Chapter XIV
Militaries
If war is a political tool, then the militaries which undertake war are as much a tool as war itself. Militaries have the potential to exert a great deal of political power, and throughout history leaders have used their military prowess or simply their popularity among the rank and file to cement their own power, to topple governments and defeat their opponents. If the military takes a dislike to its government which runs deep, the risk to the survival of that government is beyond high.
So we may assume that the primary purpose of the military, given our understanding of war, is the defence of the homeland. The question posed is: does this task of ‘defence’ extend to protection of political rights? On the one hand, military leaders with a strong ethical code, virtue in mind, and a vision for the nation could use military power to bring about a great deal of good — the loss of the military by an incumbent government is the loss of that government’s means of defending itself and enforcing its laws. So if there is a bad government, a selfish government, an enemy to all virtue, why should the military not overthrow it?
Military governments are naturally inclined to enforce their rule by force, since a military by nature is a weapon of force. Once the government is overthrown, a military power must, even if democracy is its long-term goal, enforce short-term martial law. The problem that this poses is that the total control offered by martial law often seduces even some of the most principled men. Dictatorships, which often begin benevolent, such as the rule of Julius Caesar in Rome, swiftly become tyrannical, because the military leader believes that he alone, or his associates, can govern society for the best without the help of others, strengthened by the power which his military support affords him. What we may say then is this: no, it is not right for the military to overthrow the government alone, certainly not as a private initiative, since the control of the military, even if it is only interim, tends towards tyranny, and therefore away from political justice. In the case of a bad government holding sway over society, of course it would be right for the military to refuse to follow its orders, but to take matters into its own hands without there first being a popular movement for justice would ensure that an army could take total control. Ultimately, since the military is a tool of government, and governments serve their nation, the military too is a servant. Any military which is requested to harm its own citizens without those citizens being first proscribed for genuinely criminal, immoral and other actions which threaten lives, cannot claim to be the servant of a just society. Equally, the military should be kept as far away from political life as possible.
On the other hand, it will be necessary, if the government is the controller of the military, for members of government to be involved with the military. It has been the undoing of many leaders throughout history to assume that, because they have the command of the people, they are also great military commanders. The Roman Emperor Nero and German leader Hitler are two good historical examples. Both believed that they had the key to victory in the wars they respectively fought, despite the former being a poetry-obsessed psychopath (but ruthless tyrant), and the latter a former soldier and skilled orator, but certainly no general. Both men fell, since neither knew how to manage military operations. Military generals are not merely the advisors to governments, but they are experts in terms of strategy, with far greater experience than any politician. What a society needs therefore in the management of its military is a balance of roles between state and military, with the roles of each suiting the expertise of each party.
It is rightfully the role of the legislature, as we have asserted before, to consider when military action should be undertaken, when the homeland of a nation is threatened. The deliberations concerning this matter is reserved to the legislature alone, since the representatives of the ordinary people and the aristocracy, having knowledge of the people and lands of the nation as they do, will have best in mind the effects of invasion upon the citizens of their country. If defence by military action is considered the only available option, then the question of strategy, deployment of armies and appropriate response is purely a matter for the generals and strategists of the military. The executive may continue to report to the legislature all undertakings of the military in case of the need to suspend operations, but all operations themselves are not the concern of a political body. The primary aim of military leaders however, should always be the minimisation of unnecessary sacrifice and the protection of the citizens whom they serve. In this discussion, we are not considering strategy, and whilst it may be tempting to challenge modern military tactics, true to what we have said before about the separation of political and military decisions, we shall not endeavour to dictate appropriate responses to hypothetical military situations.
In times of peace, it should be the role of the government to dictate a budget for the military, since the finances of the nation are the concern of government, and the legislature should decide upon an appropriate figure for the defence of the nation. The military must then work with the resources it is allocated, and the matter of constructive fortifications, recruiting new soldiers as well as updating equipment and maintaining existing forces should be the concern of the military alone when using the funds provided by the government. A general will best know the sort of equipment his soldiers need, though he may well not take into account the costs, since his primary concern is his men rather than the rest of society. Therefore, budgets should be set separately from the military, but spent at the military’s request.
As for the conduct of militaries, there is much to consider. Since the World Wars, many nations of the world have agreed on certain standards which are supposedly kept to in the conduct of war, and of course the Geneva Conventions remain the most famous agreements concerning the ‘humane conduct of war’, which is of course the oxymoron of oxymora, but thus it stands. A lot has changed since the days of heroism and hand-to-hand combat, and whilst it is undeniable that war has become much less glorious, modern soldiers cannot avoid the fact that they are the successors to that history. The concern of the soldier is to fight other soldiers and to honour himself in the defence of his homeland and his beliefs. Since it is the spirit of man which is the driver of war and not his pay, the true reason for service should be in the mind of every soldier. The soldier is ultimately a citizen with particular training, and his service to society is a necessary role in the defence of any kind of justice; the soldier fights for the good of his country, and for the defence of truth, for in that defence is virtue, the only virtue that can come from war. The involvement of citizens, even foreign citizens, in the conduct of war is not the concern of the soldier, since he is fighting only those who threaten his homeland. The stress of battle, the fear and destruction that it brings will naturally alter the mindset of the soldier, and often the rules prescribed for war are not as clear-cut as the leaders in ivory towers would have us non-soldiers think; however, attitudes towards war must be firmly set in the mind of the soldier. Enforcing the rules of war in a court martial is one thing, it is quite another to give a soldier perspective. The protection of citizens and the prevention of war crimes comes not just from the deterrent of the law, but from the mindset of those conducting war. If soldiers are educated in a just vision of their service, they will be more inclined to be honourable in their conduct and brave in the defence of their families.
***
A final note on what is perhaps the greatest threat to the modern world: the nuclear weapon. Militaries ultimately may arm themselves with whatever defensive weapons they can afford, yet it goes without saying that the nuclear bomb is not primarily a defensive weapon. The sheer destruction that it works on areas exposed to it explains our point clearly, and its historical use primarily against citizens rather than military targets highlights its evil in every form. Of course, the mantra that accompanies the threat of nuclear war is ‘everybody loses’, but in the event of this kind of war being triggered for whatever small or apparently
harmless reason, such warnings carry no weight whatsoever. The human race would have been far nobler if it had never created this weapon which only demeans its existence. Yet we stand with this force, and we must recognise its existence. So long as nations remain suspicious of the fact that their rivals may own such weapons, international nuclear disarmament may never be possible.
Whilst it may be deemed necessary by the governments of the world to have a nuclear arsenal so long as the threat of nuclear attack is present, however small, a source of anger for many people comes from the fact that the economic savings from the abolition of these arsenals could allow for huge amounts of social investment and improvement. We should appreciate both sides of the argument, considering the circumstances in which these weapons exist throughout the world, but the question we must keep asking our governments is this: if the only result of nuclear attack is apocalyptic destruction on both sides, and the world’s alliance network ensures that an attack on even a non-nuclear country would result in this outcome, why should countries, especially smaller ones such as Britain, retain a nuclear arsenal? Why not rid the world of some more of these Satanic instruments and use the money for virtuous ends? Many people would thank you, and the country may still defend itself conventionally whilst hiding in the shadow of a larger, wealthier, nuclear power. We must have hope that if enough countries succumb to this logic, there may yet be an end to the nuclear age, as the mighty powers see the errors of their ways and the militaries of the world put honour above power, virtue above destruction. We must hope.
Chapter XV
The Composition of Government
Now we must turn our attention to the organisation of government in terms of the separation of its powers and the balance of powers within political institutions themselves. The question of whether or not the state should afford status to a particular religion, whether or not the legislature and judiciary should be completely separate, and whether the executive head of state should be an individual or collective position has troubled statesmen since the first democracies were created in the ancient world. The traditional three branches of government, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, have grown to be considered typical of all democratic states purely by virtue of the fact that it stands to reason that these three powers must be exerted in any stable state. As to which deserves the most power, which is most important and what the precise roles of each should be is a matter of opinion, and here we shall explore these questions in detail.
In true democracies, where government is conducted with some form of input be it direct or indirect with every eligible citizen, the spirit of political discourse must be opinion — we have asserted this many times. With valid opinion must come a degree of rationality, and it is around reason which the decisions of government must pivot. Reason is the judgement of the human mind — it is not merely a moral judgement, but a divine one, since reason is a unique gift and must be revered. This does not mean that government should be held in reverence, but rather that government should hold reason in reverence; therefore, all three major branches of government must be constructed in such a way that reason has the maximum potential to flourish. It will have been made clear in reading the previous chapters that we consider legislature to be the superior branch of government on account of the wide representation and capacity for debate that parliamentary chambers allow citizens to take advantage of. When considering the other two branches of government, we must therefore consider how we might best stimulate the same debate and rational considerations between more than one individual whilst also considering the issue of practicality and the delays that democratic discussion often causes during the course of decision-making.
When a monarch is at the head of state, which we have concluded is a cultural universal in some form or other, he must always have a board of advisors. The British monarchs have had their Privy Councils, the American Presidents their cabinets. In cases where the monarch’s powers are limited, it is these councils which deliberate, and find the answers to executive problems. Of course, it goes without saying that an executive council ought to be far smaller than a legislative one, since it is not representative of the entire population and derives its authority from appointment rather than election. In the case of presidencies where the incumbent president has the power of veto or may override the decision of his council, rational men should object. The opinion of one man compared to the deliberations of several others does not tend towards the truth in the same way, since information may not be as easily dissected, and flaws may be overlooked rather than exposed. In this manner, presidents should act more like the chairmen of executive councils than an overall chief. Perhaps a president’s vote ought to be weighted as a sign of his authority of the others (which is naturally right when the highest position of society is obtained through virtuous means), but it does not prevent the opinions of others from being stifled completely. Some countries, such as Switzerland, have tried an openly balanced model where the executive is comprised of several individuals rather than one advised by a council. This has been proven to work and fits well into the traditions of confederal republics such as Switzerland, but we must do well to remember the different political traditions of each individual nation. What suits Switzerland may not suit every nation, after all, and the natural hierarchy of a society comprised of unequal individuals must be kept firmly in mind. If we are to elevate more than one man or woman to the highest office of state, then every one of these people should be of equal good character and full to the brim with virtue. The ministers who comprise the executive council, whilst they will have their own opinions, must also be open to the advice of their subordinates. Whilst it is the duty of a council to reach a final decision by diligent deliberation, it is also the duty of an empowered minister to attend such councils fully informed of the real state of affairs.
Now, the executive is primarily an administrative branch of government, and it must be answerable to another branch. The purpose of composing government in a fashion which makes it accountable is to ensure that corruption is kept to a minimum, and different individuals control different elements of statecraft. The legislature is arguably the heart of government, and certainly the most important branch, for here is where important national decisions concerning the law itself are deliberated. The legislature does not merely represent particular interest groups, but the spirit of a whole political society. The poorest elector sends his preferred neighbour and the richest aristocrat attends the same institution for the consideration of the same issues — it is a meeting place where both high and low are brought to the same plain. The executive, whether drawn from the legislature such as in the British system, or completely separate from it such as in the American or Dutch systems, should always report to the legislature, and be subject to its most intense scrutiny. What is certainly true is that is should always be the legislature which reserves the power of legislation. The function of the executive is the enforcement of the law, and not the creation of it. The infamous ‘executive orders’ in the United States often amount to legal decree, when in fact they should have no purpose other than to guide the enforcement of pre-existing laws. The separation between decree and legislation should be a clearly distinct one; the emperors of ancient Rome enforced their will by decree, as did many of the absolute rulers of history, for it is a single opinion treated as if it has the power of law. Decrees may easily be used to suspend rights, to withdraw habeas corpus, to suspend the right to trial or to remove juries from the judiciary. Certain rights as these, if they are sacrosanct, and may not be removed by any popular vote, should also be immune from the interference of executive interpretation. The legislature has introduced these rights into the laws of Western nations for a reason, and that reason as we have asserted above must be respected. We have enjoyed such rights for so long because our ancestors felt they best allowed the state to flourish, and whilst times may have changed since the days when the right to jury trial and habeas corpus were
introduced, the importance of retaining such rights has not. Law embodies the spirit of a nation, and the creation of those laws is not a task to be taken lightly. Therefore, when legislation is concerned, the legislature must have complete independence from the decrees of external bodies, there must be complete freedom for the opinions of representatives to be dissected for the purposes of truth.
Yet with the creation of law comes the need to interpret it; thus does the judicial branch of government exist. The judiciary itself should also be hierarchically structured based on judges’ years of service and experience in various areas of criminal, family and commercial laws. Once again, the purpose and power of justice should be separate from that of legislation and administration. The Supreme Court of the United States recently changed the definition of marriage in America — under a system which separates political power, this was in effect (if not in terms of technicality) a form of legislation and therefore wrong. Under the US political system, politicians can be impeached by Congress and tried by the Senate — this is a system derived from the ancient Roman practice of the Senate regulating its own members — but this is also clearly wrong. If a public servant has openly abused his position then he should stand trial in a court of law against a jury, not against his fellow politicians who may pursue their own sympathetic or antagonistic agendas against a disgraced public servant. The judiciary alone should have the power to conduct trials, and it should be closed to public pressure. The recent practice of placing cameras in courtrooms turns the interpretation of law into a reality television show, and makes a mockery of real legal justice, with judges playing to the gallery of public opinion rather than making informed legal and moral decisions according to the true nature of legislation.
Political Justice Page 18