Last week began with the International Crisis Group presenting its top ten crises for 2017 at Chatham House. Those crises barely got a look-in: most of the discussion was about the US under its new President.
Most of the commentary and answers to the questions came from Mark Malloch Brown, former UN Deputy-Secretary General. His insights were excellent and there was one that struck me in particular.
Rather than seeing the election of President Trump as being linked to – and in a line with – Brexit, it would be more appropriate to see him as the latest of the “Caesars” – authoritarians with a populist appeal. A number of examples were given and more occurred to people during the session; I’m sure you’ll be able to work them out.
Caesars do things that liberals regard as breaking political and/or social norms. Some voters see them as an aberration, but others consider them an admirable breath of fresh air. One thing Caesars generally have in common is that they seem very comfortable exercising power without an array of checks and balances.
It’s a while since I studied the development of the US constitution, but my recollection is that it was designed and drafted to avoid excessive power vesting in the executive, whether called a president, a king or a Caesar. Congress (as the legislature) and the judiciary are given their roles to produce a balanced constitution with inherent checks and balances on power.
The judiciary is important as one of these branches of government, as we’ve seen in the UK on the Brexit appeals. The role of judges is to interpret and rule on the law. It isn’t to make decisions about implementing the will of the people or (picking up on the court decisions in the US over the last few days) to determine what makes a country or people safe.
The rule of law is a pillar of a properly functioning polity and the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government is the foundation on which the rule of law is built.