Rules that govern us as a society, country and world. Even rules are organic and they grow with time. Principles are dynamic and they change with time. A little look on the growth of constitutionalism with time.
At the inceptions of every civilization it was ruled by some king or head of the community who derived their legitimacy with some commonly established norms. Caliphs got their authority from religions, English from Queen, Indians from Kinds, Chinese had dynasties and tribals around the world had community leaders. What was common in most of the above forms of ruling along the spectrum is that all the power was concentrated in single person. The king was law maker, the king was law implementer and he himself was judge as well. We call it trinity of power.
With the advent of Magna Carta and Rule of law (By Dicey) there came certain element of principle in this absolute power that tented to be despotism most of the time. At one place it checked the limits of jurisdiction of king at other end there started a conscience about rights in different parts of the world. French hailed Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Americans hailed Justice and separation of power among the three pillars of democracy. Russia revolution attracted more than anything. The idea or Socialism and Communism thrilled the world. Maoism from China has altogether different dimension. Non violence with Satyagrah from India continue to inspire many around the world.
What was common in all of the above? The rise of common man in principle (Wont go into practicality). The fall of might rulers on some laws and norms. Introductions of check and balance in the system where the system is left to evolve itself. Some time they were codified (written) other times they survived in scattered form and conventions. Sometimes they were rigid like US other times they were flexible like UK.
In modern day new concept of Governance, Transparency, Accountability, Probity of public offices has attracted the attention of most of the democratic setup. The cocktail of these modern idea with the revolution of internet has made it to reach every corner of the country and world. The sudden rise in demands of rights and opportunities have opened the new vistas of discussion. Awareness among people and reluctance of government in change as per public will led to regime change many times.
The wave of globalization affected games of rule more than anything. Integration of economy, dependency on trade and commerce, rise in strategic positions significance, developing more sophisticated arms and ammunition along with the older historical ties of religion, language and culture complicated the system. This vertical and horizontal diffusion is new to this world order as we know. The mutual dependence of all the key sectors and countries made a complex cobweb relations.
This diffusion of power and relations has led to further deterioration of jurisdiction of rulers. Now its the rise of expertise in every field whose suggestions and recommendations matter. It has bind the hands of those who used to take decisions on their discretion earlier. The codifications of laws along with powers has reduced anarchy and brought a system of conditions basically.
The rise of constitutionalism in not limited in polity of country but extended to almost all institutions of state. In fact in private sector also there are certain set of norms which refrain the power of managers, bosses and even so CEO or Board of governors.
Ethics and morals are an integral part of constitutionalism. Values that matters a lot in deciding the faith of individual responsibilities and obligations have changed the whole scenario of working in all the firms.
In short Constitutionalism abhors Absolutism.
Comments
Jafferey you got good knowledge of International events. May be these philosophical and public administration issues do not attract you that much.
I am sure you must have enjoyed it. Even I like to see the bull's fight. But I do not want my self to be a bull in any such fight. :D
Happy Christmas man!
There is a thin line that divides the verbal ill behaved fight and logical argumentative discussion. I like the latter one and tries to avoid the first one.
And it took a lot of time for me to distinguish the subtle difference. But now when I see from the debates of school to the discussions of parliament (Westminster form of government), every person on dias looks justified. One can like the government and opposition simultaneously on the basis of points they make.
What was happening yesterday was not sober by any means. In fact from the inception the accusations and personal attacks were out of blue and derogatory remarks. I wasted my time in futile attempts of looking for something that was missing i.e. "sense". But after I replied and saw that she wrote in reply proved one thing that god was not fair while distributing the gift of patience and understanding. But its perfectly fine. I need not to go to that level after all
“Conflicts have no beginning and no end; everything grows together in mutual causation; no single actor carries all the responsibility and no single actor carries all the guilt” – Johan Galtung
Thinking about Johan I back offed in this case. Because may be it does not matter for her, but for me it does! Its my responsibility to avoid such fights and such people!