Law as a Looking Glass

Sometimes law is merely a reflection of a nation’s collective values. Policies are not always an echo of policy-makers’ hidden agendas. It’s important to remember that policy can be--and is meant to be--a product of the beliefs of the people it governs. We are so used to thinking of governments doing a bad job of representing their respective people that we forget that laws can be in place simply because much of the population is in agreement.

Of course, various stakeholders have a hand in the policy-making process so when policies fail, it is neither easy nor appropriate to place the onus on any one entity. This does not mean, however, that outcomes cannot be traced back to key influential (f)actors. And while scholars may not agree on the (f)actors most responsible for societal problems, too little attention is paid to the role played by our collective values.

The US context is a great example. American scholars have highlighted the influential role of elected officials and placed the onus of societal problems on the Supreme Court and, more specifically, key decisions that it made at crucial times in the nation's history. At their core, these scholars are veritably attributing society's shortcomings to the political system and/or the ideologies of elected officials and the majority of the justices, respectively. Let us not, however, discount that there was a community – from which these individuals arose – that also supports said values. Policy-makers may all have agendas that may indeed be a mere consequence of power-play but their decisions are not void of the system of beliefs that exists/existed in the nation.

Others have held responsible, the complicated ways in which issues come to the forefront, such as “purposive organizations” that influence what issues come to the attention of the Supreme Court. Interest groups, for example, have a direct influence on what is brought to the table. There is not enough consensus about the policy-making process amongst these particular scholars, to allow us to come to a conclusion about who/what is most responsible for things like inequity. Still we see one thing for sure: they overlook the backdrop of the public's social values or make the assumption that these values are not in line with that of the government's.

The influence of the public's values remains evident nonetheless. For example, let’s look at people’s actions in spite of the law. De jure segregation, for instance, had just as much to do with the law as it did with American values at the time. Even after Brown v. Education, many states worked hard to challenge and reverse the decision. When a law is passed that isn’t in line with existing values, it will not be supported. And if policy instruments are used to force values, society may abide but the shift in values is highly unlikely. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, or national origin”) led to schools using quotas to ensure racial balance. Racial-balance was a political move but never really addressed the social problem--we are five decades out and still having some of the same conversations. When social values are not in line with the law, policies seldom stick.

This is not to say that all law represents the values of society but merely a reminder that some laws do. It is also not to say that law cannot change the values of society but that it is less likely than the reverse. Law representing the true views of the people it governs: a very simple and intuitive concept that we only seem to remember when a nation does well. When we have inequality, however, we blame broken systems and never an immoral society.