Dear Friends,
It seems to me that when a nation pretends a crime was not committed by a leader because it would have to act… puts that nation in great peril.
If a powerful political leader was to commit a crime. Clearly and obviously… Like bribing another politician with a position in government for some favor. This is obviously not in the public good. Clearly it is (or should be) a violation of law. And it undermines the concept of meritocracy in government. Then that politician should be treated as the law requires.
To let that politician get away with some lame excuse like they are ignorant of the law or everyone does it is to guarantee that laws will be broken in the future with greater harm to the body politic.
To argue that the politician is ignorant of the law and thus cannot be held to it makes a mockery of law. If the person who writes the law and enacts the law cannot know it. And therefore cannot be held to it. How much more unfair is it to hold the average citizen to it? If the law is so complex and arcane that a lawgiver cannot know it then it is impossible for a citizen to know it. How then do you hold citizens to law they cannot know? Try playing a game where your opponent knows the rules but you don’t. Now don’t even hold them to the rules you know… how would that turn out?
To argue that everyone does it is to argue that everyone is corrupt. If that is the case society has profound problems. But no one who uses this argument, in government, ever gives examples. If they did then the other politicians would be prosecuted. Like a gang of drug dealers. If one is caught… would he get away with saying… “everyone does it.” If he did give examples, the drug enforcement unit will swoop down, and arrest them. But the first would still face prosecution. Why is it that we expect more from drug dealers than we do our leaders?
Some argue, “well, you have the vote.” Assuming the people in question actually have suffrage and it is fairly counted. So using an analogy, if a baseball player has a contract that expires every three years. He commits some crime in his first year. The team has the option, in three years, to fire him? Does that make sense to you? Again, in this case, we hold our leaders to a lower standard that we do someone who chases a ball around a field for a living.
When people in power misuse their power. We all suffer. But how much more egregious when a politician abuses his power in public? With no negative consequences?
So, given the profound negative impact of not holding our leaders to the law. Law that we are held to. Why do we withhold consequences from the actions of our leaders? Because we personally know our leaders. We may not actually have met them but we know them personally. We voted for them. We might have pounded pavement for them. We have sunk cost in them. So we have empathy for them…. Empathy that is not shared. For every act of mercy visited on a leader ten million acts of injustice are visited on the people.
Look at Tarquinius Superbus. Despite his arbitrary evils he was exiled not executed. In fact even in exile he visited evil on Rome. But still lived. The pattern has been repeated through history.
Shouldn’t we finally put a stop to it?
Or have we remained motionless in three thousand years… and are happy to remain?
