerful. There is no law above them. Their will is law.
Everything is permissible. Everything is prohibited. All at the same time. Everything is subjective: applied only when circumstances and popular demand, emotion and self-interest allow.
Such is the scary reality when we lose ourselves to subjectivity, trading truth for preferences. Chaos and confusion are the order of things when the law is interpreted subjectively or completely ignored by people.
We all require rules or standards to keep order; to maintain coherence in society and in discourse. Whether we're debating on Sharp Talk, or minding our businesses on the streets, or playing sport, or conducting national affairs. There has to be something greater than ourselves that guides us. There cannot be coherent discussion on Sharp Talk if we didn't have some unwritten rules to keep discussions coherent. No sport can be played fairly without rules or with two sets of rules. No national affair can be conducted outside of the law without creating chaos and confusion and attracting the stigma of corruption. During elections imagine if there weren't rules on campaigning and electioneering. And for lawyers attending court...imagine no court rules. Chaos.
If we each define our own truth, if we define our own rules, if we define our own morality, we can never hope for a coherent society; let alone a society based on justice, fairness and equality. If anything, the events of the last few months since August last year prove that beyond doubt. Popular vote is not an accurate measure of right and just. It never was. Truth cannot be voted in or out. It depends not on whether we believe it, like it or hate it. It just is. You see if you and I start differing on the nature of truth itself we lose any basis on which we can argue ANY case. You cannot battle on two complete different arenas in completely different worlds. Such a war has no beginning and definitely no end.
If justice is defined by the person who has the power, not having obtained that power justly, then justice itself loses meaning and authority. And when those who do have the power to interpret and declare justice, that power being bestowed justly, are not allowed the freedom to do so without fear, favour or intimidation, where else can we go to inform ourselves of what is right and what is wrong. How can we establish justice if we reject the institutions and the documents that were mandated to guide us through those questions?
Our nation, despite daily life going on as normal, was brought to its knees in its politics and its jurisprudence, as justice and truth, righteousness, and the law, were redefined to suit warring parties. As in any sport the fight is unfair when one team does not play by the rules. No matter how popular that team is, it is not entitled to win.
Regardless of how popular Mike Tyson was with the crowd, biting Evander Holyfield's ear wasn't within the rules; and so Tyson was disqualified and de-licensed. Should it have been let go because Tyson was popular?
Should we let it go because it is the popular sentiment? Or shall we return to the rule of law now? Shall we seek to enforce it and establish justice once again?
Shall we restore the authority of the Constitution so that in future we can still aspire to create a law-abiding society? God knows we need such a society.
God Bless Papua New Guinea.
Ganjiki
No comments:
Post a Comment