Disclaimer : This article is strictly for educational and research purpose only. It considers all the parties equally without any bias and favor in any form to remain free from any controversy of any sort. The author ahs due respect for all the parties equally ! Thank you.
(Random Unorganized Article ) ?
Godel Incompleteness Theorems are one of the most important discoveries in the history of Mathematical Logic, which blew up the Hilbert’s utopian dream of formalizing the entire formalistic mathematical axiomatic arithmetical system.
This issue is so fundamental philosophically and logically that I deeply believe that it is seemingly important for other areas too including Laws, Language, social life etc.
In this brief article( as I’m a bit lazy to write often!! my drawback !!), But I would like to do for the benefit of our system at large through the possible implications for the Law & Constitution of India in particular. Though it could be applied to any democracy around the world.
Before I start, I should state that Godel Incompleteness Theorems Proof which states that Any formal set of axiomatic arithmetic system would either be incomplete or inconsistent !! If we go deeper into the Proof of these theorems( Say through Cantor Diagonalization Theorems), it rests upon the Self-referential statements.
Self -referential statements are of extreme importance even in other fields. Here we shall look into its relevance for the Law & Constitution.
Any constitution is mathematically the set of different articles and clauses which comprises of various words and phrases explaining the rules . Now the same Constitution also contains the article of amendments having the power to amend the Constitution time to time as and when required dynamically.
Like US Constitution has article V for the amendment clause. Indian Constitution has Article 368 in part XX for that matter .
Talking specifically about the Indian Context, let’s say Parliament is given the power to amend the constitution as and when required based on the simple majority of say for example two-third. Now, if this is so, Parliament with the sufficient majority to a particular party can amend the constitution in its own favour! Let’s imagine it amends the amendment article 368 in Indian Constitution only for example . In that case, it could change the Constitution in downward way to favour itself and even try to change the Democratic systems to Dictatorship type legally. I am taking about the actual possibility because this has actually happened when Hilter turned the Germany into dictatorship legally by sending it’s constitution in 1933 !
And not that even in India, in 1975 Emergency our democracy was moving towards similar form of dictatorship possibly in 42nd amendments to curtail the basic freedom of democracy, even the power of the judiciary and making prime minister’s role above the judiciary in downward directions. These all possibilities are legally possible in the democratic systems.
This self-amendment is logical paradox in itself..called paradox of self-amendment and Contradiction in itself !
This problem of dis-entrenchment of self -amendment section will always arise and fundamentally Unsolvable in any democratic system. This is foundational constraints in the legal system of Constitution.
Now the Paradox of Self -Amendment is that who will emend the Amendment Clause itself i.e. Article 368 in Indian Constitution or Article V in US Constitution which deal with Self- amendments ?
Now there are two possibilities:
1)If there is provision for such Self -Amendment , Parliament can change the Amendment Clause itself through the required majority and could possibly turn it legally to dictatorship from a democracy!! It has happened historically !
A): Here I would also like to categorically mention that it could be possible as the way democratic election laws are structured in India, one single party can attain the majority. The Law doesn’t put Constraints on how many seats any party can win in any particular election. Also, in India, even if a party has say for example around 30% of total votes , it might win with the majority and form the Govt. So, 30% vote winning part rules the 70% Non-Voters as well !! Is this really a True Democracy in Principle or it needs Fundamental Basic Structure amendments in itself ?
Let’s take this as an example of Basic amendment required in future .)
Coming back to the earlier discussion
Now let’s look at the case of immutability - the Constitution states that Basic Fundamental Structure can’t be amended by the Parliamentary majority.
Say If there is no provision for such basic amendments by the Parliament in any case , the entire Constitution would be outdated over the time. Hence, this is the serious point of concern and there must be ways to amend the Basic ones in Future,if required to stand the test of time ! This is Immutability !
We must understand that scientifically we are living in the world of Complexity & Chaos that’s how the Universe/Nature works.
So, the fundamental question is Who will change the Basic amendment itself as required over that time as the society changes according to the laws of Nature which is supreme?
So, either we are in the state of paradox or immutability.
This would always remain the conflict and infact and been the case between Supreme Court & Parliament in 42nd ammendment.
So, this Self-referential issue is like the Unsolvable & Undecidability Problem in the constitution which relates to the Unsolvability & Undecidability problems in Mathematical Logic !
This issue fundamentally says that certain problems can’t be solved or decided!
In a nutshell then how to frame and design the Constitution to deal with the Self- Referential Statements to resolve the foundational issue of paradox and immutability in any democratic system for that matter ?
Society’s structure and laws change with time as the Human Behaviours change over the time along with Nature’s system ..hence Constitution must also change to be in sync with them. over the time or else they would be proven defunct !
Let’s imagine old generation laws of our ancestors and how relevant are they for the current generation ?
Few Practical Future Possibilities :
Let’s imagine over the time too much democracy is misused by few caste and religion and it needs to be changed to maintain a balance ..this is like the basic structure of democracy (Let’s understand the sense the context and not get too technical word by word here)
So, if democratic laws are misused over the time say a particular community increased population enough or say Parliament controlled by indirect influence Court through the selection of judges , then it might need to amend the Basics of constitution in future but that’s not allowed to be done as there can’t be change in the basic structure of the democracy !! So, if the basic laws of democracy itself creates problem through the Loopholes and are misused over the time by any group and it is so immutable that nothing can be done to amend it then in that case it would not become chaotic ! Isn’t it ?
It’s Paradox
The definition of “Basic” itself is not absolute but relatively dynamic over the time needs change as per the society and Nature.
If legal rules that authorize change can be used to change themselves, then we have paradox and contradiction; but if they cannot be used to change themselves (and if there is no higher rule that could authorize their change), then we have immutable rules. Paradox and immutability should create an uncomfortable dilemma for jurists and citizens in legal systems. It appears that we must give up either a central element of legal rationality or a central element of democratic theory.
It’s actual possibility that People could be misguided to vote misuse of democratic principles by parties and a single party becomes attains say almost large majority and opposition on the verge of extinction somehow.
Then the situation would be like :
Praying for Democratically elected People to save Democracy ! Singularity Point in Democracy.
The Structure of Democracy needs to changes over the time .
Let’s note that in the present structure even a party with total vote of 30% can make the central govt.with majority while 70% still opposed. And let’s assume that structure needs to be changed as it has fundamental drawback...in that case, how to change this basic structure to make democracy stronger to pass the test of time ?
There is high possibility in future we would need to make some Amendments in the basic structure of the democracy to protect democracy itself to pass the test of time and social structural changes..
We have to scientifically acknowledge that the World we are in keeps on changing over the time as per the laws of Nature. Chaos, Order these physical aspects can be well evident in Social and Political arena as well. The Constitution built 70 years ago based on the existing Scenarios then has to be modified as per the Social and Political scenarios change to make the democratic system robust and anti-fragile. Otherwise there would be systemic Tail Risk that can be imagined in the future. Our learned honourable politicians worry more about 5 to 10 years short-sightedly in their careers. But the point I am talking here pertains to 50 years to 100 years that could have relevance that could have relevance even in short term..who knows ! We have to build a dynamic system that could have proper provisions to make the Constitution dynamically in sync with the Law of Nature over the time.
Laws and Constitutions would always have fundamental limitations. This can be derived based on logical system incomplete and inconsistency principles from mathematical logic. There would always exist loopholes and limitations as long as the Laws and Constitutions are written in the words. We can practically see that how many political parties and people from castes and religion are tend to misuse them to gain the majority anyhow by hook or crook.
Some community might focus on increasing populations as to win the majority principles to be in power over the time. Infact this voting and majority system at the foundation of our democracy seems to be flawed.
Let’s take an example : In our own personal family will democracy be beneficial for long term future. If so, children being large in number would over rule the parents and it might not be beneficial for the family in the long run. There has to be intervention from experts and experienced. Sometimes, it might be the need of the hour that like competitive exams, voters’ weight should be decided based on their scores in the exam that could test their knowledge and other relevant basic issues to make sure they are wise enough to vote the right candidate. Mathematically/Statistically, the weightage should not be equal for all the voters rather on their scores. The reason I am saying is these equal weightage system in our democracy could be misused within the ambit of law legally by different parties and infact done as per the various allegations.
Lets take another example : If say one majority party becomes too large that all the opposition merge with the larger and smaller would be extinct. In that case, though legal, it would be existential for the democracy itself !
Or say our great MLAs,MPs win elections as competitors before the public voters and later they unite...May be that could be revised to protect the democracy ? But who will amend these flawed rules ?
Will Political representatives MPs& MLAs pass laws against their own comfort and career security in the long term interests of the country . This is also Self – Referential Issue.
We see that Party with around 30% vote overall in the country form the government Technically with majority but still 70% have voted against. This is the drawback of current multiparty democratic system . May be this needs to be amended in future to make the democratic system robust over the time .
I have mentioned few examples to show how Law and Constitution can be legally lead to danger against the existence of democracy itseelf! It’s like Self -referential statements where in future we may have to save Democracy from Democratically elected Party itself..
So, the point is how to amend the basic structure of democracy in good sense positively to make the democracy stronger over the time rather than static otherwise the existing loopholes in the basic structure could run the dangerous risk of getting misused legally !
Will our own honorable politicians from all the parties,also our honourable judges(it could apply to everyone frame the Constitution/Laws against their own comforts ? Self -Referential issue !
I would also like to add : that no matter how much majority one party brings and works, over the time public sentiment and expectations would change and they would be thrown out of power..This is according to the law of Nature which seem to be out of many politician’s understanding. Hence they must be polite and humble and do justice with the opponents while in power or else be ready for the Newton’s third law in time !!
And in summary , any democratic Constitution needs to solve their Self-referential problem to arise from the conflict of Paradox/Contradiction and Immutability over the time and remain Prudent by being in sync with the Laws of Nature or else it would be chaos and existential over the time.
No comments:
Post a Comment