Even 200-year-old democracies have flaws – Thaddeus Sory warns against idolising age over justice – Life Pulse Daily

Age of Democracy vs. Justice: Why 200-Year-Old Systems Can’t Guarantee Fairness

While many celebrate the longevity of democratic systems as a hallmark of stability, renowned legal scholar Thaddeus Sory challenges this assumption. In a recent appearance on ExcitementNews’ PM Express, Sory argued that venerating the age of a democracy often overshadows the urgent need for justice and accountability. His critique, rooted in constitutional analysis, warns against conflating tradition with progress, urging societies to prioritize systemic integrity over mere longevity.

Key Themes in Sory’s Warning

• Justice Over Age: No democracy’s lifespan guarantees its moral or ethical efficacy.
• Public Accountability: Governance must align with societal expectations, not procedural rigidity.
• Constitutional Flaws: Even historic constitutions contain outdated or unjust provisions.

Why Longevity ≠ Virtue: Analyzing Democratic Flaws

Sory’s remarks highlight a critical paradox: democracies can persist for centuries yet harbor deep-seated flaws. He cites two urgent examples—the electoral college and judicial accountability—to illustrate how institutionalized inequities persist despite constitutional age.

The Electoral College: A System Out of Step

Sory questions the legitimacy of electoral systems that allow a president to win without a majority of votes. “An electoral college that disregards the popular will undermines the foundational principle of democratic representation,” he notes.

• Primary Concern: Electoral systems failing to reflect majority will.
• Secondary Impact: Erosion of public trust in election outcomes.
• Related Synonym: Non-proportional voting systems.

Judicial Accountability: Who Decides Misconduct?

Central to Sory’s argument is the role of citizens in holding judicial systems accountable. “Justice emanates from the people,” he argues, advocating for layperson-led disciplinary committees to evaluate judicial misconduct.

• Key Insight: Legal ethics require dynamic, public-driven standards.
• Example: A judge diverting public funds to family members constitutes misconduct, regardless of legal technicalities.

Justice as Society’s Moral Compass

Sory emphasizes that justice cannot be reduced to written laws. Societal values—often fluid and context-dependent—must guide disciplinary actions, particularly in cases involving high-profile figures like Ghanaian lawyer Charlotte Osei.

Charlotte Osei’s Case: A Lesson in Accountability

Sory references Osei’s dismissal after allegedly pocketing ₵15 million. Despite procurement officials deeming her actions legal, her removal underscores the power of public perception in governance.

• Primary Principle: Accountability aligns with societal values, not procedural loopholes.
• Implication: Legal systems must adapt to shifting moral norms.

Structural Solutions: Ensuring Justice Without Over-Regulation

Sory warns against over-regulation, which he believes stifles adaptability. “A constitution laden with excessive detail becomes impractical,” he asserts, advocating for flexibility balanced with accountability.

Balancing Flexibility and Clarity

• Advisable Approach: Define broad principles while allowing case-by-case judicial discretion.
• Risk Mitigation: Public oversight prevents arbitrary governance but must avoid chaos.

Comparative Perspectives: Old vs. New Democracies

While Sory critiques older democracies, he acknowledges newer systems aren’t inherently superior. The core challenge remains translating constitutional ideals into equitable practice, regardless of historical lineage.

Key Comparisons

• Strengths of Older Systems: Established legal precedents, institutional memory.
• Strengths of Newer Systems: Flexibility to address modern inequities, heightened tech-driven transparency.

Legal Implications: When Age Conflicts with Justice

Sory’s arguments touch on constitutional reform’s legal complexities. If societies revise outdated provisions, they risk destabilizing entrenched power structures—a process requiring careful calibration.

Potential Legal Challenges

• Amendment Risks: Sudden overhauls may trigger political instability.
• Case Study: Electoral reforms in long-standing democracies often face entrenched opposition.

Practical Advice for Citizens: Advocating for Equitable Governance

Sory’s interview offers actionable insights for fostering accountable democracies. Below, we outline strategies to align legal systems with societal needs.

Steps for Public Engagement

1. Educate on Constitutional Rights: Promote civic literacy to demand clarity in governance.
2. Participate in Judiciary Oversight: Support citizen-led committees to audit judicial decisions.
3. Advocate for Electoral Reforms: Push for systems ensuring majority representation.

Points of Caution: Avoiding Pitfalls in Judicial Reform

While Sory champions public accountability, critics warn of potential misuse. Unchecked populism could lead to arbitrary removals of judges or politicians exploiting “public will” narratives.

Navigating the Risks

• Risk Mitigation: Establish independent anti-corruption watchdogs.
• Best Practice: Blend public feedback with transparent legal frameworks.

Conclusion: Balancing Tradition and Progress in Democracy

Sory’s critique asserts that no democracy is immune to flaws, regardless of age. True progress lies in cultivating transparent, adaptive systems that reflect both constitutional foundations and evolving societal values.

Final Takeaways

• Central Thesis: Justice, not age, defines a democracy’s legacy.
• Call to Action: Citizens must hold leaders accountable to moral standards, not just legal texts.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions About Democratic Flaws

Q: Are 200-year-old democracies inherently flawed?

Not inherently, but their age does not preclude flaws. Institutional rigidity and outdated provisions can hinder adaptability.

Q: Can a democracy function without majority-based elections?

Technically yes, but such systems risk alienating voters and undermining legitimacy, Sory argues.

Q: How can citizens influence judicial accountability?

Supporting layperson-led oversight committees and advocating for transparent disciplinary processes empowers public participation in legal accountability.