Legislative Dictatorship vol_1 – The Absurdity of Legality

1. The Law as an Exclusive Prerogative
1.a: The law is not and cannot be an exclusive prerogative. The simultaneously best and worst characteristic of the law is that, once enacted by parliament, it assumes an autonomous, independent existence and applies to everyone, beginning with its very creators. The procedure for enacting, ratifying, and executing the law is itself regulated by law, yet even this knowledge is insufficient to ensure that the law is inherently logical.
1.b: The jurisprudence embedded within the law is not merely the assertion of something through the usage of foreign terminology; law is a humanitarian logic where "that which is logical is just, and that which is just is logical." Consequently, whatever is illogical—regardless of what is written in the statutes—is unjust, and if it is unjust, it is also illegal in the broader, substantive sense of the word;

2. Can Justice Not Defend Itself Against Injustice?!
2.a: One might argue that it is perfectly logical for "a narrow interest group to enact laws that serve its own agenda," but herein lies the fundamental problem of jurisprudence: "the law can never manage to defend itself against injustice."
2.b: The overarching "crime" of the law, if one may call it that, is precisely its inability to defend itself against injustice. If the law were capable of self-defense, humanity would not have experienced the Holocaust, Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union; crimes against humanity would not have existed, etc. Ultimately, the annexation of Georgia in 1921 would never have occurred;

3. Legality as a Political Weapon
3.a: Parliament must subordinate itself to the existence of a just order in order to consolidate that just order. Whether an order is just or not is an individual matter, but the issue transcends individual frameworks when parliament actively facilitates the existence of a legislative dictatorship.
3.b: Dictatorship, as the malignant progeny of injustice, rests upon several pillars, but its primary and indispensable pillar is legality. Indeed, legality is the favored weapon of the architect of any dictate: Everything that transpired in Nazi Germany was strictly legal; Everything that transpired in the Soviet Union was strictly legal;
3.c: This dictate was adorned with the foundation and mantle of legality. A narrow group, referring to itself as parliament, ensured the provision of laws by which the state—or the head of the dictate—was granted the right to deprive individuals of their lives, strip them of their dignity, deport them from their residences, etc. And all of this was strictly guaranteed by law.

4. The Name "Guram" and Parliament's Right to Absurdity:
4.a: Whether the law as a given reality exists or ought to exist is a separate matter, but the central question remains: does legality inherently imply justice? If parliament were to decide tomorrow that the name "Guram" must no longer exist, is that not absurd? And why is it absurd? After all, it is parliament that decides it. And if parliament possesses the authority to do so, why would it be deemed absurd? Is legality not paramount?
4.b: If one were to ask the average Georgian this question—stating that the name Guram is to be abolished and asking for their stance—how would they respond? Naturally, there would be exceptions, but the majority would declare it absurd. But this begs the question: upon what foundation would they base this assertion, or upon what grounds would even one person claim such a thing?
4.c: There is no prohibitive norm against it; the law does not regulate this issue. By what standard, then, will this person be guided? If legality is indeed the sovereign of order, why would this act be absurd? Will it not have been enacted through the exact same procedure as other functioning laws? Formally, the law punishing theft is enacted via the precise same procedure as the hypothetical law abolishing the name Guram. What, then, is the reason?
4.d: Is it logical reasoning? The pursuit of justice? A visceral feeling that something is fundamentally wrong? Pure intuition? Or merely an idea so simplistic that it defies belief? Or perhaps it will not happen, and we would tolerate it just like social animals whose primary, overriding instinct is simply to survive at any cost;

5. "Salon Conversations on Justice":
5.a: To carry the premise further: Guram was born, grew up, and has now reached the age of 70, and parliament mandates that he change his name. What will he do? Will he change it? And if he does, it will be legal, but will it be just?!
5.b: Social life and social relations cannot be a detached abstraction lost in salon conversations about why we are here, who we are, or similar illusory ramblings—speaking of existence while remaining silent on injustice. They will recount to you exactly what is written on page twenty-two of Nietzsche's works, yet they remain silent on injustice. What is the value of their silence? What is it truly worth? The price of it is injustice.
5.c: Here, this digression is necessary precisely to demonstrate that conventional notions—such as "he studied, he is educated," etc.—are utter nonsense in the contemporary sense. For what is education? Is education something we should implicitly trust? What truly commands trust? Is silence in the face of injustice what constitutes education? "It does not concern me"—this remains the eternal, primary argument of cowards...
5.1. The "Educated" Elite, Complete with Professors and "Doctors of Law":
5.1.a: If parliament possesses the right to abolish the name Guram, would it be just to do so? How many educated individuals do you know who would refuse to change their name? Moreover, I am certain they would be the first in line to do so...
5.1.b: Consequently, the central axis of legislative dictatorship is precisely this pseudo-educated elite (or whatever they call themselves), who remain untouched by the law; they stand above the law, and that is exactly why the outcry for justice, legality, and logic is entirely irrelevant to them;
5.1.c: If this injustice does not affect them, why should they burden themselves with it? And even if one did, who would defend them? Is there even a single venue where they would be heard and their truth validated?

6. The Judge's Choice: Law or Conscience?!
6.1: What would a parliament—which ought to be governed by the law, rooted in the Constitution, which in turn should act as the guarantor of justice—say in such circumstances? Does a speaking Constitution exist? And who speaks on behalf of the Constitution or the law?
6.2: The individuals in parliament can pass any law, any prohibition, or any permission—this is the exclusive prerogative of parliament; no one else possesses this right. What happens, then, when the legislative framework is completely co-opted by a narrow group? Is justice merely waiting for the proverbial cart to overturn before telling us, "I was here the whole time, and here is the path of truth"?! Does the Constitution speak in that moment?! As the saying goes, "the judge speaks in the name of the law," but what does it mean to be a judge?
6.3: Is the concept of justice abstract, or can it be tangible? For instance, is the conduct of the Khevisberi (Elder) towards Onise just? Is it legal? Or is it illegal yet just? Or legal yet unjust? This is not the framework for a salon conversation, but a concrete example. How many people do you know who posed these questions to themselves before becoming judges? It brings me no solace to know that "everything that occurred in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany was rubber-stamped by a judge." Whose will, I wonder, was the judge executing?
6.1. The "Legality" of the Death Penalty:
6.1.a: What, I wonder, will they do when the death penalty is legalized in Georgia once again? Will the judge execute the mandate? Will they be capable of doing so? The answer is glaringly obvious. Following the collapse of the Soviet union of evil, those who served as judges back then and stripped away human lives with a mere signature—what sense of justice did they possess? They, of course, were acting legally. And if this legality was equated with justice, why did jurisprudence declare a mere 9 years later that the execution of human beings is simply unacceptable?

6.2: The Privilege of Acting Legally:
6.2.a: The privilege of acting purely within the bounds of the law belongs solely to the individual, the citizen. However, the entire essence of a state governed by the rule of law (Rechtsstaat), in my understanding, is that a state-appointed official or judge does not merely have the right to act legally; they must simultaneously act justly. Even under the conditions of a legislative dictatorship, who would sacrifice their own comfort, career, the future of their children, income, and countless other things for a stranger they are seeing for the first time? Why should they care?
6.2.b: To whom will the judge yield the power whose taste they have already savored? Or who among the readers of this text would yield it? It is seen as a sign of adulthood to accept the given reality and survive, whereas following ideals is viewed as childishness—refusing to adapt to reality and desiring to change it. And how does reality change, anyway? The taste of that power is so sweet that, as an "understanding adult," you would sign off on anything, let alone a legislative dictatorship. And who is to condemn you for it?
6.2.c: Would you condemn your own brother in such a position? What is preferable: to sit at a banquet with relatives and proudly boast, "My brother is a judge," or to be absent from the table because he was ostracized and deemed unacceptable by the system and relatives alike, leaving you wondering, "He should have just done what was asked of him; he shouldn't have sacrificed everything for some abstract notion of justice"? Indeed, the former proposition will appear as the true mark of adulthood.
6.3: Justice: An Idea, an Act, or a Useless Object?!
6.3.a: And this, too, is perfectly logical—just as logical as the claim "I was acting strictly within the law," and who could argue with that? But (as they say, the truth of mankind is written only after the word 'but') there is a 'but': is he a judge then? If we shift into the realm of faith and say that one would leave ninety-nine sheep for the sake of one, then what is a judge doing in a state governed by the rule of law? Or why should he do so? Is he obligated to anyone? Since so-called politicians are so fond of utilizing religion as an instrument, was the punishment of Christ legal? Was it legal to hold Him accountable because, in their view, He declared Himself God? Even then, such punishment was permissible, and the executioner termed it "the voice of the nation." It was so back then, it was exactly like that, and the justification was precisely the same: "I obey the law"—an excuse that persists to this very day...;

7. Illegal "Legality":
7.a: The instrument granted to parliament to enact laws is a right, not an obligation. Parliament exists precisely to prevent dictatorship—a dictatorship that is, quite banally, evil. This legislative dictatorship devours the individual; ultimately, it will devour its creator as well, but until then, it attacks everything. The law is the very instrument of the dictate that ensures its continued existence.
7.b: The law lacks the capacity not to adopt an unlawful law. The entire essence of legality is encapsulated in the principle: "Whatever I desire, I shall declare illegal." There is no one and nothing that, according to the law, "will not be declared outlawed." And subsequently, I will not say that this was my personal desire, but rather, "the law says so," as if someone else had enacted this law...

8. In Lieu of a Conclusion:
8.1: Perhaps toward the end, someone might expect a conclusion—what I am saying, why I am saying it, or what I mean. But if it has not been understood by this point, breaking it down into its simplest particles will not help either, and whatever was understood or misunderstood is sufficient. One thing is absolute: when the proverbial cart finally overturns, we are all sitting in the same boat, anyway. Your justice will reflect upon me as my legality, or vice versa. Consequently, we cannot escape anything, because when we are left alone—stripped of the suit, the trousers, or the judicial mantle—we already know all of this inherently.
8.2: And if we know it, what happens next?! Do we submit to the legislative dictatorship?! The answer is individual, just like the fact that in Nazi Germany everything was legal, but was it just?!;

9. And Then?
9.1: Justice does not possess the means to defend itself against injustice unless the individual actively attempts to do so, and what then?! You can seek ready-made answers in religions and/or political ideologies—which I believe in less and less—or among the so-called educated elite or philosophers. As for me, I believe the individual will either figure out the path themselves, or they will not. However, if they do not figure it out and have never even pondered it—by God, how blissful they truly are...