Frighteningly fundamentalist Christians have always used the decline and fall of the Roman Empire as a stark warning to the 'god-less and immoral American Empire'. What with so many single-parent families and gay rights! Of course, I have never placed any stock in such comparisons; but recently I have begun to wonder if there may not be something to the comparison after all - not morally, but certainly politically. Today I listened to one of the best shows on radio - This American Life. The particular episode was entitled The Audacity of Government and it dealt with the far-reaching and increasing powers which the executive branch of the government of the United States (the President) was taking on. These were powers which up until now would have been unheard of, for example re-interpreting a one-hundred-year-old treaty so that the executive branch can intervene in and even change its present implementation. At the same time, I have been reading a book by Martin Goodman, Rome & Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations. While the book is primarily about the relationship of the two great ancient cities, it also devotes some time to the rise of the caesars, especially showing how one person emerged as imperator through bit by bit chipping away at the ancient rights and duites of the Senate. Does this begin to sound familiar?
When a nation or people is or feels threatened by invasion, destruction or other calamity they look for someone who will protect and rescue them. Couple this with leaders who just might have god-complexes and the similarities between ancient Rome and the United States begin to emerge. From the crises that effected the rise of Julius Caesar, his subsequent murder and the jockeying for power among the triumvirate of Octavian, Lepidus and Marc Antony, there finally emerged someone who promised stability and peace, albeit a harsh one. He was Octavian, eventually Augsutus Caeser and later a god. He continued the work begun by his father Julius by aggrandising his power at the expense of the senatorial class. From his time until its fall, Rome and the empire were governed by sole rulers. Listening to the radio, it seemed I was hearing the same story only in a more modern context. The executive branch has not only taken over privileges that have never belonged to it, but also constructed readings of the Consitution so to increase powers it already had, claiming powers for the President which no other President has ever exercised. Some of this has been at the expense Congress' own powers. At the same it time it has done it all in such a way that no on is actually breaking the law, because it creates the laws to fit its needs.
It is fortunate for the United States that there is a limit on terms of office. The present Chief Executive will certainly be gone by January. Yet, it must be borne in mind that the powers allocated to the office during his uncumbency remain as a threatening precedent. It will be up to the new incummbent to curb them.
1 comment:
Interesting. The problem for any democracy with a separation of executive, legislature and judiciary is the balance between them.
For countries with written constitutions, there is the double edged sword of who interprets the constitution. But however difficult this problem is, consider the unfortunates who are not citizens but subjects and find themselves with no constitutional rights at all.
The problem of interpreting constitutions is tough. Consider the second amendment in the US... "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.". How this gets stretched to a personal right to own and use a gun is beyond me. The right to bear arms is clearly a military term and constructing a personal right in the second amendment is at best a stretch in my view. Which side will want constructionist supreme court judges in this case?
For Ireland's 1937 constitution, even defining the state was contentious. Another provision recognised the special position of the Roman Catholic Church and other major religions including Jewish congregations. Both provisions were repealed in the 1970s as nobody was really sure what they meant.
But one of the most significant decisions of the Irish Supreme Court on the Irish constitution was a decision in 1986 that any transfer of sovereignty to the European Union required the consent of the Irish people.
So each EU Treaty Amendment has required a referendum. Alone among the 27 members of the EU, the Irish are off to the polls on the new Lisbon Treaty in June.
However tough constitutions are, they are darn sight better than not having them.
Post a Comment