A reflection on
tyranny of the arbitrary
The word
“arbitrary” can mean “that which depends on someone’s decision or choice”.
Generally it implies less the use of reason and laws. It implies more the
exclusive will of a person (or a group). Someone who holds power can be
“arbitrary” towards another who does not hold power especially when laws are
not the references of the decisions of the powerful. The powerful uses his/her
own discretions and tastes to make decisions. To be arbitrary here is at the
expense of the powerless.
Of course the
arbitrary can be used for the sake of the people governed—the citizens. In this
case the arbitrary is not tyrannical. Tyranny can work by using the law. In
this case, tyranny is not arbitrary—the law is still the reference. Arbitrary
becomes tyrannical when the reference exclusive of decisions is the person of
the leader, his/her idiosyncrasies.
If we were under
the rule of kings and queens, we will have to live with the fact that the will
of the royal leader is the main reference in running the country. We can still
think and make our own private thoughts and opinions, but the royal ruler is
the “boss”. Siya ang masusunod. The ruler may impose sanctions and controls to
make sure that we toe the royal line.
Things are
different, of course, in modern times where we do not have kings and queens
ruling over us. No, not kings and queens but, in principle, laws. So we have laws like the Constitution. But let
us check our experiences. Our experiences reveal something sociological; let us
call it the experience of the “majority
taste”. In “majority taste”, the majority exercises a hold on morals and
opinions. An individual is pushed from deep within to think and act like others. A royal ruler may force people to behave in
particular ways. The royal ruler, however, has no hold of our inner world—our thoughts
and our hearts. In “majority taste” the majority has power even within us. It
works on our wills and actions. Siya ang masusunod. But the siya is
anonymous!
The majority
is able to define the parameters of behavior—what sociologists call as “control”.
If a person—say a journalist—does not toe the line of the majority taste, the
journalist will be subjected to some form of “persecution”. This is a form of
tyranny. It strikes at the deeper parts of the person.
Of course,
everyone is still free to hold opinions and to think in any way he or she
wants. Fine. But the pressure is exercised in such a way that a person will not
want to think and hold opinions that will transform him or her into a stranger.
Do we not all want “to belong” to…someone or some group? Do we not want to be “a
part” of…relationships and associations? In a way we need to live in a society
of people we resemble. If we do not have that resemblance, we feel “strange” and
we feel treated as “strangers”. We have to flatter the majority.
The majority
lives in self-adoration. And it is a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it weighs
on everyone—obliging us to be “uniform” and to resemble each other as closely
as possible. It is arbitrary because it relies heavily on the “tastes” of the
majority independent of laws like the
Constitution.
A modern
leader then can take hold of governance and rule according to the “majority
taste”. The leader governs not necessarily in terms of laws but in terms of his
or her idiosyncrasies. Of course the leader will not admit this—it is too
blatant, too “makapal”. Nor will the
leader, however, admit to be simply subjected to the Constitution. The leader
will, instead, come up with an ideology in the guise of a slogan. Underneath
that ideology is the belief that it conforms with the “majority taste”. This is
why surveys are crucial. The leader needs the consolation of a survey. “I am
still popular” is translated as “I still resemble the majority”. The leader is
supported by the majority that accepts the arbitrary decisions of the leader.
The leader says what he or she wills, and it becomes “final”. It is arbitrary
and it is tyrannical. The tyranny is not necessarily directed against the
majority but against those who still work for the rule of the law.
The law is not
just “talk”. To be “ruled by law” is to accept what is inherent in the human
person. It is not enough the human is “subject”, as modernity and the
enlightenment have proposed. It is precisely the “subject” that is author of
the “majority taste”. The “subject” is still bound to be arbitrary. Is it
possible to refer to what is not arbitrary and is the foundation of any given
law? The “subject” himself or herself is subjected
to this.
One possible
approach is “oath-taking”—something that we see done in courts and in
inaugurating assemblies. For example, just before assuming office the President
takes an oath. If we look closely at the wording of the oaths taken, we notice
that oaths refer to something higher than all of us—something higher than the
Constitutions and certainly higher that the majority. The assumption of oath-taking
is that the person doing it takes it seriously and agrees to be bound by the
oath. So, in principle, it is also not just mere talk. An oath is authored by “subject”
who has recognized the danger of the arbitrary
and its potential tyranny. The “subject” has recognized that
there is a “higher authority” or “higher power” that serves as foundation for
social and political life. It may be helpful to explore this.
