Introduction
The structure of governance has continued to change as society continues to adapt to varying social, political, and economic vagrancies. Today, we have political systems that are completely different from the ones that were prevalent a century ago. It is imperative to note that today’s forms of governments, power structures, and how individual freedoms are guaranteed still depend heavily on scholarly works of ancient political philosophers. This essay serves to compare and contrast the government’s extent of power in the modern and ancient society while drawing heavily on the works of some of the great philosophers.
Main body
At the earliest stages of civilization, as well as at the latest, in the absence of democracy, the state can be represented as undeveloped political formation. In that regard, the state can be said to be developing, in accordance with the requirements of the civilization. Accordingly, the question of power can be considered as central to the studies on the essence and the role of the state, since the ancient times and until these days. The representation of the predestination and the role of the government in the society were covered at first, in the religious and philosophic writings, and then gradually, the political conscious started to have an independent nature, although keeping the connection to the initial roots. One of the major thinkers of the ancient world and the student of Socrates –Plato, devoted many works to questions related to the just formed state in ancient Greece. In Plato’s The Republic, the division of power was a proposed method of eradicating and/or minimizing corruption. Plato believed that an ideal state is a state with a division of the competencies and authorities of state structure (Monoson 127).
The teachings of Plato on the necessity of dividing power found the most suitable and ideal form in the workings of Aristotle. Similar to Plato, the most important factor in the state processes is assigned to the division of tasks. Additionally, Aristotle outlined three forms of government, which are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy, and accordingly, he pointed out to that a certain form of government might meet the needs better than the other, where the example can be seen through the appropriateness of oligarchy or tyranny to fight the corruption better than democracy. Explaining such notion, Plato’s The Republic does a better job, where it does not “exhibit any interest in specifically democratic strategies or securing responsible rule” (Monoson 127).
The differences in Plato’s and Aristotle’s doctrines can be seen in that Plato emphasized the power to the elites, with the separation of institutions, such as the economic, private and political, being used to prevent abuse. Aristotle, n the other hand, emphasized an assembly composed of all citizens as the most powerful body, having the less power than the whole body of the Aristotelian citizens (Aristotle and Jowett).
The medieval epoch was characterized by the dominion of the religious thought, prioritizing the church over secular arm. In that regard, Aquinas, a Catholicism ideologist, used Aristotle’s elements in forming his teachings on the state. Aquinas acknowledged the possibility of power abuse, and thus as a believer in the supremacy of law, he also believed in the limitation of government power (Kretzmann and Stump 220). It should be noted that such views implied that the opposition to power abuse is different for tyrants and legitimate rulers, where the consequences of such opposition can be worse than the abuse itself.
The view of another ancient thinker – Augustine, was more concerned in God’s providence works in political history. His concept of the government and state was limited to remarks about how people are free to choose their rulers.
Thus, it can be generally stated that the view of political governance in Augustine’s works was in the observation of human relations, although there was no clear distinction between a political relationship and “the relationship of authority and subjection” (Stump and Kretzmann 238), e.g. the relationship between a master and a slave. In that regard, the reference to the government extent of power can be apparent through the perspective of God’s intention, where the sinfulness of humans is the reason of the existence of the political authority, an authority common to those in position of political power or masters and slaves (Stump and Kretzmann 240). The subjection to such authority, Augustine argues, is morally improving, due to the promotion of humility, particularly when the good are subjected to the bad.
In terms of modern views, perhaps no philosopher revisited the issue of contemporary politics and governance better than Thomas Hobbes. He wanted to address the issues of how individuals could reside together in harmony and peace while at the same time avoiding the fears and dangers of a civil conflict. To this extent, his fears are still witnessed in many governments around the world today. Due to greed for power, we have seen governments falling into the hands of civil strife and mutinies, especially in Africa. A case in point is the failed Somalia government, where different warring clans can never agree to live in peace as one want to have power and control over the other (Moral and Political Philosophy, 2006).
To understand some of the modern governments’ extent of power, it is critical to analyze the Hobbes arguments: One of the alternatives that Hobbes offered for us to be able to live in harmony was by giving our full obedience to a Sovereign who is not accountable to us. The Sovereign could be an individual or clusters of individuals empowered to decide for us every political and social issue. Another alternative was to enter into a ‘state of nature.’ In this condition of universal insecurity, all individuals have a cause to live in constant fear of death. Human cooperation is not rewarded in this situation (Moral and Political philosophy, 2006).
Though Hobbes political philosophy has been challenged due to the perception of viewing individuals as purely self-interested, it goes a long way in helping us compare governments’ extent of power between the modern and ancient times, and also in evaluating the exercises of citizens’ freedom. Hobbes suggested that we give our full obedience to an unaccountable Sovereign. Such a structure was used widely in ancient times but it is no longer popular among the masses today. It was widely used in majority of the African governments before the 1990’s and in most cases brought forth dictatorial governments due to excesses of power. The governments’ extent of power was ‘unlimited’ as they could not be held accountable for whatever they did. This political philosophy brought about strong presidencies witnessed in Kenya, Zaire, Nigeria, and Libya in the 90’s (Kavka, 1986).
Hobbes political thought could not in any way facilitate citizens’ freedom. While using this system, those in power can never be held accountable for their actions. Most ancient governments operated on these principles. The old American and British governments revolved around this political thought of governance, whereby the executive wielded a lot of power, vehemently protected by the laws entrenched in the constitution. In old Britain for example, the law was synonymous with the King, who was perceived to be above the law. “Political obedience” is still present in contemporary world. For instance, the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez uses it widely to amass for himself great power over his people, thus denying them personal freedom. Also, in Africa, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya is the kingpin of Hobbes political ideologies. But democracy, whereby supreme power is completely held by the masses under a non-partisan electoral system is increasingly taking root.
Citizens in countries prescribing to Hobbes political orientations like Cuba and Venezuela do not fully enjoy their liberties and freedoms. This is because the leadership of such countries controls every single aspect of the citizens’ life, from social structure, culture, philosophy, and religion. For instance in Libya, the government interferes with the religious convictions of its citizens by blocking them from converting into Christianity.
In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke gives an analogy to make us understand the issues of power, laws, public good, and governance. He mentions that God did not give Adam the absolute authority over his world and his children. It follows that the heirs of Adam could not claim that authority and thus no one can definitely claim the right to have authority over the world today. By giving this analogy, Locke aimed at denying Sir Robert Filmer’s assertion of Divine Right of Sovereignty (Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, 2008). Some old forms of governments have already used the concept of ‘authority right’: notably the British Monarch, to apportion power to some few individuals who thought they had the divine right to rule their subjects. The traditional African political systems, including the Buganda kingdom heavily used this assertion to establish kingdoms around which citizens could be ruled.
In Locke’s view, political power must always be backed by the community for the public good and must include the right to develop laws for the regulation and protection of property (Locke, 1999). To this extent, the modern American government and many other governments around the world can be said to be practicing Locke’s political view as they have passed comprehensive legislation to protect private property. In order to define political power, Locke develops the State of Nature’s Theory: A state of equality, whereby all the individuals are free to do as they please and no one has power over the other. At the same time, he also cautions that there exist some natural laws in the state of nature, in which some “Universal standards and principles” ought to be executed by every individual (Locke’s Second Treatise, 2008). Many political systems and forms of governments, modern or ancient have proved John Locke’s assertion of the state of nature not fully correct. This is because men is self-interested by nature, has greed for power and would want to control other men when given the slightest opportunity. Man has never been free to do as he wishes basically because he is bound by those mentioned “Universal principles”, commonly referred by Locke as natural laws. Man is also bound by the social systems, more so religions, philosophy, and culture (i.e. community standards), to act according to their demands.
According to Locke, people are governed and rendered all equal by the natural laws. Though such a political theory could have guaranteed contemporary society’s a lot of liberties and freedoms, it is not always the case as these natural laws are not applied equally to those in authority. In Africa for example, it is very difficult for a president’s son or daughter to be charged in a court of law for corruption even when the law should apply equally to all. To this extent, some individuals wield more power and authority than others, thus canceling out Locke’s assertion that every person holds the executive power of natural law (Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, 2008). It is on this premise that most abuses of law are carried out in modern political institutions by those in power. The contrast to the works of Aquinas, to which views Locke’s opinions were similar, can be seen through the opposition to tyranny, where Locke’s opinion views the latter as acceptable. Nevertheless, both men agree that the abuse might occur. Accordingly, his views can taken in the context of Augustine’s work, where the opposition to the government should be viewed as an improving process. The differences in the opinions of Locke and Aquinas, and at the same time Aristotle, can be seen through the emphasis on the natural law, where it can be stated that Aquinas’ view on morals implied their universal agreement , while Locke emphasized the development of people views, and accordingly the changes in the opinions on morals.
In his Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau purports that man is born “free”, yet he is everywhere bound in chains. The natural birthright of man to physical freedom continues to be suppressed by the chains of civil society. This, according to Rousseau is mainly because the political structures around the world contribute nothing to safeguard and enforce the individual liberty and equality promised to individuals upon their entrance into society (The Social Contract, 2008). When this is put in the context of current events around the world, nothing could be further from the truth. Individual liberties and freedoms continue to decrease as governments tightens their loops of authority and power around unsuspecting citizens. We can see an example in the Iraq war and the extent of its citizens’ freedom under the American intervention: it can be argued that although the purpose of the US can be to contribute to ‘safeguard the liberties and equalities of the Iraqis’, instead it has continued to take away their freedom.
According to Rousseau, legitimate political power and authority must be assented to by all the masses. This is usually done by entering into a “Social Contract” that forms the basis of mutual preservation. Perhaps we can see that Rousseau’s political thoughts have necessitated the creation of sovereign nations around the world. The majority of the governments today are established when a collective assemblage of individuals who, by their individual consent, enter into a civil society and establishes what Rousseau called a Sovereign. Individuals may hold different perceptions and needs depending on their individual circumstances. But the ‘General Will’ of all the people are better expressed by the Sovereign, and should encompass all the collective needs of all individuals to provide for the common good of all (The Social Contract, 2008).
Accordingly, the creation of the laws of the state must be informed by the general will. The laws of every nation must be developed impartially and must be used to express and facilitate the ‘General Will’ of the nation’s citizens. For laws to be impartial, they must uphold the individual freedoms and the rights of equality among citizens. This is not always the case in modern political systems, whereby some laws are passed with impartial interests while others curtail the freedoms and rights of individuals instead of guaranteeing them (The Social Contract, 2008). A good example is the American anti-terrorism laws, which to some extent, continue to curtail the freedoms and liberties of innocent Muslims.
This political theory forms the basis of most governments’ structures that we have around and also explains the origins of power. The individuals and institutions running the government must be entitled with some basic powers to ensure that citizens follow the law. According to Rousseau, monarchies, aristocracies, and democracies are various forms of governments that could be formed out of this relationship depending on the characteristics and size of the state. Monarchies have been formed mostly in ancient times while many modern day governments prefer to form their governments around democratic principles. Monarchies were preferred in ancient time because of their strength and their agility in times of crisis (The Social Contract, 2008). The Buganda Kingdom in Uganda is a surviving example of a monarch. Most ancient states also preferred aristocratic governments or basically the rule by the few. Presently, Libya’s colonel Muammar Gaddafi and Cuba’s Fidel Castro and his brother offers some perfect examples of aristocracies. As Rousseau prophesied, the Social Contract is often abused by governments in their blatant exercise of the powers that have been conferred to them by the general will of the people. This is characteristic of most African governments, whereby those elected to serve in the respective governments go further to use the powers given to them by the electorate to steal and punish the citizens.
John Stuart Mill, in his works On Liberty, proposed that society had mechanisms that enabled it to progress from the lower to higher phases, culminating in the emergence of a representative democratic system. This form of government brought about the development and growth of liberty. Society must set its limits through which it can exercise its power over individuals. This according to Mill is the civil liberty. Whereas ‘Liberty’ in the past meant protection from tyrannical rule, its meaning have gradually changed along with the roles of rulers, who now want to be perceived as servants of the citizens rather than their masters. Though such a change of attitude is good on the part of our rulers, Mill cautions that it can bring forth a tyranny of the majority against the minority. This happened in Kenya recently during the hotly contested presidential election of 2007. The masses ganged together and rose against their leaders when public opinions about the election necessitated a rebellion. The Kenyan society became a tyrant when it sought to inflict its values and wills on others. (On Liberty, 1863).
Mill theorizes three types of liberties. First is the liberty of opinion and thought. Second is the liberty of pursuits and tastes. Third is the liberty to join hands with other like- minded citizens for a common goal that does not hurt anyone (On liberty, 1863). All this types of liberties goes hand in hand with the various forms of governments already established. An aristocratic government like the one in Libya cannot purport to offer liberty number three – freedom of association. Some divergent political views cannot be expressed in countries such as Iran, Libya, and Venezuela without the censure from state machineries. This, according to Mill is illegitimate as it is morally wrong. Governments must always strive to facilitate the freedom of opinion.
Not long ago, dissenting political voices could not be tolerated in many African and Latin American countries. In Kenya for example, political activists with divergent views were exposed to inhuman torture by government agencies. But according to Mill, dissent is crucial to preserving truth and it allows the masses to articulate and hold some unpopular voices (On Liberty, 1863). To achieve social and personal progress, individual liberty must always be expressed. It is good that in many modern states, governments are realizing the importance of Mill’s works on liberty and are allowing their citizens to have more of it, especially when it comes to expressing divergent political views. This has brought forth opposition parties, which has helped control the excesses of power by the government.
Mill had of the idea that society only exists to curtail or reduce excesses of behaviors and attitudes that could be detrimental to others. He totally rejects the concepts of the social contract. In the pursuit of our own freedom and happiness, we must, and are obliged to behave in a definite manner so that we defend society and its members form harm. It is thus the responsibility of the society in which we live in to curtail and punish actions and behaviors that can harm others. This is particularly true even in modern societies whereby unbecoming behaviors are punished by society through the laid down procedures.
Robert A. Dahl came up with the term Polyarchy to describe some form of government whereby power is vested in three or more people. According to him, for collective decisions to be binding, each person in a political community must be entitled to equal consideration when it comes to his or her interests (Polyarchy, 2008). This form of political thinking is prevalent in the world today, whereby all the voices of the citizens are listened to without fear or favor. In fact, the political perception of Dahl is the brainchild of political settlements that have been witnessed in Zimbabwe and Kenya recently where presidential elections failed to produce clear winners.
In his book, A preface to democratic theory, Dahl reveals some conditions which are necessary in ensuring majority rule. He comes up with voting mechanisms and rationalities and how they can be used to propagate democratic principles. Though not necessary used in ancient times, the voting system is used by nearly all democratic governments in the world to decide who will be delegated with the power and authority to lead others. To some extent, voting is used in some undemocratic systems also like is the case in Iran. The individual with the highest amount of votes gets to be delegated the power to lead.
Policies on government’s decisions is constitutionally held by elected officials who are routinely chosen and removed through conducting frequent free and fare elections. This is a fundamental exercise in any democratic institution for government power to be seen as legitimate by the masses (Dahl, 2006). But in a number of instances, especially in African governments, coercion and vote rigging are prevalent. The resulting governments lack the will of the people to govern. A case in point is the government of Robert Mugambe of Zimbabwe.
Other characteristics of a ‘Polyarchy’ include the right held by adults to run for public offices and the right to vote when elections are held. These are basic principles held by many modern governments in the world today. Polyarchy stresses freedom of expression, whereby individuals are allowed to criticize any government wrongdoings without fear of any reprisals by those in power (Dahl, 1991). This is a new concept in most African governments but it is increasingly taking root. Previously, you could not scold an African president and expect to go scot-free. But this has now changed as most of the African presidents are now open to positive criticism. In western countries, this has been the norm rather than the exception.
Information should not be monopolized by government agencies and any individual have an inherent right to form or belong to independent associations, including political parties. This forms the basis of any democratic institution. Polyarchy guarantees’ individual rights, freedoms, and liberties to the extent by which no other form of governance can guarantee (Dahl, 1991). Today, it is practiced in majority of the countries in the world, including the U.S., Britain, Italy, and Spain. It has taken shape in many African and Asian countries with the exception of just a few ones like Zimbabwe and Libya.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper synthesized how the government’s extent of power and the citizens’ freedom continue to be informed by the works of previous political philosophers. Comparisons between modern forms of governments and ancient ones in relation to the practice of power and guaranteeing the freedom of citizens have been also covered. The obedience to the sovereign brings about abuses of power basically because of the fact that those in power can never be held accountable for their actions. ‘Full obedience’ has also curtailed the rights and freedoms of citizens, both in ancient and in modern governments. This paper has shown how political power must be backed by the community for the public good and how laws must exist to guard against the excesses of power. However, when abused, such laws continue to bind man in chains therefore effectively curtailing his freedom. It is also worthy mentioning that any political power must be assented to by all the masses for it to be seen as legitimate. Often, this is not the case in many governments around the world. Society must always set the limits through which it can exercise its power over individuals. This would guarantee their basic freedoms and liberties. This paper has also tackled the majority rule, and its justifications for power and individual freedoms in modern society.
Works Cited
Aristotle, and Benjamin Jowett. Politics. Ed. Davis, H. W. C. 2008.
Dahl, R.A. A Preface to Democratic Theory. The University of Chicago Press, 2006. (ISBN9780226134338)
Dahl, R.A. Democracy and its Critics. Yale University, 1991. (ISBN 9780300049381)
Mill, John S. On liberty. Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1863. (ISBN 32044012135117)
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Penguin Books, 2006. (ISBN 0143037498)
Kavka, G.S. Hobbesian Moral and Political theory. Princeton University Press, 1986.
Kretzmann, Norman, and Eleonore Stump. The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas. Cambridge ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Print.
Kretzmann, Norman, and Eleonore Stump. The Cambridge companion to Augustine. Cambridge ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print.
Locke, John. The second treatise of Civil Government. Constitution Society, 1999. Web.
Monoson, Susan Sara. Plato’s Democratic Entanglements : Athenian Politics and the Practice of Philosophy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000. Print.
“Moral and Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes.”The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.2006.
“Polyarchy”Wikipedia. 2008.
Stump, Eleonore, and Norman Kretzmann. The Cambridge Companion to Augustine. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print.