Dear Editor, “Democratic dirty hands” The elections fiasco has reached the courts again. This time a citizen wants the President to be sworn in without a recounting of the votes, and indifferent to any prospects of further political fallouts. The agreement between the President and the Opposition leader for a recount, at this stage, is unconstitutional she claims. Thus, there is a tension between the civic right to challenge a potential illegality, and the political right of leaders to forge compromises for the greater good.
No agreement could be legally enforceable unless it fits within the law. Not even the legislature could make an agreement or law contrary to the constitution. It is reckless and irresponsible for individuals who should know better, to be demanding enforcement of the agreement at the expense of legal considerations. But courts are not perfect institutions. Some courts are quite corrupt and or very prejudiced. That is so even in a high-scrutiny environment like the US. What matters is critical is whether their decisions could withstand rigorous scrutiny. Further, a court’s decision that may be acceptable today, maybe another generation or era be considered unacceptable. Similarly, the will of an electorate is at times injurious to itself.
The election of Donald Trump, for instance, is an example of how an electorate could be betrayed, brazenly lied to, and needlessly undermined by policies inimical to their interests. Hitler was another case. Had the electorate been less prejudiced he would not have risen to prominence and succeeded at creating the Nazi State which killed millions of people and caused World War 2. Had George Bush been stopped millions of Iraqi’s and Muslims would have been alive today.
There are many examples where the electorate’s preferences tuned out to be antithetical to the common good. So, the will of the electorate is also not a panacea for anything, except that it creates the condition for cooperation and legitimacy. That brings me to the concept of “Democratic Dirty Hands” in Political Science.
Dennis Thompson in his book “Political Ethics and Public Office” makes the distinction between public officials who “commit immoral deeds out of greed, the desire for power or loyalty to family and friends” versus those who do so “in the service of the public good…dirty hands concerns the political leader who for the sake of public purposes violates moral principles” (p.11). Thus, I pose this hypothetical tantalizing question:
What is more dangerous to Guyana at this time, a relatively good government based on rigged elections, or one that has proven to be one of the most corrupt in the history of the country from colonial days to now?”
Let me ask three other hypotheticals:
- If there were a vicious but popular dictator in office, would it be right to rig him out of office?
- If one party compete by corrupt means should the other defend itself corruptly?
- If two parties were rigging an election but one out rigged the other, was that free and fair?
Lin-Jay Harry-Voglezon
