To the Editor;
The Erosion of Constitutional Order
Every ordered society is governed by core rules, customs, and principles. This is true not only of human communities but, in different forms, of other species that live collectively: the hive of honeybees, the colony of ants, or the pod of whales. Each depends upon established patterns of behavior that allow individuals to coexist and the community to function. Yet one distinction sets human societies apart. Only humans deliberately create constitutions and fundamental laws; frameworks intended not merely to govern people, but to govern those who exercise power over them.
The distinction is fundamental. Ordinary laws establish what citizens may and may not do, while a constitution establishes the boundaries within which government itself must operate. It defines powers, limits authority, protects rights, and provides mechanisms to resolve disputes without resorting to force. In a constitutional society, neither leaders nor citizens should stand above the rules. The legitimacy of government depends, in large measure, upon its willingness to observe the restraints imposed upon it.
Since around 2015, however, faith in these principles has appeared increasingly fragile in many Western democracies, particularly in the United States. Political disagreement has become more personal, more absolute, and more difficult to reconcile. Institutions that once provided a measure of common ground have increasingly become objects of partisan suspicion. Elections, courts, legislatures, government agencies, and even basic facts can be viewed through competing political identities rather than through shared civic standards.
The consequences extend beyond political arguments. When people lose confidence that rules are applied consistently, they begin to question not only particular decisions but the legitimacy of the institutions themselves. When opponents are regarded not simply as people with different ideas but as enemies who must be defeated at any cost, compromise becomes a form of betrayal rather than a necessary feature of democratic government. Suspicion replaces trust, outrage replaces deliberation, and political competition can descend into hostility.
A constitutional order cannot survive on paper alone. It also requires a culture of restraint: leaders willing to accept limits, institutions willing to enforce them, and citizens willing to recognize the legitimacy of those with whom they disagree. No constitution can eliminate conflict, nor should it. Its purpose is to provide a peaceful structure within which conflict can occur.
The challenge, therefore, is not to eliminate disagreement but to recover a shared commitment to the rules that make disagreement possible without destroying society itself. Political victories are temporary; constitutional principles must endure. Without that common foundation, democracy becomes increasingly vulnerable to the very divisions it was designed to contain.
Eileen J. Marum, MPP
The ideas for this essay came from the October nonfiction book group reading of We the People by Jill Lepore.
The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence. All letters must be typed and submitted directly to: news@wanderer.com.