Government by the people?

How Lincoln inspired America with rank nonsense

Image: Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, 1863.

The mantra runs in western politics that the government, and not the people, governs. Lincoln got it wrong: government by the people never existed on this earth, let alone should never perish from it. Government of the people is what government is all about anyway and will never perish from anywhere. It’s government for the people that is most open to question.

I pretend to have no comprehensive wisdom, but I think I can make some assertions that will find general accord. When man emerged from the jungle, it was the law of the jungle that governed our actions: we tamed the animals of which we could make use, and defended ourselves against those that posed a danger. We learned from experience to tell the poisonous fruits from the wholesome ones. The law of the jungle was not a law, but a life lived pragmatically.

Then came kings, who, in order to establish the validity of their laws, claimed that their appointment stemmed from God. This, on the whole, was enough to guarantee obeisance.

By the time of the age of enlightenment, there came the realisation that divine appointment was nonsense, and we gradually entered the age of the constitutional monarchy and, voilà, in America, the republic.

So, if God no longer decided who ruled, who did? Well, the law did. We entered the age of the rule of law (1748, Montesquieu: De l’esprit des lois). Laws were made by fixed processes and applied and enforced. The calls now are for the rule of law to be reinforced. But that is not what is happening. Something else altogether is happening. Even in Belgium, where I live, there are noises about, which speak of the primacy of politics (https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/the-primacy-of-politics).

That means that, if a politician gets elected on a manifesto that promises certain changes, then it is permissible to enact those changes notwithstanding the fact that the legal processes for doing so are not followed. However, the public cannot force government even to deploy its own party policy: the electorate gives politicians authority to make changes despite the fact they don’t abide by the rule of law, but parties cannot constrain governments to stick to their election promises or their party resolutions. The government is supreme, and that is why it is of the people, but not by the people and is only for some of the people.

A change can be made regardless of the existing law, on the basis of the politician’s election in terms of the manifesto. Politics, as voted for at the ballot box, prevails over the rule of law. The change that is being made in terms of whether the U.S.’s is legally allowed to federalise state troops or call in naval marines is therefore irrelevant: these measures are aimed at implementing Mr Trump’s policy, and stem not from some decision he made a week ago, but from the broad statements he was making back last year during the election campaign. One lesson already emerging is that election bluster is now to be taken in deadly earnest. Unless it’s already too late for that realisation.

The situation in the UK is interestingly different. We now have a prime minister who heads up a party that has resolved not to engage in the policy acts that the government is, and has of late been, involved in with regard to policy towards Israel. And the prime minister who heads up that party is implicated in those acts. Sir Keir will need to evaluate whether he is going to defy (a) his own party’s membership, (b) his government or (c) the government of a third country. And I think he will go for (a) and (b) and side with (c). And maybe even tell the people that that is what they voted for.