Political Thoughts: Citizen-Government relationships
03/17/2008
Political
Thoughts: Citizen-Government relationships
Mankind has not always
lived in what we call now governments or Republics. They have from the outset
led their lives at the mercy of individual interests. The battles were about
territories, cattle, water points, and even about women who were not viewed as
humans but trophees and objects of delight.
This reality has been clearly illustrated in Jean De la Fontaine's “Le Loup Et L'Agneau” or “The wolf and the Lamb.” Thus the atmosphere was always a tense one as the rule was eat or be eaten. Put differently, the only law was that of the jungle where Reason had no meaningful role to play, contrary to strength. So from the past to now, what has really changed in people's savage attitudes and instincts? Why and how so?
Even when societies started to be organized in forms of Kingdoms, the instincts were still ruling mankind's life. The United kingdom for example has a history of strife, invasion and bloody massacre as one part of the kingdom (England) tried to maintain the entire territory into one under its control, by all possible means, whereas the other remaining parts (Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales) were for their independence. France also occupied England for more than 200 years. This illustrates that people even when living as a group resorted to invasions, intimidations and conquests in order to expand their territories. Fear rather than Love was the only means to achieve those proud and selfish goals and to demonstrate at the same time the power of the armies. Yet this was the babbling of Governments that is they were not perfect in themselves as we illustrated with concrete examples but they were a start of organized societies even though they were still corrupted by animalistic instincts.
Mankind has evolved now to forms of governments that do not privilege the individual but the group, the mass. The government sets all the conditions in which harmony is possible and guarantees security to the ruled. This transition from natural life to a political one denotes the quest of mankind for a better and stable world free from the dictatorship of the jungle. The Government as Rousseau (1762) suggests comes to establish a contract between people and their alter-ego and the sovereign (who can bear a variety of names, President, King, Monarch...). Here I get to one of the most important parts of my arguments, because the sovereign comes to declare himself as the referee, he actually does not declare himself rather he is declared or elected by the majority as the one that would protect the contract from being violated. The people, as well as the sovereign are bound to the contract .
The greatness of this association lies in the fact that it counters the inner individualistic forces of each member of the community who may naturally think about “I” instead of “We”. Thus, whoever violates the terms of the contract becomes the enemy of the society and he/she is no longer protected by the sovereign and his institutions, rather the latter makes sure he pays for that crime (death sentence, prison...). Also, the system of legislation guarantees Liberty and Equality to All as the Law of the fittest is eliminated in favor of the the Public who look at themselves as a whole instead of as individuals. And the Public or the mass as Rousseau says “il ya peu de chance que la volonte generale se suicide”[there is a little chance that the common will destroys itself]. Put in a less philosophical language, the mass never decides what may be harmful to the group as each individual is unwilling to harm him/herself. What ever is harmful to my ego's freedom or life in general is also harmful to me and whatever I plan against my ego also impacts on myself and what is beneficial to the group is also beneficial to me. Yet what is beneficial to me may not be beneficial to the group. This, of course, is not a contradiction, it denies the individual and favors the group. The contract makes it possible for man not to be a “wolf” to his ego.
It is also worth noting that if State exists by itself, the government however exists only because of the sovereign. As such the dominant will of the sovereign should necessarily be that of the mass and his strength is nothing but the force and power of the people concentrated in his own hand. Once the sovereign acts according to his own will and interest he starts violating the contract himself and the people then have the right to destitute him and elect another one as the guardian of the socially binding pact.
Therefore we realize that contrary to what many may be lead to think, the ruled (the people) are more powerful than the ruler (ruler). Indeed, the ruler can be compared to a full time worker hired by the Public that may end the contract if there is no satisfaction or violation of the terms. So the power of the sovereign has limits, even though now in many societies there is an amalgam of the relationship between the ruler and the ruled as the former sometimes views him/herself as a Superior Being to whom the people owe obedience. How can a worker behave like a boss? And there are always intense reactions to such illegitimate attitudes from rulers and La Revolution Orange or the Orange revolution in Ukraine is a perfect illustration of the consequences of such amalgam as the mass rose and overthrew their ruler.
To wrap it up since this is a passionate topic that would take our entire time talking about it. The establishment of governments and sovereigns has created a world where mankind can go beyond the rebellious forces of his inner self to think about common interests. In so doing, mankind has elevated himself to a state that sets him superior to the animal as he no longer relies on his strength to survive, rather he relies on his Reason to educate himself and organize his environment in a way that each member of the community works for the other without feeling enslaved. Even though the contract is violated in many societies, this does in no way question the benefits of governments because it is the failure to meticulously abide by the terms of the contract between the government and the people that creates anarchy and a return to the natural state.
This reality has been clearly illustrated in Jean De la Fontaine's “Le Loup Et L'Agneau” or “The wolf and the Lamb.” Thus the atmosphere was always a tense one as the rule was eat or be eaten. Put differently, the only law was that of the jungle where Reason had no meaningful role to play, contrary to strength. So from the past to now, what has really changed in people's savage attitudes and instincts? Why and how so?
Even when societies started to be organized in forms of Kingdoms, the instincts were still ruling mankind's life. The United kingdom for example has a history of strife, invasion and bloody massacre as one part of the kingdom (England) tried to maintain the entire territory into one under its control, by all possible means, whereas the other remaining parts (Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales) were for their independence. France also occupied England for more than 200 years. This illustrates that people even when living as a group resorted to invasions, intimidations and conquests in order to expand their territories. Fear rather than Love was the only means to achieve those proud and selfish goals and to demonstrate at the same time the power of the armies. Yet this was the babbling of Governments that is they were not perfect in themselves as we illustrated with concrete examples but they were a start of organized societies even though they were still corrupted by animalistic instincts.
Mankind has evolved now to forms of governments that do not privilege the individual but the group, the mass. The government sets all the conditions in which harmony is possible and guarantees security to the ruled. This transition from natural life to a political one denotes the quest of mankind for a better and stable world free from the dictatorship of the jungle. The Government as Rousseau (1762) suggests comes to establish a contract between people and their alter-ego and the sovereign (who can bear a variety of names, President, King, Monarch...). Here I get to one of the most important parts of my arguments, because the sovereign comes to declare himself as the referee, he actually does not declare himself rather he is declared or elected by the majority as the one that would protect the contract from being violated. The people, as well as the sovereign are bound to the contract .
The greatness of this association lies in the fact that it counters the inner individualistic forces of each member of the community who may naturally think about “I” instead of “We”. Thus, whoever violates the terms of the contract becomes the enemy of the society and he/she is no longer protected by the sovereign and his institutions, rather the latter makes sure he pays for that crime (death sentence, prison...). Also, the system of legislation guarantees Liberty and Equality to All as the Law of the fittest is eliminated in favor of the the Public who look at themselves as a whole instead of as individuals. And the Public or the mass as Rousseau says “il ya peu de chance que la volonte generale se suicide”[there is a little chance that the common will destroys itself]. Put in a less philosophical language, the mass never decides what may be harmful to the group as each individual is unwilling to harm him/herself. What ever is harmful to my ego's freedom or life in general is also harmful to me and whatever I plan against my ego also impacts on myself and what is beneficial to the group is also beneficial to me. Yet what is beneficial to me may not be beneficial to the group. This, of course, is not a contradiction, it denies the individual and favors the group. The contract makes it possible for man not to be a “wolf” to his ego.
It is also worth noting that if State exists by itself, the government however exists only because of the sovereign. As such the dominant will of the sovereign should necessarily be that of the mass and his strength is nothing but the force and power of the people concentrated in his own hand. Once the sovereign acts according to his own will and interest he starts violating the contract himself and the people then have the right to destitute him and elect another one as the guardian of the socially binding pact.
Therefore we realize that contrary to what many may be lead to think, the ruled (the people) are more powerful than the ruler (ruler). Indeed, the ruler can be compared to a full time worker hired by the Public that may end the contract if there is no satisfaction or violation of the terms. So the power of the sovereign has limits, even though now in many societies there is an amalgam of the relationship between the ruler and the ruled as the former sometimes views him/herself as a Superior Being to whom the people owe obedience. How can a worker behave like a boss? And there are always intense reactions to such illegitimate attitudes from rulers and La Revolution Orange or the Orange revolution in Ukraine is a perfect illustration of the consequences of such amalgam as the mass rose and overthrew their ruler.
To wrap it up since this is a passionate topic that would take our entire time talking about it. The establishment of governments and sovereigns has created a world where mankind can go beyond the rebellious forces of his inner self to think about common interests. In so doing, mankind has elevated himself to a state that sets him superior to the animal as he no longer relies on his strength to survive, rather he relies on his Reason to educate himself and organize his environment in a way that each member of the community works for the other without feeling enslaved. Even though the contract is violated in many societies, this does in no way question the benefits of governments because it is the failure to meticulously abide by the terms of the contract between the government and the people that creates anarchy and a return to the natural state.
Comments
Post a Comment