In summary, the inherent risks of putting “might[1] is right” ahead of the rule of law in governance are examined in this paper. It contends that such a paradigm weakens social and economic cohesion, compromises state security, and erodes constitutionality. This paper examines the fundamental tenets of the rule of law and the diametrically opposed nature of power-centric governance, emphasising the vital role that constitutional frameworks play in preventing the capricious use of power. Additionally, it places these arguments in the context of the Supreme Court of Liberia’s recent ruling on the speakership saga, highlighting the real-world consequences of respecting or rejecting constitutional principles in order to preserve social harmony and stability.
Keywords: Rule of Law, Might is Right, Constitutionality, State Security, Social Cohesion, Economic Cohesion, Liberia, Supreme Court.
- Overview
Adherence to the rule of law, which holds that all people and institutions, including the state itself, are subject to and accountable under the law, is the cornerstone of stable and just societies. This idea contrasts sharply with the philosophy of “might is right,” which holds that the strong are exempt from the law and that power determines results. Those in positions of power may be tempted by the convenience and apparent effectiveness of unilateral action, but history and current events repeatedly show the negative effects of putting power ahead of the law. Premised on the fulcrum of constitutional morality[2], this essay makes the case that the dominance of “might is right” in governance seriously compromises constitutionality, imperils state security, and harms social and economic cohesion (Frohnen & Carey, 2016).
- The Fundamentals of the Rule of Law versus “Majority is Right”
The fundamental tenets of the rule of law are prospectivity, publicity, generality, and due process (Noorani, 2006). It creates an atmosphere where people and organizations can function with some degree of assurance and confidence in the legal system by guaranteeing predictability, equity, and accountability. As a key element of the rule of law, constitutionalism offers the basic legal framework, defining the form of government, the allocation of authority, and the defence of fundamental liberties and rights (Dixon & Landau, 2021). By creating checks and balances to keep any one party from becoming the exclusive judge of justice and truth, a strong constitution serves as a safeguard against the capricious use of power.
In stark contrast to the adage “might is right,” stands in contradiction to the ideal. This school of thought maintains that legitimacy is ultimately determined by power or, in this context, the majority, and that the strongest people, whether they be political, economic, or military, have the right to control events regardless of accepted legal or moral principles. “Might is right” governance is typified by arbitrary decisions, a lack of openness, and the repression of dissent. The interests of the powerful or majority are taken into consideration when making decisions, frequently at the expense of the weak and disenfranchised, which causes unrest and animosity.
- Constitutionality’s Decline under “Majority is Right”
Constitutionality is the bedrock of a country governed by the rule of law. It establishes the parameters of governmental authority, protects fundamental rights, and offers the framework for the use of power. The constitution becomes a flexible document when “majority is right” rules, allowing those in positions of authority to interpret and alter it to suit their own purposes (Waldron, 2020). Constitutional provisions pertaining to fundamental rights, checks and balances, and the separation of powers are frequently ignored or evaded. This breakdown of constitutional standards results in:
- Concentration of Power: When influential people or groups ignore constitutional restrictions on their power, it can result in an imbalance of power and the undermining of independent institutions like the judiciary and the as well as the legislature.
- Ignorance of Fundamental Rights: When the powerful act outside the bounds of the law, it is easy for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the constitution to be violated, resulting in injustice and oppression.
- Weakening of Institutions: Political meddling, intimidation, or the appointment of loyalists rather than competent candidates frequently weaken institutions intended to enforce the constitution, such as the courts and oversight bodies(Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2024).
- Jeopardizing State Security: The state’s power is weakened by this lack of confidence, which also increases its susceptibility to both internal and external threats (Cole, 2013).
4. A state that prioritizes “majority is right” over the rule of law ultimately undermines its security.
While the immediate exercise of the “majority is right” power framework might appear to provide control, it breeds long-term instability and resentment. This manifests in several ways:
- Increased Internal Conflict: When the rule of law is absent, grievances are not addressed through established legal channels. This can lead to frustration, social unrest, and ultimately, violent conflict as marginalized groups resort to extra-legal means to seek redress (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2019).
- Erosion of Legitimacy: A government that operates outside the bounds of the law loses legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens. This lack of trust and confidence weakens the state’s authority and makes it more vulnerable to internal and external threats.
- Rise of Corruption and Organized Crime: In an environment where power trumps law, corruption flourishes. Powerful individuals can exploit their positions for personal gain without concern for responsibility, fostering an atmosphere that encourages criminal activity and organised crime, thus further destabilising the state(Rothstein, 2021).
5. Consequences for Social and Economic Unity:
Social and economic cohesion suffer greatly when the rule of law is absent and “might is right” is dominant.
- Breakdown of Social Trust: In a society where arbitrary power rules, trust is undermined both within the population and between the people and the government. People are less inclined to work together in the absence of a predictable and equitable legal system, which causes social disintegration and a drop in civic participation.
- Growing Inequality: When the powerful are not held responsible, they can take advantage of economic systems and cause wealth and opportunity gaps to widen. This erodes economic stability and inclusive growth by fostering social division and resentment (Piketty & Alet, 2024).
- Investment and economic development are discouraged by a lack of legal framework, and an unfavourable climate for investment is produced by the certainty and the pervasiveness of corruption. Investment suffers in an unfavourable environment created by the frequency of corruption. Companies are more reluctant to operate in a situation where their rights are not safeguarded and where arbitrary decisions could interfere with their operations, thus impeding long-term economic growth.
6. The Liberian Context: The Speakership Saga and the Role of the Supreme
Court
The recent majority bloc speakership dispute within the Liberian legislature serves as a modern illustration of conflicts between political authority and constitutional values. The intricate legal proceedings and interpretations continue to unfold, yet the fundamental problem examines how constitutional and legislative frameworks apply amidst dominant coalition political strategizing.
This situation demonstrates how the Supreme Court’s actions highlight judicial responsibility. While many have argued against the Court’s adjudication of the saga, suggesting it lacked any legal or constitutional substance of the matter, others cognizant of the concept of constitutional morality tackle the sacred question of power allocation of constitutional positions (Tokpah, 2025). Adherence to maintaining legal standards and constitutional compliance despite a powerful political majority’s claims. Through its examination of procedural legality alongside statutory interpretation, the Supreme Court functions as a safeguard against power misuse while affirming that all political leaders remain constitutionally accountable(Noorani, 2006).
The resolution of the situation through majority bloc power without adherence to legal procedures and constitutional principles could have established a perilous precedent. The potential dominance of political authority over legal standards threatened to weaken both legislative integrity and the entire constitutional system. The Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a pivotal measure to address the current political deadlock while simultaneously reinforcing constitutional dominance and the necessity of legal adherence within Liberian governance systems.
7. Conclusion
The allure of “majority is right” as a seemingly efficient mode of governance is ultimately a dangerous illusion. While it may offer short-term gains for those in power, it inevitably leads to the erosion of constitutionality, the jeopardizing of state security, and the undermining of social and economic cohesion. The rule of law, anchored in principles of fairness, predictability, and accountability, provides the essential foundation for stable, just, and prosperous societies. The recent events in Liberia, particularly the Supreme Court’s involvement in the speakership dispute, serve as a timely reminder of the judiciary’s vital role in safeguarding constitutional principles against the potential excesses of political power. Upholding the rule of law, even in the face of political expediency, is not merely a matter of legal formalism; it is a fundamental imperative for ensuring the long-term security, stability, and well-being of the state and its citizens.
References
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2019). The narrow corridor: States, societies, and the fate of liberty. Penguin Press.
Cole, D. (2013). Secrecy, National Security and the Vindication of Constitutional Law.
Dixon, R., & Landau, D. (2021). The abusive borrowing of political constitutionalism and weak-form judicial review. In Abusive Constitutional Borrowing (pp. 152–175). Oxford University PressOxford.
Frohnen, B. P., & Carey, G. W. (2016). Constitutional Morality and the Rise of Quasi-Law.
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2024). Cómo Mueren Las Democracias / How Democracies Die.
Editorial Planeta Mexicana S.A. de C.V.
Noorani, A. G. (2006). Sanctity of the Constitution. In Constitutional Questions And Citizens’ Rights (pp. xi–xvi). Oxford University Press.
Piketty, T., & Alet, C. (2024). Capital & Ideology: A Graphic Novel Adaptation. Abrams ComicArts.
Rothstein, B. (2021). Good governance and corruption in a global context. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Tokpah, W. N. (2025, April 23). Liberia: Justice Gbeisay Breaks Ranks in Supreme Court Ruling on House Impasse, Cites Constitutional Overreach. FrontPageAfrica.
Waldron, J. (2020). Political Theory: Essays on Institutions. Harvard University Press.
[1] For the purpose of this essay, might is used in place of “majority.”
[2] Refers to the concept of constitutional law and political thought regarding the full functioning of hte constitutiosn and the actions of those governed by it should be in accordance with the inherent spirit, value, and norms of the constitution itself, even beyond the literal text.
Discussion about this post