A Blueprint for Russell Brand.
The Legislative and The Executive.
If Politics is, as discussed in the previous post, about the exertion of influence. *1
And in its best form it is about enabling men to come together as a collective for the betterment of all, as a whole.
Then what is Law?
Law is about protection.
Protection both from the consequence of disobedience to GOD, and from the oppression that men visit one on the other.
It is little known that the first to separate the legislative from the executive were the Muslims. Such an occurrence happened after the Messenger of God (saw) had left us both with the Quran and with his example as a means of making our way in this World. For prior to that in his very person both were combined. And after him (saw) the Quran and his interpretation and explanation of those injunctions contained in his sayings codified our Law.
It was this fact that the Law had been set that allowed for the Muslim successors to concur on such a separation. For Muslim Law was not the purview of a minority of Muslim men, but belonged to all in the exemplary Recitation (Quran). And so the law, in general, was known and accessible.
Today our politicians concern themselves with the manufacture of Law to the detriment of their duty toward inspiring people to act for the collective betterment. They seek to influence our behaviour not through appealing to our better natures but through hitting us harder in the pocket by stipulating varying degrees of taxation and sanction . Theirs is a monetary appreciation of the world, that owes much to economists and bankers, but completely ignores their true calling. And ignores the true calling of what politics is really meant to be about:
The creation of something out of nothing.
The power to overcome against insurmountable odds.
The selfless sacrifice without hope of reward or recognition.
And it is these things that truly inspirational leaders prove to us time and again, in the annals of history, not by talk, which is cheap, but with great deeds.
And the greatest of these inspired us to follow their example of selfless giving and then also ennobled others through their realisation of becoming selfless givers too.
A passing of the baton that extends to this day, through five hundred thousands of our suns.
Today our Law courts spend much on the mediation between the laws that our political classes make and the people that they are charged to protect. Should the people need protection from our politicians? It appears that our judges believe that that may well be necessary and that many laws passed by statute need to be challenged in court in order to be ratified into law.
Our politicians continually claim that their lawmaking is in the interests of protecting the people, but that is not their job.
It is, however, and should be the job of the judicial classes. This does not mean an end to the adversarial nature of the British judicial system. Only a charging of judges with the keeping of safety of the people. That judges should be the ones to enact law by the ratification of it through the law courts and not politicians who are ill fitted to that role. For they should be the ones that bring prosecution for the public benefit and enunciate the law.
So then what for Politicians?
I believe that Politics is in the job of Justice.
But that the Law and Justice are often confused. For you can have one without the other.
Law is exerted when justice by other means has failed. *2
And that you can have justice even before the exertion of the law, this is often called ethics.
Politics should be in the job of providing for such Justice before recourse to Law.
It should be in the job of inspiring people to their better selves, of making provision for the less well of and for the future and of protecting the people wholesale.
But justice is by definition "the giving of each man his due".
And in this case is each man's due in relation to what he has earned or what is his right by way of being?
By way of being his right is to opportunity towards betterment. In this instance the state and the polity needs to provide for equal access towards opportunity. And provide every encouragement towards betterment.
This is the necessity of education. Education should better people and provide opportunity towards further betterment. If it does not make them better citizens and provide them with life and other skills then it is a failed education.
The right due to man because of what he has earned is that it is not diminished by any ulterior agency and not without good reason. By itself the earning of wealth does not diminish the wealth of others. However when that wealth exerts influence it can and does diminish the wealth of others and in those cases the state should guard against such occurrence where the economics of the marketplace is skewed towards the wealthy. This right therefore defines the right to justice. Such was the address of Abu Bakr as-Sadiq (ra) the first successor of our beloved Prophet (saw).
By extension a just state should be allowed to levy tax for those reasons of
-security, since security is essential for opportunity.
-education.
-law since justice is administered through it.
-the maintenance of a balanced marketplace and the encouragement of small business.
-and government to administer between their competing needs.
The provision of healthcare, a cornerstone of the modem state, falls beyond this pail.
Social care becomes a right through the saying of GOD in a Hadith Qudsi, "I was hungry, thirsty and destitute...". And this is a duty upon those that have towards those that have not. Whilst the redistribution here is there not to create a flat society but solely to alleviate suffering.
And so social care becomes a state responsibility by way of God's grace.
However in stark contrast the provision of healthcare cannot be found to be fundamental to the purpose of state. And therefore at best can solely be a common and not compulsory sadaqa. Common since it is a collective undertaking to provide for those who have not whilst also providing a service for those that contribute towards it. In essence the provision of Healthcare should be treated as a sadaqa by all those that undertake it, hoping to realise the Quranic injunction that any that saves a life it were as if they saved humanity as a whole.
And so I believe that a National Health Service is not a right to be enacted through the State but rather that it should be a voluntary and collective undertaking towards which all people should be given every encouragement. For those that contribute towards it, should see it as a voluntary and ongoing charity on par with those things that God loves most.
Notes:
*1- Politics as Influence.
Blog: "to sum a life". *2- Law and Justice.
"
Where the Justice of a Liberalism will always be too late. *3- Abu Bakr as-Sadiq (as) and the defence of democracy.
Progressive Politics- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
