King, Judge and… Quality Inspector

Judge and King define in a fundamental way two extreme states of the human condition. Judge has no free-will of its own. All Judge does is comparing its experience (internal and external) to pre-specified standards in order to determine appropriate punishment, based on observed degree-of-compliance; King is free-will bound by no law and nobody, accountable to none but itself.

Judge, devoid of free will, believes that source of morality is exclusively external, originating in the Divine or any other recognized/adopted historic authority. Individual human intelligence, wisdom and experience have no part in formulating precepts of morality. King, devoid of faith in any external authority that would limit its liberty, believes that the sole source of morality is humankind, more specifically, human beings exercising their free-will, their wisdom and good judgment.

Judge imposes structure, defines “identity”; King strives to express its will within the confines of that identity.

Human history is permeated with constant struggle between the two extreme states.

Examples for “Judge” are “ideologies” that have attempted, throughout history, to repress free-will of individuals and nations and subjugate them to the “ideology”. Examples:

• Religions’ regimes, imposed by ruling establishments like the inquisition in Spain of the Middle-Ages;
• Twentieth-century political ideologies that sought no compromise with individual freedoms, like Communism and Nazism;
• Present-day extreme forms of Islam (“Submission” in Arabic).

Example for “King” is present-day Liberal Democracies of Western Civilization, holding dear that one is free to do whatever one’s heart desires (“King”) so long as it harms none (a little taste of “Judge”).

The struggle between “Judge” and “King” permeates every aspect of our lives:

• We experience the restrictive “Law-of-Nature” (“Judge”), which punishes for violations; But we also experience randomness (source for “King”), where we may exercise unhindered our free-will;
• We experience the restrictive state’s regulations and laws (“Judge”); But we also experience (in democracies) areas where state law does not apply so that “King” can reign supreme;
• From within we are both a “Judge”, judging ourselves and others according to a set of standards that we pursue (partly unconsciously); But we are also “King”, expressing our own free-will and desires, occasionally allowing others exercise the same…

The Torah is well aware that “Judge” and “King” need to co-exist so that they accommodate one another to bring about a blessed compromise. Being well aware that leaving any out would result in catastrophic extremism, the Torah specifies in painstaking detail the system-of-law, Judges and officers that the Children of Israel should have, but hurriedly specifies, in a balancing act, that a King is also needed:

“Judges and officers shall thou make thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God gives thee throughout thy tribes; and they shall Judge the people with righteous judgment…” (Deuteronomy 16:18);

and immediately thereafter (Deuteronomy 17:15):

“…thou may appoint a King over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose…”.

“Judge” and “King”— “Submission” vs. “Liberty”; “Nature” vs. “Randomness”; “Law” vs. “Free-will”

The struggle between Judge and King has reached mammoth proportions in recent decades, resulting in ISIS (Judge), on the one hand, and projection of the rainbow colors onto the While House (King), on the other hand.

A Quality Inspector (QI) is a defined professional within the Quality Engineering discipline. A QI function is to observe a process/product, and then decide whether the observed (product/process) complies with specifications, prespecified in a given certified document. Once it is decided that discrepancies exist between specifications and the observed evidence, the QI is expected to recommend a Corrective Action, which would either narrow, or eliminate, perceived discrepancies, or would assure non-recurrence of the discrepancies (mostly via changes in the process that produced them in the first place).

At the heart of all modern democratic systems are three branches of governance— the legislative, executive and judicial. Is there correspondence between these branches and the three “players” addressed earlier (King, Judge and Quality Inspector)?

The legislative branch is obviously King. Members of this branch are expected to express the will of the people in the form of a constitution, bill of rights, laws and regulations. They are not supposed to be bound by any particular doctrine, or any other external authority, apart from that perceived to be a reflection of the will of the people.

The executive branch is expected to carry out actions implied by the products of the legislative branch.

What is the judicial branch? Is it Judge or Quality Inspector (QI)?

The Justice System of the judicial branch comprises (mostly) judges. Each of the latter has originally been nominated to function as QI. This requires judges to observe evidence brought before them, and then decide whether the observed complies with prespecified specifications, articulated by representatives of the will of the people (the legislative branch). Once non-compliance is detected, the function of the judges is to decide a course of action commensurate with the observed non-compliance (punishment or otherwise).

The most problematic aspect of current judicial systems in western democracies is that judges often blur the boundaries between King, Judge and their real assignment, namely, to serve as Quality Inspectors. Judges often behave like King. Out of lack of sufficient self-awareness, they let their own tendencies (as King) affect their judgement, for example, punish severely or mildly, believing in rehabilitation or having strong doubts about it. At times, they also behave like Judge in the sense of allowing their own personal political views affect their verdicts while, in so doing, importing unnecessarily an alien system of values, an alien doctrine, into their judgment.

Exercising as a genuine Quality Inspector, while serving as a judge, requires a certain degree of humility, a narrowing of the ego, so that King and Judge will minimally interfere. This is a pre-requisite to adopting the true function of the judge, namely, serve as a Quality Inspector, assuring that the will of the people, as reflected by products of the legislative branch, be pursued.

Regrettably, this is often opposite to what we currently witness in the judicial branch of most Western democracies.

Lack of clear distinction in the mind of acting judges between King, Judge and Quality Inspector often paves the way to gigantic distortions in the fulfillment of the will of the people, as expressed via legitimate state-sponsored channels. A judicial reform is often needed to correct these distortions.