Criticism – a term seldom taken with a pinch of salt, most often viewed as existential threat to the perceiver, acts as a second steppingstone defined after identification of a fault, or wrong. The only logical action which may follow criticism is reform. Whereas, in our side of the world what follows criticism is revulsion and vendetta.
The strew we witness today is flawed at its best. Its seed is corroded, root disheveled and sprouts spoilt beyond despair.
States do not function the way ours does. Clearly now an established fact, we must retrospect and revisit back the textbook approach of how states are governed.
In a democratic state, the usual setup for trichotomy of responsibility rests on three piers; legislature, executive and judiciary. So, the first wrong here is to assume the word power instead of responsibility. The common question in return is how responsibility be exercised without power. Well, the obvious answer is; to execute responsibility, one requires authority, not power. Clearly power can be a vicious desire of the inner devil, however it’s best it remains avoided. Authority is to direct; power is to subject or subdue as we know it. It is common to hear State acts as the motherland for its dwellers or citizens as we know today.
It is widely believed that if a subject employed in any trichotomy of responsibility believe they have a responsibility to execute affairs in office instead of power, most problems plaguing the society can be addressed. In definition, a responsibility is an obligation for which the employee draws a wage by fairly executing the tasks or matters at their disposal and domain.
Now in our world, the office bearer, for instance an executive ascends to the throne only to berate the predecessor, an outcasted felon who cries foul in the distant jungle of opposition whereas today’s majesty proudly lauds how adventurous the journey to the corridors of power was and how bad the predecessor’s reign is, now the redemption is here to save the day. Sounds like a scene from Lion King? Perhaps yes.
It is this understanding which has corroded our state beyond despair. Now let us look at an ideal example which ought to be.
A Prime Minister, along with a cabinet and party members assume offices in the executive through garnering votes, while executing law making as legislators in parliament. Clearly, executing affairs at their disposal fairly, having a focal point defined for press releases, addressing challenges and explaining roadmaps and progress, regular release of performance reports, time to time interactions with masses through conventions focusing on challenges and solutions. Once the term in office is over, they go home and wait for the verdict at large. The next stop is to assess. In democracies once the innings in power conclude, the public comes together to assess – not judge, the performance of the outgoing government and vote for their next choice.
On similar lines, the judiciary today assumes that sentences are to punish and sanction. What about the goals to deter or reform? It is not unless the distinction is clearer in one’s mind, its blessings are reaped from these very same intentions.
Institutions believing in circumscribing writ of service is the only way forward, not by crying foul of encroachment by other powers to be. By definitions, the government is in employment by public at large to serve and govern affairs, not people. In return for an annual fixed wage for its labor. The criticism must be on policies and processes with what follows is reform, not punishing predecessors.
The judicial system is employed to serve justice, equity and fairness by deterring rogue practices and elements and obtain reform in ideal sense through arbitration, plea bargains, settlements, fines or any other intelligent means, and not punish through unnecessary remands. If a plaintiff files claims and is unable to sustain allegations against the defendant, must then be severely reformed by penalizing double the reform had it been proven against defendant, can be a good reform to commence with.
A societal shift of perspective can serve at its best if we learn from that without gendering and talking about people how we can tackle issues and focus on delivering by criticizing failed processes. Not by alleging, defaming, punishing and annihilating people who were formerly in offices.
