Monday, June 27, 2016

POLITICAL AUTHORITY



These are the days that try man’s soul by the way some of those having political authority think as if they are masters of the people, the lords in the Country.  The results are obvious as well as odious:  They  look at the citizens as fools.  They act with attention and concern only on matters that satisfy their ego, that enrich their self-esteem, that pamper their persons.  There are different ways of understanding political authority, taking care to defend and propose a model of authority  that is founded on and promotional of the social nature of man.

Authority, be this civil or political in nature and objective, be this in the national, continental, or international sphere, has to remember and act accordingly taking into attentive and serious consideration the social nature of man.  Among other things, this means that man seeks and pursues companionship with others, all of whom together precisely constitute a neighbourhood, a community, a society, a people, a nation.

That is why authority in general may not but take into attentive and serious consideration the social dimension of man in its assumption and exercise of civil power or political leadership.  This is why egoistic and selfish, inhumane and anti-social individuals – the same with the numb and the dumb – make the worst civil or political authorities.  So it is said:  Political authority must guarantee a socialized and ordered community life without usurping or suffocating the free activity of individuals and groups thereof but disciplining and orienting the said freedom of action for social harmony.

Political authority may be somehow and in some way compared to parental authority whose main responsibility and consequent actuation is to keep the family in harmony and unity.  This is why political authority is said to be an instrument of community coordination that is ultimately productive of peace and order in society.  In no way is political authority meant to do away with the in-born freedom of individuals – but simply moderate it ultimately for the welfare and benefit of society as a whole.  It is those who abuse their own freedom that infringe on the rightful freedom of others, who in effect cause community enmity if not downright social disorder.  That is why it is incumbent upon the political authority to legitimately moderate the freedom of individuals lest these be precisely  the cause of social disarray and/or the source of downright public disorder.

As far as the people and the political authority are concerned, the following are the more simple and objective inter-relationships that should exist between them – as ordained by reason and mandated by social ethics.  First, the people directly or indirectly put up a political authority to exercise regulatory role upon them for their common good and benefit.  Second, the political authority is wherefore definitely not at liberty to do what it wants by basically patronizing and favouring itself.  Third, the people who established a political authority that simply served its own interests and concerns, have the right to get rid of it in favour of another political authority they consider will really attend to their societal needs and common aspirations.  This is the reality of the sovereignty of the people.