Parable of the impending flood

A political parable

Storytelling time.

Alright, so you have this town that is about to be flooded. The only way to minimize the damage is to erect a wall of sandbags. You need to conscript all the townsmen in order to do this; because in this scenario if only volunteers did it, it wouldn’t get done in time. The legal technicalities are so as that only the town council can legally vote to conscript the town’s population, not the mayor on his own. If the sandbag wall is not put up, the town will be completely destroyed.

The town council has two options: 1) order conscription, or 2) do nothing. If the town council orders conscription, the sandbag wall is put up, and the town is saved (hooray!). If the town council does nothing, suddenly the mayor has a choice: 1) do nothing and the town is completely destroyed, or 2) break the fundamental laws and save the town.

Also, question for you the reader: if the mayor breaks the law in order to save the town, is he evil because he ignored the law and usurped legislative power? Is it a good political development that the mayor can ignore the law if he wants to? If a precedence is established that the mayor can ignore the law, is it that mayor’s fault who was trying to save the town, or is it the fault of the town council for not trying to save the town themselves?