Pre-determined outcomes

From an ideological perspective, I have always argued that legal outcomes are pre-ordained and pre-determined in a class society where privileged classes hold absolute political and economic power.

The king’s law lords would never upset the rule of the monarchy, whether it is de jure there or de facto here. It was naive for some people to expect a different outcome than what they heard on October 16th.

That speaks to their lack of political culture, their misunderstanding of the interdependence of political, economic and legal institutions in a capitalist society, and their lack of knowledge of the sociology of law. What is called respect for institutions is actually acquiescence to the anti-democratic practices of such institutions.

In a class society, the legal system is the superstructure that upholds the arbitrary laws passed by Parliament in the name of separation of powers (which is doubtful). Higher courts lack judicial activism. When aggrieved parties get relief at a lower court thanks to maverick magistrates, the higher court overturns the ruling in order not to rock the boat.

Institutions twist facts and evidence to suit their political agenda. In many cases, we see corrupt officials get away with murder because they are power holders. In one particular area, namely contract law, we see that courts are always upholding immoral or rigged contracts by relying on a literal interpretation of the law (rights and obligations of parties).

Unless there is a political revolution to do away with de facto monarchy (like the French Revolution) and make radical constitutional changes, the whole system will continue to operate in an anti-democratic way against public interest, that is the people’s interests.

Only dim-witted people or semi- intellectuals with no ability to think about fundamental systems are happy about critical legal outcomes. Their worship of institutions only shows their lack of depth.

Prakash Neerohoo