National Interest, Is it in our name?

Is it always true that every decision that our politicians undertake to make, is made in the name of the country for national interest? If that is always the case, then should we conclude that what a politician thinks is right at the time of decision making is always right for the nation.

It is a tendency of our governments to allude to anything they do in our name to a national interest. Although the decision pursued goes to the very heart of our rights which they are entitled to preserve or that may sometimes lead to a violation of our Constitutional laws regardless. The fact that they think is a right thing to do at the time is considered to be in the interest of the nation no matter how wrong that may be.

I am a proponent of real democracy and our democratic governments are found with one purpose only; serving the national interest. Parties that form up the government should always consider their decisions not as the right decision for the individuals or the party but whether in having done so the interest of the nation is paramount.

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people and not for profit, honour or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable and indefeasible right to institute govt and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.

(John Adams; Thought on govt 1776)

It seems to me that surely any democratic government in the world is instituted fundamentally to defend the country through its defence department against the invasion of an enemy, keeping the nation safe through its good criminal justice system and practice, creation and provision of resources, opportunities for prosperity of the country and the nation.

The definition of democracy is rule by the people. So if people are lied to, kept secrets from, cheated out of fair election, denied real access to or ignored by their representatives, and otherwise kept out of the democratic process, the democracy no longer exists, it is a failed democracy. But one wonders under a murky leadership what would be the best way to describe what exist instead of democracy.

I agree though that sometimes what is in the national interest is vague and hazy, more especially where it goes beyond our borders, one would easily think that attacking a nation suspected of terrorism is in the national interest as it pre-empts the imminent attack on our country. But also having to establish a bilateral diplomatic relation with that country is in the national interest. Although these are two competing interests but having to choose one over the other should always be in the national interest.

That opens up another discussion as to who then decide whether the decision is in the national interest or not.

Constitutionally, I would say it is the representatives’ job to decide what reasonably is in the national interest by exercising due diligence, care and skill in carrying out that function through its various organs of the government including the parliament. What’s reasonable depends on the circumstance and its case by case basis.There is no point having a government that refers everything they do to its people despite the fact that people should not be kept in the dark all the time. Representatives betray constituents if they sacrifice their judgement to their opinion. Although carefully stating that governments that attempt to create one rule party through political control of the legislative branch and illegal politicization of the judiciary branch, collectively known as Unitary Executive Theory, would seem to be making decisions based on their individual interests rather national interest.

This is conspicuous in an autocratic government where a leader expands their executive powers secretly and refuses to submit to oversight. It is arguably that in those circumstances, national interest will be out of question and one would not see the benefit of consultations in such an environment anyway.

Representatives should remember that it is in our interest to have spend hours and hours queuing at the polling stations in order to give them an opportunity of doing things the way we want them to, in our interest not theirs.