Much of the study of politics concerns the ‘nuts and bolts’ of government, examining the way that states and communities are organized and governed in practice. But there is also a theoretical side to politics attempting to answer basic questions about the fundamental concepts underlying political thought. Political theory has its roots in the political philosophy of the ancient world. Classical Greek philosophers in particular examined notions such as justice, equality, freedom and authority. An understanding of these was recognized as crucial to the business of politics, and for determining the purpose of government and providing a rationale for possible structures of governance. Definitions of these fundamental concepts, however, have proved elusive. The various interpretations have given rise to a wide range of political opinions and systems of government. The field of political theory emerged to propose practical applications for this political philosophy offering different models of society and how it should be governed, as well as the things that government should concern itself with.
Ancient Greek ideas of justice and liberty
At the heart of Ancient Greek political thought was the concept of eudaemonia, the ‘good life’. People live together in societies for their mutual benefit, in order to live good and happy lives; these societies need to be organized and have rules and therefore it is the purpose of the state and its government to ensure it. Whatever the constitution of the government, it should protect its citizens from harm and prevent injustice and infringements of their freedom.
Philosophers, such as Socrates and Plato, argued that justice was a virtue, and as such was closely linked to the notion of what is good. On a personal level, a citizen is just if he acts virtuously and does what is good, so for a government to be just it too must act with an understanding of what is good. However, the concept of ‘virtue’, and therefore justice, is open to interpretation, and even a just government was somewhat at odds with the Greek idea of liberty – the freedom to lead one’s life as one likes, independent of any master.
Site of the Areopagus, the high court of Athens.
Although a number of more or less democratic republics were established in the ancient world, they were the exception rather than the rule. Even the Roman Republic, modelled on the Greek republics it succeeded, eventually handed power to a single dictator – Julius Caesar, the first of a line of Roman emperors. Christianity was slowly adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire, spreading the influence of the Roman church, both spiritual and political. In medieval Europe, the Church, with the Pope at its head, exerted considerable political power.
The predominant social order was a hierarchical system of property ownership and duty known as feudalism. At the head of the state was an absolute monarch, owner and ruler of all the land. The monarch granted some of the land to a class of nobles, who in return provided him with fighting forces; the nobles granted some of their land to vassals in return for an oath of loyalty, and it was ultimately worked by a class of serfs.
Humanism and the rise of the nation state
The Renaissance marked the beginning of the end for the feudal systems of the Middle Ages. An increasingly prosperous urban population in Europe was founded on trade rather than agriculture, and with it came an intellectual revolution which threw doubt on the old certainties of religion and tradition. Scientific discoveries and the rediscovery of classical philosophical ideas contradicted religious dogma, and challenged the power of the Church and monarchs.
Humanism put Man rather than God at the centre of political thinking. Starting in 15th-century Italy, a number of republics were established, with laws and government devised by the people rather than divinely dictated. Elsewhere in Europe, other countries began to assert their independence from the Holy Roman Empire as sovereign nation states, although few opted to become republics and retained their monarchies. The traditional hierarchies of aristocracy lingered until a spirit of republicanism resurfaced during the Enlightenment.
Machiavelli and political realism
The humanism associated with Renaissance political philosophy instilled the idea that it is people, not God, that determine our politics, decide our laws and how we should be governed. Humans, however, have flaws and live in an imperfect world. Accordingly, the Renaissance humanist Niccolò Machiavelli (pictured) suggested that rather than philosophizing about an ideal form of government in an ideal state, we should be realistic – see things as they are, rather than how they should be. He argued in The Prince that morality and ethics are all very well for individuals, but in government the wellbeing of the state is paramount and should be pursued by any means necessary – ethical or unethical. In short, the ends justify the means. Subterfuge, lying and even violence are legitimate tactics for a ruler or government if the outcome is favourable to the state. Machiavelli stripped political philosophy of its ethics and ideology, influencing a movement of political realism, which was adopted by Thomas Hobbes and later resurfaced in the Realpolitik of 19th-century Germany.
The so-called Age of Reason, or Enlightenment, that spanned the 17th and 18th centuries was an extraordinary period of intellectual and cultural activity in Europe. Scientists and philosophers in France and Britain introduced new ideas based on rational thought rather than faith. With this resurgence of philosophical enquiry came a renewed interest in political philosophy and a re-evaluation of the traditional forms of government. The Enlightenment notion of reason as a basis for reform led to an emphasis on the ideals of liberty and justice, and increasing demands for democracy and citizens’ rights.
In France, in particular, thinkers such as Voltaire (pictured) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau advocated a complete change to the old, discredited systems of government, inspiring a movement that culminated in the French Revolution and the formation of the République, and American Independence. Enlightenment ideals sowed the seeds of revolution, but also laid the foundations of modern political philosophy.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s famous statement that ‘Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains’ was the rallying cry of revolutionary movements in the 18th and 19th centuries. Yet it harked back to the concepts of liberty and slavery that underpinned classical ideas of democracy – rule imposed on citizens is a restriction of freedom and the mark of the slave. Rousseau believed that laws and systems of government had evolved primarily to protect property, and restricted the natural freedom of people. But exactly what are the freedoms that we want to enjoy, and how can they be protected?
Without some restrictions, it is impossible to maintain order, as freedoms can be open to abuse. One person’s liberty may impinge on another’s freedoms. And there are different aspects of liberty, such as economic and social freedoms. Replacing the old order of monarchies offered the opportunity to rethink ideas of liberty, and a number of libertarian options emerged as an alternative to conservative authoritarianism.
The concept of liberty was extensively examined by 19th-century political philosophers, notably John Stuart Mill (see here), and its various interpretations became the basis for liberalism, laissez-faire capitalism and anarchism. If there was disagreement about how liberty was granted in practice, it was generally accepted that it entailed freedom from constraint. In the 1950s, the liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin gave a lecture titled Two Concepts of Liberty. The traditional view of liberty, he argued, is negative liberty – freedom from outside interference. It is the aim of liberal political ideologies to minimize the restrictions preventing people from doing things. There is, however, another sort of liberty – positive liberty. This is the freedom an individual has to do something, rather than simply not being prevented from doing it. Berlin believed that government should protect negative liberty and foster positive liberty, encouraging people to be in control of their own lives and fulfil their potential. This is not without risk as Berlin pointed out: ‘Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows.’
Just as the concept of liberty was re-examined in the late 20th century, so too was there a reappraisal of the notion of justice. In the US in the 1970s, Johns Rawls and Robert Nozick presented interpretations that encapsulated respectively contemporary liberal-left and conservative-right thinking on the issue of the just distribution of wealth. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls uses a thought experiment in which we are invited to construct a society from scratch, but from behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ as to how privileged each one of us is at the start. To avoid the risk of being part of a poor underclass, he argues, we opt for a fair and reasonably equal distribution. The essence of social justice, he concludes, is fairness. In reply to this, Nozick presented his argument that a distribution of goods is just when it arises from exchanges freely entered into. This may end up in inequalities, with some doing better from the deals than others, but unless it is a result of theft, fraud or coercion, the distribution is just. Justice, says Rawls, is a matter of entitlement, not fairness.
Equality: of outcome or opportunity?
The notion of equality is closely linked to ideas of justice and fairness. Equality was the watchword of the revolutionary movements in France and America, expressed explicitly in the US Declaration of Independence in the statement, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’. Since then, it has become a cornerstone of human rights. However, it is easier to recognize than to define.
While it is generally agreed that all citizens should be equally subject to the law, and even that there should be equality of opportunity, there are differences of opinion about wealth distribution. A wholly egalitarian society arguably removes the incentive for improvement. Also, those whose achievements contribute most to society should be rewarded most. But deciding who is deserving and who undeserving, is a contentious matter. Growing inequality, both within societies and between rich and poor nations, is forcing political thinkers to re-examine the practicalities of a more egalitarian society.
With the formation of new nation states came the opportunity to decide their form of government. It also prompted thinkers to examine the more fundamental questions of why government is necessary, and the relationship between its power and the rights of the citizens. At the heart of this was the realization that social order and law, like society itself, are human creations, and depend on a consensus. Enlightenment political philosophers, including Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, believed that a legitimate government is granted its power by a ‘social contract’: the citizens agree to surrender some of their liberty and submit to the authority of the government in return for protection of their other rights. Hobbes saw this as a way of maintaining social order, with the people abdicating their rights to an absolute sovereign, while Rousseau emphasized the idea of consensus, where individual citizens submitted to the ‘general will’. Locke’s position came somewhere in between, arguing that a government protects the ‘natural rights’ of its citizens and arbitrates civil disputes.
The ‘social contract’ between the governed and the government concerns, on the one hand, the rights of the individual and, on the other, the power of the state. With the consensus of the individuals, a ruler or government is given the authority to govern, make laws, levy taxes and so on. This is often formalized explicitly in a constitution, which details the extent of the government’s authority and its obligations.
A government can rely on a number of autonomous agencies – police and armed forces, and revenue collection and border agencies – to enforce its will. However, the legitimacy of a government’s authority is dependent on it not abusing these powers, as well as fulfilling its side of the agreement. Despotic leaders or corrupt governments will be reluctant to relinquish power, and abuse the authority given by the people to hold on to it. Regular elections, which can be seen as renewals of the agreement, allow a degree of accountability, as can the separation of powers (see here).
The concept of rights, especially as a factor in the social contract, was central to Enlightenment political philosophy. Several thinkers suggested that there are certain basic expectations of life to which every individual is entitled. Hobbes argued that in a ‘state of nature’, it is every man for himself so these rights could only exist with a strong government. Locke’s view, however – later echoed in the US Declaration of Independence – was that there are certain natural, inalienable rights which could not be surrendered to governments, including the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But as well as these natural rights, which some saw as God-given, there are other rights granted by man-made laws. These civil rights include the right to own property, to participate in the political process by voting and to have access to a court of law. Both natural rights and civil rights may be specified in the formal constitution of a state, or in a separate bill of rights, and are together considered as human rights recognized by individual states and international conventions.
Frontispiece of Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes’s influential book published in 1651 following the English Civil War.
Societies that have some form of elected government implicitly acknowledge the need for governance, and more often than not specify in law how it should be constituted and the limits of its power. Opinions among the people will differ, however, and this is reflected in the ideology of the governments they elect. Naturally, political parties and their activists will try to influence public opinion especially at election time.
At the same time, there are groups with particular interests, who campaign to influence government policy. These advocacy groups can exert some influence through lobbying, but more controversially also through donations to political parties, or sponsoring candidates to elections. Although special interest groups can highlight matters of public concern – moral, religious or environmental issues, for example – political and commercial special interest groups can influence the political process, with the risk of unfair manipulation and even corruption.
A defining aspect of liberty is the freedom to hold an opinion and express it openly. Freedom of speech – and especially freedom to publish – has been considered the mark of a civilized society since the Enlightenment, when dissenting voices challenged the authority of the old order. This freedom highlights a fundamental problem of liberty in general: if it is permissible to say anything, then some people will say things that others will find unacceptable, summed up in Voltaire’s famous dictum ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’ (actually written by his biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall). Oppressive regimes quash opposition by restricting the freedoms of the press, but even in societies that pride themselves on their liberal principles, there is often some form of censorship. This may be benign in intent, protecting minors or preventing incitement to violence, for example. More contentious are laws such as those banning Holocaust denial, or blasphemy. These ideas may cause offence, but is that sufficient reason to outlaw them?
In most modern liberal democracies, political parties contest elections to form the government. In this way, as well as a ruling party (or coalition of parties) there are elected representatives in opposition, to argue for those who hold different views. But individuals also feel the need to oppose governments, and in many societies there is a right to free speech and the right to protest. The degree to which it allows criticism and protest is often the test of a civilized society.
Authoritarian states may restrict citizens’ rights to voice criticism of the establishment or hold demonstrations, but in others the right to protest is specifically enshrined in law. But even in liberal countries, these rights can be limited by law. Of course, violent and destructive protest is outlawed, but restrictions on public gatherings have been introduced in some places, justified by concerns of law and order. Recently, concerns of terrorism have led to certain organizations also being outlawed and restrictions imposed on communications.
Peaceful protest and civil disobedience
While large organizations and powerful individuals can influence governments and make their views known in the media, other interest groups – especially those with less financial resources – may highlight their concerns through some form of direct action. Frequently, this takes the form of public gatherings, a protest march, such as Gandhi’s famous 1930 Salt March in India, a sit-in, or presenting a petition. These demonstrations are generally peaceful and legal, although there may be public order restrictions on the number of people involved and the amount of disruption they cause.
Other forms of direct action specifically break a law considered unjust. This civil disobedience ranges from non-cooperation, such as withdrawal of labour, through conscientious objection by non-payment of taxes, refusal to serve on juries or in the armed forces, to symbolic acts of minor vandalism, which may include computer hacking. Whistle-blowing exposes corruption and abuse of power with evidence from an inside source.
Frustration with the actions of a government can often trigger a shift from peaceful protest and civil disobedience to more violent direct action, particularly when that government is oppressive or corrupt. It is also common for peaceful demonstrations to become violent when feelings run high or their policing is heavy-handed. Although usually seen as a last resort, actions such as rioting, destruction of property and even terrorism and assassination are seen by extremist movements as legitimate forms of protest.
These may be isolated instances of terrorism, such as bombings or hostage-taking, or part of a campaign of armed insurrection involving military action against government forces. Depending on the circumstances, and the political leanings of the observer, the use of violence can be seen as a cowardly attack on democratic values or the heroic actions of freedom fighters – yet mainstream political ideologies are reluctant to condone the use of force except as a last resort.
When the government of a democratic state loses popular support, it can be removed in an election. But if a government holds on to power when a significant proportion of citizens are impatient for change, the protest may escalate and force the overthrow of the regime, more often than not with a radical shift in the social order. Such socio-political revolutions have occurred throughout history, but became more prevalent in the 18th and 19th centuries when monarchies were toppled and colonial rulers ousted in the establishment of democratic republics, such as France and the USA.
In some cases the movement for change is great enough for revolution to be swift and bloodless, in others the state is so divided that there is a civil war, or a substantial faction at war. The term ‘revolution’ is generally used to refer to a popular revolt against a despotic ruler or government, in contrast to the ‘top-down’ seizure of power from a democratic government, a coup d’état, by a dictator or military force (see here).
