Respostas
Explicação:
A democracia é o sistema de governo em que o povo governa, ou seja, em que há o maior número possível de condutores para as coisas públicas. Há democracia social quando todos possuem os mesmos direitos básicos, tendo as mesmas condições de vida. Já democracia econômica é quando o nível de desigualdade econômica não impede nenhum sujeito de alcançar os seus objetivos, de modo que não há discriminação baseada em renda.
Já a democracia jurídica é igualdade de todos perante a lei, com os mesmos direitos e os mesmos deveres (salvo o caso de haver desigualdade essencial entre os sujeitos). A democracia política, por fim, é que todos possam votar e ser votados, com igualdade entre governantes e governados.
Respos:
The text of Fr Frank Brennan's AGM Address at the Law Institute of Victoria, Administrative Law and Human Rights and Government Lawyers' Sections, on 29 November 2007. The title is: 'Lawyer's Role in Defending and Challenging the Rule of Law in a Democracy'.
1. Two Election Vignettes
Two vignettes during the last week of the 2007 election campaign attracted my notice in preparation for this evening's celebration of the lawyer's role in defending and challenging the Rule of Law in a democracy.
The Liberal Party's spokesman sent in to face Tony Jones on the ABC's Lateline following the appalling leafleting incident in the seat of Lindsay was none other than the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock. Jones wanted to know the names of those who had been expelled from the Liberal Party. Ruddock said he did not know who had been expelled. Jones asked, 'How come?' Ruddock replied, 'Because I didn't ask and I wasn't told.'
Next day, the Prime Minister had to deal with the Lindsay fallout at the National Press Club. He was anxious to distance the sitting Liberal member and the Liberal party candidate from the doings of their husbands. He said:
Stephen Keim SC, counsel for Dr Haneef was reported next day in the Sydney Morning Herald: 'What about second cousins?' No matter what our view of Minister Andrews' exercise of ministerial discretion in the Haneef case, we can all acknowledge that political self interest and community prejudice have played their part in creating irrational criteria for determining the fair treatment of persons.
2. The Rule of Law is More than Rule by Law
Tonight is a celebration of all that lawyers have done in trying times to ensure the application of the rule of law in the most difficult of cases. I salute those like Stephen Keim, Julian Burnside, Clare O'Connor, Lex Lasry and Colin McDonald who have conducted litigation and engaged in public advocacy, urging greater transparency, accountability and honesty from government, and justice for each in accordance with universally applicable principles of law.
The other night I was out to a concert with my parents and complete strangers approached my father to thank him for his recent public statements as a retired Chief Justice of the nation. The public has seen a need for a restatement of our commitment to 'Law for all: justice for each' and a recommitment to 'the role of the legal profession in the rule of law', getting right the balance between 'law and liberty in the war on terror'.
With the fresh winds blowing through the body politic since last Saturday night, it is timely to recall the 2006 observation of Lord Goldsmith, the UK Attorney General:
(The rule of law) is not simply about rule by law. Such a proposition would be satisfied whatever the law and however unfair, unjust or contrary to fundamental principles, provided only that it was applied to all. The rule of law comprehends some statement of values which are universal and ought to be respected as the basis of a free society.
If we are to espouse the rule of law, we must accept that we are not all like-minded when it comes to political philosophy, party political preferences or scenarios for getting the balance right on vexed issues such as terrorism and border protection.
3. The Rule of Law and Political Calculation — A Case Study of the Pacific Solution
Labor is committed to abolishing the Pacific solution, while maintaining Christmas Island. Many refugee advocates want Labor to abandon Christmas Island as well.
There are three practical differences between Nauru and Christmas Island. Failed asylum seekers on Nauru have no right of appeal to any Australian court. Wisely, the Howard government in its last months did not make too much of this difference in public because it could lead to the inference that decent Australian public servants are more likely to decide that a person is not a refugee if their deliberations are immune from scrutiny by any court or tribunal.