DEMOCRACY = NUMBERS + RULE OF LAW

 

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. As an engineer, having a penchant for equations, I had come across the above heading formula from one internet article that caught my eye and inspired this piece.

AD 27

The Guinness World Records listed the collapse of the amphitheater in Fidenae, near Rome, Italy, as the worst sporting disaster. C. Keith Hansley, in his article “The Catastrophic Amphitheater of Atilius in Fidenae,” narrated the following catastrophe:

“Atilius launched his plan to make a fortune by profiting from the insatiable Roman appetite for entertainment. The infamous result of his scheme was notable enough to be mentioned by historians, Tacitus and Suetonius. Atilius’ plan, according to Tacitus, was to make as much money as he could by entertaining the Roman population, while at the same time minimizing his business expenses as much as possible. With this in mind, he began constructing an amphitheater in the town of Fidenae, located a short distance to the north of Rome. Atilius obtained a full docket of gladiators and pressured for the arena to be completed with utmost speed so that he could start making money.”

“Constructed with enough enticing aesthetics to lure tens of thousands of people inside,” Hansley wrote, “it was not adequately built to handle the weight of so many people. Eventually, the creaking of the wood gave way to loud cracks, and the cheering of the crowds [around 50,000] turned into screams.”

Claiming 20,000 lives, the collapse emanated from the utter disregard of the engineering law. According to Tacitus’ description, “Atilius did not place the foundation under the structure through to the solid ground.” It implies that the amphitheater’s foundation didn’t set foot on the bedrock below the ground level. “Atilius was the kind of man who undertook that work,” Tacitus wrote, “for sordid reward.”

AD 2022

The following commentaries speak volumes on the monumental dilemma today in the hands of our nation’s Supreme Court:

“Where will the two raging currents – one pushed by voter mega power and the other by the quiet majesty of the law – meet and eventually take us?” (Federico D. Pascual Jr., “Where will DQ cases vs. Marcos take us,” Philstar)

“If a candidate’s COC is canceled, he or she cannot be substituted because cancellation legally means that the COC was void from the very beginning and deemed never to have existed. Thus, the votes cast for the erstwhile candidate would be considered “stray” and would not be counted. The candidate getting the highest number of votes, excluding the stray votes, would be declared the winner.” (Artemio V. Panganiban, “Disqualification and COC cancellation,” PDI)

“It is simply preposterous to even think the patriotic wise men of the Supreme Court would go against the “supreme will” of the 31 million-plus Filipinos who voted for BBM for President.” (Erwin Tulfo, “People of the Philippines versus the Supreme Court?” Manila Standard)

In India, with a Parliamentary form of government, its Jayalalithaa case went through the same dilemma: the “will of the people” vested on the majority party versus the Supreme Court. Without going into the details, its Supreme Court prevailed with this ruling summation:

“The Constitution prevails over the will of the people as expressed through the majority party. The will of the people as expressed through the majority party prevails only if it is in accord with the Constitution.”

I would provide enough space to Pratik Patnaik, a lawyer and constitutionalist, to spell out the essence of such ruling in his country as excerpted from his insight below:

“The [Supreme] Court… struck some sacred cords resulting in one of the best tunes to have come out of its hallowed halls.

“[D]emocracy should be distinguished from ‘majoritarianism’. One of the lesser-known facets (unfortunately) of democracy is that it is not only the rule of the majority but also has within its folds one of the most sacred epithets known to humankind – “The Rule of Law.”

DEMOCRACY = NUMBERS + RULE OF LAW

“If there is no rule of law circumscribing the numbers in that equation, what we are left with is no more than the rule of the mob. History is peppered with examples of the majority going horribly wrong. Hitler was ‘elected.’ The Nuremberg race laws were in fact passed by a legislature. The Salem Witch Trials were fueled by strong public opinion. We would have had Jim Crow laws in America today, has it not been for the judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court of the United States on its various pronouncements on civil rights.

“Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had eloquently addressed the point in one of his most famous writings, he had said, ‘We can never forget that everything that Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal,’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did was ‘illegal.’ It was ‘illegal’ to aid and comfort a few in Hitler’s Germany, but I am sure that if I lived in Germany during that time I would have comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal… we who engaged in non-violent direct action are not creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive.

“As John Adams, had pointed out in ‘A Defence of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America,’ democracy sans check and balances can lead to the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ Edmund Burke had written a scathing letter in 1790 where he had aptly described ‘The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny.’

“We should never forget that the tussle is not between the majority and minority because those constructs may change tomorrow and the individual truly remains the smallest minority on earth. The real tussle is between the rule of law which is fair and just and the lack of it.”

WHAT IS TRUTH?

“‘What is truth?’ [Pilate after asking Jesus] did not wait for an answer and walked out,” Patnaik wrapped up. “My hope is whenever we pose that question or it presents itself to us, we do wait for an answer.”

The day after the election, many raised all kinds of questions and searched for answers to the consistent 68:32 ratio between the votes for Marcos Jr. and VP Leni, showing an almost perfect linear equation absolutely incredible in any election. One mocking comment popped up on the widespread skepticism -- as a mere exercise in futility: “O, ano naman ang magawa nyo?” How true! No one seemed could do anything. The same exercise in futility seems to hold in our present Supreme Court dilemma. Booker T. Washington’s words are grave writing on the wall.

“A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong doesn’t become right, and evil doesn’t become good, just because it’s accepted by a majority.”

The structure is erected and looks finished. But if it stands on a weak foundation, it may not collapse right away like the Fidenae amphitheater. Perhaps, it may take some time, like the Leaning Tower of Pisa, for the whole world to see, and wonder about its blunder.