What is "self-rule" and why should we value it?
"Self-rule" is not in itself the first value of government. It is a technique
for realizing the first value of government, which is justice. I think that
the term "self-determination" is more useful than "self-rule", because it has
been better defined.
Most lawyers now accept that all peoples have the right to self-determination
and that by virtue of this right they should be able freely to determine their
political status and freely to pursue their economic, social and cultural
development. (see the human rights covenants).
It may be more controversial, but probably acceptable to everyone on this list
to add that everyone has the right to take part in the government of her or
his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives, and that the
will of the people should be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which
shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or
by equivalent free voting procedures. (see the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights).
The difficulty arises in making sure that this exercise of popular sovereignty
does not violate the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human
family, without distinction as to race, color, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or
other status.
Constitutional restrictions that limit and qualify direct democracy usually
exist for the purpose of guiding the exercise of self-determination towards
respect for individual rights.
Tim Sellers
>===== Original Message From Discussion list for con law professors
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =====
> Four inexcusably brief remarks:
>
> 1. It was never my view that we should be contemptuous of the Founding
>population.
>
> 2. Saying that the Founders never intended American government to be
>free of undemocratic elements merely states the problem rather than resolves
>it. The problem persists, namely, how are undemocratic elements in a system
of
>government compatible with the idea of self-rule. If such compatibility
exists,
>it must be explained and defended. (Incidentally, my hunch is that such an
>explanation is possible. My point is that it is necessary.)
>
> 3. Embracing democracy in no way entails a commitment to "populist
>democracy." Democratic theory contains democratic alternatives to 'populism,"
in
>the ordinary sense of that term.
>
> 4. From both a pragmatist and democratic perspective, I think it
>dangerous in the extreme to canonize any group of people because their
education
>and experience were impressive, or even because their principles were good.
>Whether we can learn from the Founding generation (of course, we can) is, in
my
>view, largely irrelevant to the question of whether Founding-Centered (and
>famous Founder-Centered) constitutionalism is appropriate. More important,
>Founding-Centered constitutionalism tends to dedicate or fix
constitutionalism in ways
>that are, I would think, incompatible for self-rule.
>
>Bobby Lipkin
>Widener University School of Law
>Delaware
