God and God alone is the seat of all power, for He and He alone is omnipotent. Former rulers understood this very well and always tried to legitimize their power as coming from God. One of the last examples of our days is evident in the Spanish dictatorship following the civil war. Francisco Franco who lacking the legitimacy that a president has by universal suffrage, or that of a king by succession, presented himself before the Spanish people as the “Commander in Chief by the Grace of God” and ordered coins to be minted with this motto. Other leaders went much further than legitimizing their power as coming from God, they constituted themselves as gods instead.
God is one and triune, and whether by coincidence or not, the powers that govern democracy are also three, intimately united by ways of a mutual control, balance and harmony. The omnipotence of God is diversified in the three divine persons: the Father executes, the Son legislates, and the Holy Spirit judges. These same powers exist in democracy, separate and without interference when they function well, but interventional when they do not.
“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, it’s not known who first came up with this, but it alludes to a great truth. Early in the West it was soon realized that there could not be a single power or that it could not be concentrated within a single institution; hence, we have the separation of powers into three branches that are simultaneously independent and interdependent of one another.
Democracy was born in Western civilization, and it prevails only there in its purest form. Outside the Western world or within its sphere of influence, autocracy or some form of dictatorship that is often camouflaged as democracy still applies, with the so called fair and transparent elections that are nothing more than a farce, in an attempt to legitimize certain politicians to be perpetually in power.
Evolution of the political power
Democracy or government of the people, born in Greece as well as its Roman counterpart called the Republic meaning the public thing, hibernated throughout the entire European Middle Ages, during which the King was the state with the consent of the nobles, feudal lords of “tassel and boiler”, and with the approval of religious leaders. However, all of them, despite their prominent place with the king, were his subjects like the rest of the people.
Plagued by Muslim incursions, Europe lived closed off from the rest of the world, the seas were not navigated, and society divided into three classes (the nobles, the clergy, and the peasants) was mainly a rural society surrounding a castle. Already in the late Middle Ages, with the emergence of the borough, that is, a larger population nucleus, came the artisans, trade, and commerce. With the boroughs also came the bourgeois who did not have the power of arms of the nobles nor the power of culture and of blessing or curse of the clergy, but they did have the power of money.
The bourgeois had no place or status in the medieval society, which is why they rejected it and sought to resurrect the ancient Greco-Roman society. Since they had money they became financial sponsors of anything that would bring back this ancient society such as art, science, philosophy and law. Europe thus began to wake up from its medieval stupor to become a modern society. The driving force of this society was no longer the king with his nobles and high priests, but the wealthy bourgeois.
The religious wars between the Catholics and the Protestants in the second half of the 16th century led to a minor setback in the political system, with the creation of enlightened absolutism by which the monarch returned to full power, containing popular uprisings and religious civil wars. The most famous monarch of this time, nicknamed the Sun King, was King Louis XIV of France who even declared, “I am the State”. We were already at the dawn of the French Revolution.
Montesquieu and the doctrine of separation of powers
There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, singular or collective… Montesquieu The Spirit of the Laws (1748)
The doctrine of three separate but interdependent powers has its origin in the Roman Republic. In ancient Rome, there were three powers: the Consuls, the Senate and the Assemblies. The Consuls, chosen from among the members of the Senate for a period of one year, formed the government of the Republic; everything was under their power, including the control of the army.
The Senate was composed of members of the noble and wealthy families, the patricians; the members of the Senate were chosen by the Consuls and they served for life. There were 300 seats in the Senate; when a position became vacant, the Consuls elected a substitute among the senators.
The Assemblies were composed of the plebeians, the people of Rome; they met in the Roman Forum, and discussed and passed laws, and even declared wars. But the Senate had the power to block their decisions. With apparently little power, it was the Assembly, however, that every year would choose two members of the Senate to serve as Consuls. Therefore, the noble senator who wanted to access a Consul’s seat had to have popular support. Since it was the Consuls who chose the senators, little by little the plebeians could put in places of power those who were more sympathetic to their causes.
Despite this, the plebeians complained of their limited power which led the senators to allow the people to elect Tribunes. These were elected from the poor of Rome, and participated in the senators’ meetings and had the power to veto any law that was against the interests of the poor.
Based on this separation and interdependence of powers in Rome, Charles Montesquieu (1689-1755), one of the icons of the French Enlightenment, created his model of democratic rule of law which is followed today by all Western democracies.
Before the French Revolution, power was concentrated in the king. After that, the king was deposed and replaced by the people – which is why it’s said today, “The People is the Sovereignty”. Inherent in the democratic rule of law are the principles that the law is the same for everyone, no one is above the law and all citizens are equal in terms of rights, duties and dignity – there are, therefore, no social classes, that is, no groups of people with innate privileges.
Since the people denotes a vast collective whole, it was necessary for them to be able to elect their representatives. In order to do so, power needed to be divided into three parts:
- Legislative power – in charge of the elaboration of laws that must govern the state and its citizens.
- Executive power – in charge of the management of the state and enforcing laws that were approved by the legislative power.
- Judicial power – in charge of assessing and judging under a legal system, both the state in the performance of its functions and the life and behaviour of the citizens.
Competences of the legislative power
In a parliamentary republic, the Parliament formed by MPs that are elected directly by the people, is the basis or source of power, and indirectly of all powers, the judiciary is appointed by the executive power and the latter comes from Parliament. Normally, the party that wins the election or elected the greatest number of members is the one that governs. However, when it cannot get a parliamentary majority, the second most voted party can govern as long as it secures a parliamentary majority in an alliance with other parties.
In Western democracies, parliaments can have one or two chambers. Portugal has only one chamber called the Republic Assembly. Brazil has two, the Chamber of Deputies and the Federal Senate. Spain also has two, the Cortes Generales and the Senate. England has two, the Lower House or House of Commons and the Upper House or House of Lords. The United States has two, the Congress and the Senate. Canada has two, the House of Commons and the Senate. Because it’s ruled by the people, the members are elected by direct universal suffrage in so-called legislative elections.
To legislate – Laws are proposed by the government, that is, by the executive power made up of deputies, members of the government or ministers, who sit either in front of the parliamentarians or in Parliament’s first seats. Before they are approved, laws proposed by the government are discussed and debated by parliamentarians. In this process, they can be amended, corrected and finally voted on.
When the government enjoys a parliamentary majority, these laws are usually passed; if it does not hold a majority, it has to make alliances with other parliamentary forces to see its laws passed. The government can be defeated in minor laws, but if it is defeated in approving the state budget for a given legislature or year, the government is brought down because without a budget it cannot govern.
To represent – Deputies represent the people and should always be in communication with those they represent. This is particularly true in the British Parliament where the inhabitants of a particular constituency elect their representative and the latter presents to Parliament their concrete problems and concerns.
This does not happen in the Portuguese system where people do not know exactly who represents them, because they voted only for a party which, depending on the number of votes, is entitled to a certain number of deputies. In this system the people does not know who actually represents them.
To oversee – The parliament as a whole, but especially the opposition parties, oversees and inspects the legitimacy of all governmental actions from a financial point of view regarding the appropriate or inappropriate use of public resources. Whenever necessary or when a crime is suspected, the opposition appeals to the Courts of Auditors. It is also the parliament’s role to oversee administrative acts, that is, all government action in administrative matter in areas such as public health, hospitals, education, schools, justice, etc. For this function, the parliament uses parliamentary committees specific to each area of governance.
Parliament, especially the opposition, also has the task of drawing the government’s attention to neglected areas or issues where nothing is being done by the executive branch.
Power above the law
“The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.” Mark 2:27-28
Political power in a democratic state reminds us that nothing is above the law. But this is not always true. Laws can be described as just or unjust, moral or immoral. The dignity of the human person, represented by his well-formed and informed moral conscience, is above the law.
Paraphrasing what Jesus said, the law was made for man and not man for the law. Roman law somehow alludes to this idea in the expression “summum jus summa injuria”, which means extreme justice without any criterion equates to extreme injustice. It is one thing to be just, another to be self-righteous.
Objection of conscience
“In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart… For man has in his heart a law written by God… Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths…” Gaudium et Spes, 16
Moral conscience is the highest instance of dignity of the human person. “If a person violates his conscience and crushes it, he loses his dignity,” said Cardinal Newman. Conscience does not obey nor submit to any other instance nor to anybody, but only reports to God. It is the place within us that is the tabernacle of our freedom – the government, the executive of the whole human person. The objection of conscience means that no one can be legally forced to do something against his conscience, especially against his moral, spiritual or religious values.
Among the best-known cases of exercising the right to objection of conscience is the case of compulsory military service. A young man who professes and practices the doctrine of nonviolence can exercise this right to avoid going to war and kill in the name of whatever the reason may be, because he believes there is never a justification whatsoever for killing another human being.
Another well-known case is that of doctors and nurses who refuse to participate in an abortion. The abortion law is without doubt the most unjust and cruel law human beings have ever invented. To force someone to perform an abortion would be violating their dignity and forcing them to commit a murder.
Civil disobedience – It is a concept similar to the objection of conscience. Perhaps the only difference is the fact that while the objection of conscience takes on a moral, personal and individual stance, civil disobedience takes on a more social and political one. It is therefore a question of disobeying and failing to comply with a law that a group of people find unfair. Side by side with this concept is the concept of civil resistance, where civil disobedience extends over time and space, through strategies aimed at seducing public opinion and creating a growing movement that aims at forcing the executive to give up a law; this is what’s currently happening in Hong Kong.
Examples of this kind of action are seen in all the strikes that the working class and unions organize. Historically, a famous example of this type of action is the Salt March organized by Gandhi to break the British monopoly on this product.
Moral coefficient of a society
(…) ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ Jesus said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so…’ Mathew 19:7-8
Euthanasia, the death penalty, abortion, are the best known examples of how certain laws can be unjust and as such should be repudiated by those who in their moral conscience judge them to be evil and immoral.
Among these realities, abortion is undoubtedly the most horrifying law in modern society, comparable to Nazi death camps and gas chambers during World War II. The interests in favor of abortion are so strong that people take totally unscientific positions on this subject.
From a strictly scientific point of view, however, human life begins at conception when one half of a human cell, a sperm, joins with another half of a human cell, an egg, to form a complete human cell. This union, once consummated, is indivisible and indissoluble. Immediately, the genetic material on both sides intertwines and mixes to form a DNA that has a distinct genetic code from the parents. This new human being will then seek from the mother what it needs to develop, so that the mother has no power and therefore should have no rights over the new being.
It is scientifically false to set the beginning of human life at an arbitrary moment after conception; just as it is also false to pretend that the new human being is just another part of the mother’s body, thus justifying that she can decide anything concerning this new human being.
What can make the Christian legislator abdicate for 24 hours like King Baudouin of Belgium, in order not to have to sign the law? Lawmakers in a state of law legislate not according to their moral conscience because they do not legislate only for themselves, but according to the moral coefficient of the society to which they legislate. If they set the bar too high, that is, if they legislate according to the ideal as in the case of abortion by making it illegal, they risk filling prisons with men and women who have practiced or participated directly or indirectly in the crime.
“Making the guts heart”, the legislator, though against abortion, legislates according to the moral coefficient of the people to whom he legislates by setting the bar lower than the ideal but higher than the moral coefficient in order to appeal to the conscience of the people to the value and dignity of the human person.
The groups against abortion, Christians in particular, must conduct information campaigns to increase the moral coefficient of the people to favour life, and against death and extermination of millions of innocent human beings. Eventually when the society's moral coefficient has increased, the legislature may re-legislate or call for a referendum that will result in the illegalization of abortion. Admittedly, some will continue to perform abortion, but they will be in the minority, and there will be rooms for them in the prisons.
Competences of the executive power
What the government of a country or its executive branch does not do is to make laws. This is a competence of the legislative power. It also does not interpret them, which is a competence of the judicial power. Executive power or government, as the name implies, governs by executing the laws that are made in parliament, within the interpretation of the judiciary.
Whether in the parliamentary republic or monarchy, with the exception of France, European democracies follow the parliamentary system, by which the parliament is the only democratically legitimized institution.
The government receives its authority and legitimacy from parliament: the party with the most votes, if it has an absolute majority, appoints a prime minister and forms a government; if it does not have a majority, it seeks to ally itself with other parties. If it cannot find a suitable party to form an alliance, the second most voted party can end up governing as long as together with other parties it has gained an absolute majority in parliament; this is the case of the famous Portuguese contraption that started in 2015 and lasted until 2019.
By law the members or ministers of the executive or government are chosen exclusively among the deputies of the party that obtained a majority. That is, before becoming government ministers, they are members of parliament.
In presidential republics like the United States, the president represents the executive power and is elected directly by the people. The Congress of deputies is also elected directly by the people, a fact that creates serious institutional problems because the party of the elected president often does not have the majority in Congress or Senate.
In both cases, the role of the executive power is to ensure compliance with the laws and the functioning of the institutions. Each minister has a specific competence in a particular area, such as education, health, the armed forces, the police, international relations, etc.
Since the government owes its mandate to the legislature, it has to satisfy it periodically. Most parliaments have a day when the parliamentarians, especially those from the opposition, question the government on the progress of governance.
Love of power or power of love
The trees once went out to anoint a king over themselves. So they said to the olive tree, “Reign over us.” The olive tree answered them, “Shall I stop producing my rich oil by which gods and mortals are honoured, and go to sway over the trees?” Then the trees said to the fig tree, “You come and reign over us.” But the fig tree answered them, “Shall I stop producing my sweetness and my delicious fruit, and go to sway over the trees?”
Then the trees said to the vine, “You come and reign over us.” But the vine said to them, “Shall I stop producing my wine that cheers gods and mortals, and go to sway over the trees?” So all the trees said to the bramble, “You come and reign over us.” And the bramble said to the trees, “If in good faith you are anointing me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.” Judges 9:8-15
The Word of God offers us a valuable lesson in this parable. Often those who aspire to the top positions of the nation do not do so because they have a project, some talent, or something to offer; those who have something to offer, like the olive tree, fig tree and vine, usually do not seek office
It is often the thorns – a stunted, dry shrub that produces neither shade nor fruit, suffocates the trees around it, and causes fires – that seek power. Greedy for power, human beings of low moral character, corrupt manipulators and autocrats, people who have little power or control over themselves, they want to control others.
Power is service
A dispute also arose among them as to which one of them was to be regarded as the greatest. But Jesus said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves. (…) But I am among you as one who serves…” Luke 22:24-27
Whoever does not live to serve does not deserve to live; whoever does not serve others, uses others. To understand this, politicians must discover the power of love in order to free themselves from their love of power.
Abuse of power or corruption
‘You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled underfoot.’ Matthew 5:13
One of the functions of salt is to preserve, to prevent corruption. All processed foods contain salt for this reason; salt is used to preserve fish and meat so that they can be stored for some time. When a Christian acts as salt, he prevents the social fabric of the institutions to which he belongs and in which he participates from corrupting.
According to the people, “opportunity makes the thief”, in other words, no one is born a thief. In institutions sometimes an occasion arises to steal or divert funds; this opportunity is like a wound that opens up in the social fabric. If any Christian is part of this social fabric, that is, of this institution, he puts himself inside the wound, and acting like the salt, the social fabric heals without any germs to cause an infection.
Competences of the judicial power
Jesus said, ‘In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor had respect for people. In that city there was a widow who kept coming to him and saying, “Grant me justice against my opponent.” For a while he refused; but later he said to himself, “Though I have no fear of God and no respect for anyone, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out by continually coming.” Luke 18:2-5
This is the body of power that watches over law, justice and equality. The symbol of this power, a blindfolded woman holding a scale in one hand and a sword in the other, ideally describes the values it stands for. The scale evaluates the acts of each person, according to the same gauge for everyone, seeking equality. This reminds us of Daniel (5:27) who alerts the king to the fact that his works have been weighed and found wanting. The blindfold denotes impartiality: the law is above everyone, it does not favour anyone.
The judicial power, in general, both in the life of the state and of its citizens, judges non-compliance with the law in all aspects of law, such as civil, criminal and tax law, resolving and settling disputes in the courts that arise among citizens, businesses and institutions. It is therefore up to the judicial power to defend individual rights and promote justice by resolving all disputes that arise from living in society.
Although the system provides a lawyer for those who cannot afford the services of one, in reality, however, the more money they have, the more “puffed up” by justice they will be. The intricacies of the law allow for very clever lawyers to exonerate the guilty party, so that money can also buy justice or in this case, injustice.
The area of law that relates the most to the legislative and executive powers is the Constitutional Law. It is up to the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court to ensure the Constitution and its correct interpretation and application, both in parliament by the deputies and in government by the ministers.
The judicial power is applied in different courts by judges who are not elected by the people, but chosen by the executive branch. Of the three powers, it is the only one that is not directly democratic.
It is the theory idealized by Montesquieu and Locke about the separation of powers. On the one hand, the brakes and counterweights exist so that the powers remain separate and free, without the malicious intervention of one another.
On the other hand, this intervention can also be requested when one of the three powers, abusing its freedom and autonomy, becomes dysfunctional. In this sense, the freedom and autonomy of each of the powers exist, insofar as each of these powers does what is expected of it, respecting what is established in the Constitution.
As long as this happens, the powers do not relate to each other, and they function harmoniously like the cogwheel mechanism of a clock. However, when one of these powers exceeds its competences, one of the other two powers will intervene in order to return it to the normal functioning enshrined in the state constitution.
A recent example of brakes and counterweights is the Brexit. In the aftermath of the referendum, to which the British people decided to leave the European Union, and in the application of this result, the British government thought itself entitled to invoke Article 50 without giving Parliament any satisfaction. Gina Miller, an everyday British citizen, took the government to court, which ruled against the government, saying that the prerogative to trigger Article 50 belongs to Parliament and not to the government.
Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC