Who is big enough to make first move?

January 09, 2002
By Bukka Rennie

The fact that we have been an "independent democracy" since 1962, and a "republic" since 1976, and to date there has been no fundamental amendment to our Constitution indicates the extent to which we, who inhabit this space, function unintelligently, almost like mindless vassals.

The fact that the British have, in large part, no written Constitution tells us something about who they are culturally, how their development evolved historically and the importance of social convention and tradition in their arrangements in their scheme of things.

There are parts of the British Constitution that are indeed "written", such as the 1701 Act of Settlement that established the independence of the Judiciary, and the Parliament Act of 1911 which was brought to limit the powers of the House of Lords.

But such areas as the Royal Veto and the relationship between the various arms of State are unwritten and are left up to custom and convention and the inter-play of politics.

On the other hand, the USA has a written Constitution, but they have never boxed themselves in by legal framework. So powerful is their pioneering spirit and their culture of republicanism.

The list of amendments to their Constitution is quite extensive. In fact it is so extensive that many have referred jokingly to the reality that the list of amendments is "longer" than the Constitution itself.

The point is that Americans historically have been so seeped in the demands of pioneering "frontierism", that they tend naturally to allow "politics" to play itself out.

They are a people who take and advance political positions openly, just as they were known to wear their "guns" openly.

They contest and challenge continuously all existing authorities, either as private citizens through the judicial system or collectively through the lobby of their Congress representatives.

It is interesting to note that the American Constitution was written in a time of great uncertainty. It being federalist in conception, the framers had to countenance the insecurities of people of various states who feared domination from any source, and for whom personal safety and security of property were fundamental issues.

They insisted on checks and balances being clearly defined as well as the process of amending the letter of the law to guarantee the continued prevalence of the unfettered spirit of republicanism.

It followed that the framers had to stress natural law and the natural rights of human beings and they sought to organise the federal system in such a way that "unlimited power" could never be established anywhere, in any institution, or any office, whether in the Executive, the Legislature or the Judiciary.

Even in regard to their judicial reviews, a feature that is constant, the American framers never presupposed the superiority of the Judiciary over the Legislature, instead it was the supremacy of the people, in whose hands power reposed, that mattered.

Rulings of the Supreme Court and the Congress, ie two-thirds of the House of Representatives and Senate, result in new amendments to the Constitution. Such practice, unfettered by the letter of the law yet infused by the spirit of republicanism, really makes the difference and underlies the maturity of American jurisprudence.

Moreover, the mechanisms available for any single US citizen to obtain redress for any abuse of rights and privileges by the Government are also quite clear and can result in constitutional amendment.

That is how fluid the situation is. The politics of the day is allowed to have direct bearing on the resolving of constitutional matters.

The point is that constitutions are supposed to be very skeletal in form and political practice is the ingredient that fleshes it out.

What then is wrong with us? What is our problem? We seem never able to resolve anything, no matter how fast we appear to be hurtling into the realms of disaster. We seem hopeless and powerless to think, ergo to act, to save ourselves!

In our mad jostle for control of this space, we keep over-looking the bigger issues of nationhood and keep trying to gain illusory advantage at the expense of the significant other, while holding on to the coat-tails of "governors" which we imposed on ourselves.

In this context we cannot afford to think and act big for fear of losing ground in the process.

Intelligent functioning and statesmanlike persuasiveness are disregarded and instead we indulge in a maddening, puerile, fastidious tenacity to the letter of the law about which we prattle ceaselessly like parrots, hoping to give the impression that rapid-fire speech means that we possess some depth.

It is that ordinariness that is painfully killing us. The "may" should mean "must" barrel of crap. And "absolute, sole discretion" is not absolute and so forth and so forth.

It is this sophistry that finds us engaged in useless debate about the meaning of individual words, and whether the Constitution allows this or allows that, which is confining us to political death.

We are existing in a constitutional box with a lot of intelligent-sounding folk spouting out and running around but nothing intelligent is happening.

We need to decide what is required, given our history and our present predicament and simply do the necessary, even if we have to step outside of the legal box. We must tear up the existing Constitution, root it out lock, stock and barrel.

Who among our present leaders is big enough to make the first move? That's the question!