Kenneth Mitchell, First Unitarian, Baltimore
Constitutions have been used throughout much of Western civilization to establish the basic rules governing the governance of a community or political system. One of the key issues in a political system is the distribution of power, i.e., who makes the decisions and administers the government.
In ancient times, major concerns were trying to achieve stability and continuity of the political system, given the fear of change, and the worldview that things should remain the same. Decision-making power was separated into three forms of power distribution: kingship, rule of the one, aristocracy, in the hands of a select few elites, or democracy, the rule of the many.
Although the goal was to sustain stability, in fact, that did not happen, with each form of government not lasting long in its given form. For example, a kingship would be established, but shift into tyrannical rule, an aristocracy would rise to take over, or a democracy would be established but eventually devolve into mob rule, where a tyrant would rise and replace the democracy.
Around the period of the fifth century BCE, there emerged two political structures that were able to achieve a fairly stable system: the Greek city-state of Sparta and the Roman Republic (the predecessor to the Roman Empire). In both systems, they established a mixed constitution which combined all three forms, allowing representation for a kind, an elite few, and a democracy. This mixed system proved to be the most viable way of achieving stability and continuity, as evidenced by both these systems lasting almost five hundred years before both descended into empires.
For the subsequent significant development, we turn to the 17th century in England (later Britain), where they reminded themselves that kingship was not the ideal form of governance. Then, with the American Constitution, our founders followed the model of a mixed constitution while recognizing the need for several degrees of refinement. As the ink was drying on our Constitution, the modern constitutional era began in France with the French Revolution, followed by European and South American countries making efforts during the early19th century.
Where are we today?
The problem with modern times, perhaps soon to include the United States, is that few nations have been successful in establishing and retaining popular sovereignty rule. Marxism, embracing Utopian ideals, and other approaches have each failed to achieve a true democracy, devolving into dictatorships.
To understand this, we need to highlight what each iteration of change and experimentation concluded.
During the period when England, later Britain, made their innovations, it experienced two major violent revolutions and a third, labeled the Glorious Revolution, a bloodless conflict that transformed their kingship into the more modern republican form of government Britons recognize today, following the ancient model of a mixed constitution and separation of powers. They rediscovered the limits and risks of kingship and imposed structure for greater balance and stability.
Our founders started from that point and went further. In particular, John Adams and James Madison, as with their British peers, were astute students of the ancients. Madison followed the model of a mixed constitution while recognizing the need for several degrees of refinement. Madison and Adams engaged in a long debate about how to control executive authority to avert slippage into kingship.
Madison clearly articulated checks and balances in the Constitution, interlocking the three branches of government to work as separate and equal entities to achieve law-making and policy-making priorities. The goal was that no one branch could amass enough power to accomplish these things on its own. Although our Constitution followed the ancient model, we now find ourselves in the 18th century, the beginning of the modern progressive era, embracing concepts of freedom, democracy, equality, civil rights, and materialism. So our founders carefully considered the notion of balancing powers to achieve stability and longevity.
The modern constitutional era began in France with the French Revolution. While the goal was to achieve popular-based sovereignty, the French Revolution devolved from a democracy into tyranny and anarchy, only to end up a monarchy/dictatorship in the form of Napoleon. Entering the 19th century, European and South American countries joined in trying to achieve some form of representative and popular sovereignty-based governments. Similar to the French, they were not successful.
Since then, the various tests have been up and running. The open question is the same that faced the ancients: can the various experiments in constitution achieve longevity?
At this point in U.S. history, the current administration has embarked on its own revolution with sweeping effects on governmental institutions, American culture, and global relationships.
Deeply troubling is the abrogation of the American balance of power through the circumvention of congressional decision-making authority, the evisceration of the civil service system, and the centralization of power in the executive branch. We are witnessing the necessary checks and balances imbued by our founders in the Constitution being eradicated at an alarming rate. Importantly, the administration has eschewed the hard-won wisdom of tradition and norms, including the flagrant denial of free and fair election outcomes.
This newest revolution depends on the fealty of two political bases: the populist/working class (35%) and the emerging American oligarchy of corporate billionaires and CEOs. But it begs the question, is this administration really working to help either faction, or is the administration, in fact, duping everyone?
From the 5th century BCE to the time of the sealing of the American Constitution, a period of over 2,300 years, the wisdom of generations of political thought has been carefully woven into constitutional documents and laws. Although imperfect, our Constitution has proven to be the most viable and resilient system for serving the populace. We need to restore this balance. And there is great danger in complacency.
Government is not doing its job. Congress has abdicated its responsibility to uphold the Constitution, and because of the resulting weaknesses in governmental institutions, we need to act to help restore the Constitution’s checks and balances. We also need to reclaim the merit-based career civil service system. Although saddled with a host of regrettable compromises, our US Constitution of Madisonian design has proven to be the most successful model for effectively distributing power and balancing it to achieve a fair amount of stability. Since the ideals of the French Revolution, no nation has developed a fully representative model to achieve true democratic ideals or to handle conflict in a pluralistic society. In my view, our US Constitution has shown over time that we can make improvements to better meet the changing needs of the populace. My view may be best expressed from a slogan seen years ago in front of a diner in Washington, D.C.: “Come in today and try our delicious hamburgers, they may not be the best, but they are surely better than all the rest.“
There are many avenues available to work toward this goal: legislative advocacy, demonstrations and protests, educational opportunities through speakers’ series, and the development of political action teams in your congregations.
Kennith Mitchell (he/him/his) is a former UUSJ Trustee who served through July 2021. Ken is an active member of First Unitarian, Baltimore, Maryland, and launched their inaugural get-out-the-vote effort in 2022. Ken is also a former professor of public policy and politics. He is passionate and personally invested in advocacy for the blind and visually impaired, in addition to his commitment to advocacy as a Unitarian Universalist.