Readers in Council,
The Japan Times,
5-4, Shibaura 4-chome,
Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0023
On Tuesday, March 11th, 2008 a front page article reported that “Spain’s ruling Socialists win re-election.” The next day, on Wednesday, March 12th it was reported in “Nationalists win Malta election” that “Malta’s governing Nationalist Party narrowly won” elections there. This language is extremely common in news reporting and in daily speech. It highlights the misuse of the word “rule” and how it is used to describe what governments do. Elected governments have a dispensation to govern, not to rule. Ruling is the stuff of monarchs, not of governments, except in those countries where the monarch still governs by participation in government. In a constitutional monarchy like Spain’s we should say that the Socialist Party governs the country on behalf of, or under the rule of King Carlos.
Some might say that I am talking about a difference that makes no difference, and that in a democracy where sovereignty lies with the people and their elected representatives using the word “rule” to describe the tenure of an elected government is neither inappropriate nor inaccurate. But I disagree. Although word meanings change over time, I rely on appointed meanings of words in the here-and-now to enforce meaningful structure on the chaos of existence. Correct use of language ought to lead to clarity. But in the face of the civilizing quest for meaning there are many lasting and pernicious confusions that bedevil and befuddle us: sex is confused with love, money is confused with success, law with justice, schooling with education, religion with faith, courtesy with friendship, fact with truth, virtue with selfishness, and much more. Clearly, the process of governing is confused by many with that of ruling. The list of common confusions is so long that we must conclude that certainty is a phantom and it is ridiculous for us to think that we actually know anything at all.
But I could be wrong.