Globusz^® Publishing 

Law is the other problem parallel to the problem of the instrument of governing. It has not yet been solved in the modern age although it has been solved at certain periods of history.

It is invalid and undemocratic for a committee or a parliament to be entitled to draft the law for the society. It is also invalid and undemocratic for an individual, a committee or a parliament to amend or abrogate the law of the society.

What, then, is the law of the society? Who drafts it and what is its importance to democracy?

The natural law of any society is either tradition (custom) or religion. Any other attempt to draft law for any society, outside these two sources, is invalid and illogical. Constitutions are not the law of the society. A constitution is a basic man-made law. That basic man-made law should have a source for its justification. The problem of freedom in the modern age is that constitutions have become the law of society, and constitutions are based on nothing other than the views of the instruments of the dictatorial rule prevailing in the world, ranging from the individual to the party. The proof of this is that there is a difference between constitutions although man's freedom is the same. The reason for the difference is the disparity in the conceptions of the instruments of governing. This is the point where freedom is vulnerable in the systems of the contemporary world. The method by which the instruments of governing seek to dominate the peoples is established in the constitution and the people are compelled to accept it under the force of laws derived from that constitution, which is itself the product of the temperament and outlook of the instrument of governing.

The law of the dictatorial instruments of governing has replaced natural law. Because man-made law has replaced natural law, standards are lost. Man is the same everywhere. His physical constitution is the same and so is his instinct. For this reason natural law became a logical law for man as one and the same. Then the constitutions, which are man-made laws, began to look at man as not one and the same. They have no justification for that conception other than the will of instruments of governing -- the individual, the parliament, the tribe or the party -- to dominate the peoples. So we see that constitutions are usually changed when the instruments of governing change. This proves that the constitution is the product of the temperament of the instruments of governing and exists to serve their interests. It is not natural law. This is the impending danger to freedom latent wherever the genuine law of human society is absent and is replaced by man-made laws designed by the instrument of governing to rule the masses. Properly the method of government should be in accordance with the laws of society, not vice versa.

Therefore, the law of the society is not subject to drafting and codification. The significance of law lies in the fact that it is the decisive factor which distinguishes between the true and false, the right and the wrong, and the individuals' rights and duties. Freedom is threatened unless society has a sacred law based on stable rules which are not subject to change or substitution by any instrument of governing. On the contrary, it is incumbent upon the instrument of governing to abide by the law of society. Nevertheless, peoples throughout the world are now being ruled by man-made laws that are liable to change and abrogation because of the struggle for power between instruments of governing. Plebiscites on constitutions are not enough because plebiscites in themselves are a sham democracy, permitting only yes or no. Under man-made laws, peoples are compelled to accept plebiscites. A plebiscite on a constitution does not mean that it is the law of society, it means that it is only a constitution, or that 'thing' subject to plebiscite, nothing else.

The law of the society is an eternal human heritage that is not the possession of the living only. Hence, the drafting of a constitution and holding a plebiscite by present voters are farcical.

Encyclopedias of man-made laws derived from man-made constitutions are full of material penalties against man while traditional law seldom has these penalties. Traditional law imposes moral, not material penalties, that are appropriate for man. Religion embraces and absorbs tradition. Most material penalties in religion are postponed until the Day of Judgement. The major part of its rules are exhortations, i nstructions and answers to questions. This law shows proper respect to man. Religion does not acknowledge temporal penalties, except in extreme cases where these are necessary to protect society.

Religion embraces tradition, which is an expression of the natural life of the peoples. Thus, religion, embracing tradition, is an affirmation of natural law. Non-religious, non-traditional laws are invented by one man for use against another. Therefore they are invalid because they are not built upon the natural source of tradition and religion.