While many of you were attending the annual KOS convention, I happened to stumble across the GOP debate. I normally can't sit for any length of time through this discussion, but they were talking about health care so I listened. They all agreed on something I found interesting.
They all agreed that democracy wasn't just about the right to vote. That democracy was an exercise that in order to work required the rule of law. I'm guessing they are going on the assumption that we have the rule of law in America. But if the President and his administration aren't accountable under the same rule of law as past presidents, the same rule of law as every other citizen is entitled to, then perhaps there is no real rule of law in America. Perhaps its all an illusion created to keep the masses in line. Please don't give me it's the best system in the world argument. I have lived in other parts of the world and arguably there are worse justice systems than ours. That is not the question though. I repeat, if democracy can only work under a rule of law, then doesn't the rule of law have to apply to everyone equally under our constitution?
First of all, I have to start this by stating that we do not live in a democracy. We live in a Republic that uses a democratic process to elect its representatives. Remember the pledge of allegiance?
I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands."
Our forefathers thoroughly debated the issues of democracy versus Republic. Our country, which has so far stood the test of time for over 231 years, was based on a COMPROMISE between those who advocated a democracy versus those who supported a republic. Again, we live in a Republic that uses a democratic process to elect its representatives.
Perhaps we should define a democracy. A democracy is where 50.01 % of the people that vote decide what is right for 100% of the people. In Iraq, that majority is Shiite. The ongoing civil conflict in Iraq is between the Shiites in the majority and the Sunnis and Kurds in the minority. If Iraq had been actually modelled after our system, they should have set it up as a Republic with states where different sects could live peacefully and with dignity. In fact, the areas of Iraq that have succeeded are not actually the areas where the US forces have been. They have been instead the areas where local forces have been empowered to maintain the rule of law in their area and root out the foreign agitators who contribute to the violence.
The Declaraton of Independence declares that are men are created equal.........but Bush and his administration insist they are above the rule of law. The worst part of this scenario is the hypocrisy of the Republican party by supporting Bush, Cheney and their henchmen's actions. What happened to the rule of law that the GOP preached about so vigourously in their efforts to impeach President Clinton and remove him from office.
Also, is the rule of law working when rich men can buy thier own justice and get away with murder consistently? I contend that we delude ourselves. That we have been lulled into placidity by spin on how we have such a great system and should be glad we don't live else where. It enables us to continually excuse what isn't working instead of working on fixing it. In fact we enable the injustices the way one enables the behavior of an alchoholic.
We have a rule of law of the rich, for the rich, and by the rule. They should revise the pledge of allengiance to say "with freedom and justice for those with enough money to afford it."
The question then is if there is not equal access under the law, then is there really a rule of law? Perhaps the system we have to day is a reflection on the kind of democracy Bush talks about, the kind he wants to install in the middle east. That is A Democracy where 50.01% of the people who vote have access to the rule of law, access to the system and the rest don't. In other words the haves and the have nots. Upon reflection, perhaps he has accomplished just that.
Aren't we obligated for what is right? Aren't we suppose to have a system where the rule of law applies to all equally, where there are no have nots?
And if we can agree that the system should apply equally to all, then aren't we under an obligation to rise up and change it?