“The difference between law and politics is, from a deeper ontological perspective, in fact only

illusory,”1
The organs of the government are not set aside from each other and thus one does not function in
isolation with the other two. The film shows the co- relations between law and politics in the
nation at the time while emphasizing the importance of the interplay between law and politics.
Though law may not be the only result but is most certainly an important consequence of
politics. The primary focus of political leaders is producing norms and rules that are further
regarded as law. Law is the primary tool for governance, as it is an instrument whereby the
government intends to directly influence the community. It is a system through which the state or
the government advance their political agendas and ideologies. Political leaders also use the
court room to publicize their political ideologies.
This film, “The Trial of the Chicago 7”, took place in the historical context of the Vietnam war
and the abrupt ending of the civil war in America due to the assassination of the Black leader,
Martin Luther King Jr. There was a lot of turmoil in the country when this protest happened in
Chicago in 1968. The government imposed this scheme on the youth of the country where they
must serve in the military during the Vietnam war which led to a lot of public outcries. The
movie begins with the protestors planning to go to Chicago to riot against the dictatorial and
autocratic ideas of the government. The rioters went to Chicago peacefully in the hope not to
create a volatile situation but to persuade the government to end the war.
The movie tends to show how the governmental intervention worked in this case. There was
mention of the Anti-Riot Act (1968) or as sometimes known as the Rap Brown Law, which was
passed to protect the leaders of the state from heinous crimes such as assassination, but this was
eventually used to stop the movement of the protestors even the peaceful protestors from
crossing state boundaries and limiting their right to movement and the basic right to freedom of
speech under the First Amendment of the US constitution. The government officials and even the
newly elected president of the country, Richard Nixon, got involved in this trial and regarded the
whole act as one of treason. It also shows how the government can use their powers to override
law. The executive and the legislative bodies such as the police and the elected representatives of
the people in the state used their authority to override the fundamental and basic rights to protest
peacefully and cracked down on them with teargas and pelted them with stones.
Abbie Hoffman asked in the courtroom,” the police whose people are they?” the obvious answer
to which can be the Government’s. This conception that there is a difference between the organs
of the government, especially the executive and the legislature and that the police works for the
politicians rather than the people are non-democratic. “The institutions of democracy are
wonderful creations that right now are populated by terrible people” which shows the misuse of
the democratic and institution power that is vested in the hands of the people. Abbie Hoffman
also says, "this is a political trial that is already decided for us.” goes to show how there is
minimum guarantee of rule of law and they are put on trial for their ideas and opinions.
This courtroom drama also put across the idea that not just the political leaders but also the
commoners, especially the defendants in this case, used the courtroom to publicize their larger
political views and ideologies. They used this platform to reach a wider public. The last scene,
where Tom Hayden used the stand to recite the names of the martyrs in the Vietnam war, was
added to show to the world why the protestors are asking the government to end the war as soon
as possible. Apart from that, the trial was a political one as they were certainly accused of
inciting violence and put on trial just for their ideas and opinions, which shows that the trial was
politically driven. They were chosen to be put on trial by the people with political influence.
The rule of law has certainly failed to protect the right of the Black people and the sole Black
defendant as he was the only one who was gagged and tied to his chair when none of the others
were, by the judge who was supposed to be an agent to protect the law. The judge, Julius
Hoffman, was racist as he ordered such a dehumanizing action towards Seale, he also asked the
members of the Black Panther party to” take of your very ugly hats” and was excluding an entire
community from law. Bobby Seale was not given counsel by the court when his lawyer ditched
the trial. These acts also violate Bobby Seale’s right to equality and his right to represent himself
in the court of law. This is purely an act of bias against a community, primarily the Black
community who suffer from the wraths of social inequality and violence along with the structural
process of law made by the legislature.
In this sense law and politics are interrelated with each other and the agents of both law and
politics affect the way society functions today. Law is also one of the key mechanisms through
which the government shapes politics of a nation state. Hereby we get a basic idea that law and
politics do not exist in isolation with each other but are closely intertwined.