Stephen Harper has never apologized for impugning the
integrity of Canada’s Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, yet another apparent
“error” in savoir-faire. I recommend that he read the “Declaration of
the Rights of Man and Citizen” (August 26, 1789), but perhaps our Prime
Minister would reject the dichotomy: “Any society in which the guarantee of the
rights is not secured, or the separation
of powers not determined, has no constitution at all.” (Article 16)[1]
It is worth noting that the Constitution of 1789 lasted 4
years (but left a huge legacy beyond the French Revolution) and was replaced by
the Constitution of 1793 (known as “Year 1”).
Associated with Robespierre and the Reign of Terror, the Constitution of
1793 makes no case for the separation of powers, which was first articulated in
Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws
(1748).[2] For Montesquieu (as I have said before), his
notion of spirit was the holy trinity
of the legislative, the executive and the judiciary, rooted in Augustinianism
and the Christendom of the Middle Ages. Unfortunately,
our Prime Minister favours the Romans (who it is worth mentioning also invented
the concept of dictatorship in the West).
I would recommend that Harper also read Montesquieu, but our
beloved Prime Minister likely has other, more current priorities – and none so
long. It matters not that Montesquieu
was a major influence on the framers of the U.S. Constitution, for it seems
Harper does not dwell at length on the concept of a required “mediation” (a ‘liberal’
term) between the legislative, executive and judiciary. Again the word “balance” (a ‘liberal’ term) is
foreign to Harper’s lexicon, and so is the idea of “checks and balances”
(unless we consider the role of populism – or elections). Ultimately, if we are
to believe the German political theorist Carl Schmitt, strongly influenced by
(Harper’s favourite) Hobbes, and author of the prescient 1921 book Dictatorship (written in the wake of WWI
and in the early throes of the Weimar Republic, prior to Hitler’s Beer Hall putsch) the executive will only come to
dominate the legislative.[3] This is consistent with Harper’s (and
Hobbes’s) individualism and their anti-social premises – and the Tory need for
the state to restrain the passions of the people.[4]
In other words, Harper’s “error” in not apologizing to the
Chief Justice represents an attempt to curry favour with his constituency of
non-liberal, so-called democrats, populists who see political incorrectness –
and (not infrequently) political irresponsibility – as a badge of honour
hearkening an aura of authority for the state.
Because his base is ‘unread’ (immersed as they are in Sun News and the
like), these said constituents will remain unaware of the creeping significance
of Harper’s assaults on the Constitution.
[1]
Laura Mason and Tracey Rizzo, eds., The
French Revolution: A Document Collection (Boston: Wadsworth, 1999), p.
104. Emphasis added.
[2]
See Carl Schmidt, Dictatorship, tr.
Michael Hoelzl and Graham Ward (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2014), p. 128.
[3] Ibid., p. 91.
[4] Herbert
Spencer, Political Writings.
Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, ed. John Offer (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press,2001), p. 78.
No comments:
Post a Comment