It is harder to run a constitution than to frame one: Woodrow Wilson

 "It is getting harder to run a constitution than to frame one" Woodrow Wilson

The statement "It is easier to frame a constitution than to run it" is taken from the famous classic essay of Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States of America, titled "The Study of Administration," published in 1887. By this statement, he meant that the task of administrators, the implementation of the constitution, is much harder than the formulation of the constitution. He wanted to separate public administration from the influence of politicians, which he termed the "politics-administration dichotomy'. To put it simply, he said politicians have to frame a policy and have nothing to do with its implementation, while administrators have the duty to implement such a policy and have nothing to do with its formulation. However, this article discusses and elaborates on this statement in another sense, and that is the literal interpretation of the statement. In today's society, from house to village, village to town, town to state, and state to the globe, there is a great bulge of laws and rules created generally, but they are not executed in accordance with their spirit. Wilson correctly noticed that it is much simpler to create a large book of laws and rules within a room, but when the time comes to apply it, everyone avoids doing so, so why? This article addresses the reasons why laws are commonly written but not strictly enforced. It also explores how to guarantee that such laws are properly implemented and at what expense.

 

At the international level, there are a large number of laws, treaties, and protocols, but such international laws, treaties, and protocols are not implemented in their true sense because there is no supreme authority over states. Although the UN and the UN Security Council exist as global authority over nations, they are quite different from those that operate within states, such as a state's parliament, Supreme Court, and army. At international levels, laws are not implemented as they should be due to a lack of fear of supreme authority. In other words, there is no international government that can regulate the affairs of the globe. To put it simply, in the international arena, the state is still the highest authority of power and force. Although international laws and institutions have been established, they are not implemented around the globe as they are implemented within a state. So the lack of a supreme authority at the global level is the first and foremost reason behind the non-implementation of international laws.

 

Another reason at the global level revolves around national interest. States prefer national interest over global interest, and they do only what suits their national interest best. Again, the state is the highest institution of power in the world. For example, climate change is a global issue, and everyone has been suffering from its horrific impacts. Therefore, a huge number of laws, treaties, and protocols have been drafted to control it, but are they being implemented? The answer is no. Why? Because of "national interest." For example, Donald Trump came to power with the slogan "America first, American people first, and American products first." He pulled the USA out of the Paris Agreement while saying that it was against the national interest of the USA and said, "If China is not ready to reduce the use of hydrocarbons, why should the US do so?" So when there is a conflict between national interest and global interest, national interest prevails, and this is the reason why international laws cannot be implemented as easily as they can be framed.

The same applies at the national level. When personal interests trump national interest, laws are not enforced. When the four organs of a state, including the legislative, executive, judiciary, and media, pursue personal interests, the constitution becomes a piece of paper, laws die, and social order collapses. Different states in the world are suffering from autocracy, political polarization, and political extremism. In all such situations, the primary focus is attracted by a political leader, an autocrat, or a political party, and national interests are jeopardized. So making a constitution and laws for a state is much easier than their implementation, and their implementation is more difficult than their formulation because proper implementation requires the sacrifice of personal interest over national interest, and when one is unwilling to sacrifice one's personal interest, laws are not implemented.

Another reason at the national level revolves around power: whether it is illegitimate or legitimate. When the laws of the land go against a powerful actor in the state, such an actor either changes the law for itself or pressures the law enforcement agencies to not execute the law. To put it simply, when any person, any organ, or any other actor in a state becomes more powerful than the laws of the land, then laws cannot be implemented. It is easy to write, "The Constitution is the supreme authority of the state," but it is much harder to really make it the supreme authority. When the law of the land becomes unable to hold a powerful man accountable, then the law has died. This is the reason that the formulation of laws is a much easier task than their implementation, particularly against those who are powerful.

There are two measures that need to be performed, both internationally and domestically, to ensure that laws are applied in the same way they were created. At the international level, the creation of a supreme authority over nations is necessary to guarantee the correct application of international law, but it has limitations in that it may jeopardize state sovereignty. In addition, the protection of global interest is urgently needed, but it has also the drawback of undermining the national interest. Collective cooperation on common issues is therefore urgently required. On the other hand, when it comes to the national level, personal interests must be sacrificed either voluntarily or by force in order to protect national interests. Law enforcement organizations also need to be powerful enough to enforce the laws, especially when it comes to holding the most powerful people responsible. The rule of law must thus be upheld, either freely or by compulsion and coercion.

 In conclusion, the work of formulating a constitution is not difficult, but putting it into practice is far more challenging. Conflicts of interest and power struggles make its implementation more difficult. Collaboration and cooperation among nations are necessary on a global scale, and the rule of law is necessary on a national scale, to ensure the appropriate application of the laws.

 

Kamran Khan Advocate

Kamranlucky210@gmail.com

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Love is moral even without legal marriage, but marriage is immoral without love." - Ellen Key

"Love is moral even without legal marriage, but marriage is immoral without love." - Ellen Key   Ellen Key, a renowned Swedish feminist writer, expressed this quotation, emphasizing the significance of love in the context of relationships between individuals, particularly within and outside the institution of marriage. The quote underscores the moral and ethical dimensions of these relationships. Society often considers the legal aspect of relationships as the basis for their morality, even if they may actually be immoral. Conversely, relationships that may not conform to legal standards can still possess moral values. Ellen Key's message conveys that love is the fundamental element in relationships between men and women. When love is present, the relationship is moral, regardless of its legal status. Conversely, any relationship, even a legally recognized marriage, devoid of love, is immoral. One of the supporting arguments for this viewpoint stems from nature. All...
Read more

Permanent hatred & love lead to slavery

  Permanent hatred & love lead to slavery While addressing the farewell ceremony, he advised his nation and said, "The nation that indulges towards another a habitual hatred or habitual fondness is in some degree a slave." (Washington's Farewell Address, 1796.) Washington cautioned his nation against forming permanent alliances or enemies, emphasizing the need to rely on emergent situations instead. He was well aware of the repercussions that arise from habitual animosity and affection. At the time, his nation had just emerged from centuries of slavery and colonial rule, having recently gained independence as the United States of America, with Washington serving as its 1st president. He provided a roadmap for the nation to follow, and adherence to this roadmap ultimately propelled America to become a global superpower. In contrast, nations that pursued an emotion-driven policy witnessed a significant decline in their respective countries. This article will thoroug...
Read more

Faultlines in Pakistan's political culture

  Faultlines in Pakistan's political culture Pakistan's political system has never, not even momentarily, seen a smooth evolution. Pakistan has had ongoing political crises since its inception on the world map, which was then followed by economic, judicial, and constitutional problems. The political culture of Pakistan has certain fault lines that lead to political crises, and unless these fault lines are acknowledged, discussed, and rectified, the political system cannot be altered. Major fault lines in Pakistani political culture include the lack of ideological politics in the country, the lack of internal democracy in the so-called political parties, the legacy of dynasties, the lack of national political parties and a divided house, the practice of revenge politics, polarized politics with populist political leaders and the practice of US vs. THEM, the blame game with propaganda politics, the civil-military divide, the strong establishment and weak judiciary, controlled m...
Read more