Kıvanç Sağır - 2005
Absolutism is the theory or practice of absolute government, most commonly associated with an absolute monarchy. Government is absolute in the sense that it possesses free power; that means government cannot be constrained by a body external to itself. The absolutist principle nevertheless resides in the claim to an unlimited right to rule (Heywood, Politics p 419). Rationalist theorists of absolute power, such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean Bodin and Niccolo Machiavelli, generally advance the belief that only absolute government can guarantee order and social stability. However the liberal thinkers refuse absolute power and government. Locke opposes absolutism defending “natural rights”, Rousseau defending “social contract” and Montesquieu defending “separation of powers”.
Every political theory that sets out to justify or advocate a particular system of government, or a limited or unlimited degree of obligation of the citizen to the state, must rest on an explicit or implicit theory of human nature. The theorist must assume that the human beings who will have to submit to and operate the desired system do need it and are capable of running it. Liberals believe that the world has a rational structure, and that this can be uncovered through the exercise of human reason and by critical enquiry. This inclines them to place their faith in the ability of individuals to make wise judgements on their own behalf, being, in most cases, the best judges of their own interests (Grant, John Locke’s Liberalism p 47-192). Hobbes, in contrast, pictures men as so contentious that they cannot not survive without handing over their natural rights to an “all-powerful and self-perpetuating sovereign state”, and rational enough to realize the need to do so. Hobbes sets out his theory of human nature quite explicitly in the first eleven chapters of Leviathan. Hobbes’ ideas provides a defence for absolutist government.
However, the early liberal John Locke counter-argues Hobbes’ ideas. In his Second Treatise of Government Locke argues that sovereignty resides with the people, not with the monarch. Like all the other liberals, Locke attacks absolutism and instead advocates a system of limited government to provide protection for natural rights (Belammy, Victorian Liberalism, p. 1-2). According to Locke: “Absolute arbitrary power, or governing without settled standing laws, can neither of them consist with the ends of society and government, which men would not quit the freedom of the state of nature for, and tie themselves up under, were it not to preserve their lives, liberties and fortunes, and by stated rules of right and property to secure their peace or quiet” (Second Treatise of Government, p. 72). This is because “men being, by nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent” (Second Treatise of Government, p. 52). On the basis of this premise, Locke seeks to establish standards that distinguish legitimate political power from illegitimate despotism.
Another early liberal, Jean Jacques Rousseau, opposes the absolutist power of government by emphasising the need to a “social contract”. Rousseau says, “Some form of association must be found as a result of which the whole strength of the community will be enlisted for the protection of the person and property of each constituent member, in such a way that each, when united to his fellows, renders obedience to his own will, and remains as free as he was before. That is the basic problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution” (Locke, Hume & Rousseau, Social Contract: Essays by Locke Hume and Rousseau, p. 180). The idea of the “social contract” is, in effect, the combination of two closely connected ideas, which are contract of government and the contract of society. According to the theory of a contract of government, a contract between ruler and subjects is the basis of the state. However, a contract of society is the prior condition for a contract of government; that means there must be a potential body of subjects, already cohering in virtue of a common social will, and there must be a potential ruler, as well, ready to assume the burden of government in agreement with that social will (Locke, Hume & Rousseau, Social Contract: Essays by Locke Hume and Rousseau, p. xii).
When focusing on their writings, it is clear that Rousseau, Locke and even Hobbes gives all the emphasis to the contract of society rather than the contract of government. The theory on social contract of Rousseau, Barker (1960) says, is that the community once formed by a contract of society may be self-governing, without any distinction of rulers and subject, and therefore without any possibility of their making a contract with one another. The theory of Locke, Barker continues, is that again the community, once it is formed, may appoint a “fiduciary” or trustee government with which it makes no contract, but which it may dismiss for breach of trust on its own interpretation of the nature of the trust. Finally, the theory of absolutist Hobbes is that the community, once it is formed, may empty itself of every right and every power into a “sovereign leviathan”, which makes no contract with it and is therefore subject to none of the limits of a contract of government (Locke, Hume & Rousseau, Social Contract: Essays by Locke Hume and Rousseau, p. xiii).
In Leviathan, Hobbes portrays sovereignty as a monopoly of coercive power, implying that the “sovereign leviathan” is entirely unconstrained. Moreover, Hobbes claims the existence of “divine right”, the doctrine that earthly rulers are chosen by God and thus wield unchallengeable authority, of ruler. Hobbes is pessimistic about the human nature. Hobbes does not trust the nature of human beings because, from his point of view, they are selfish beings and always in conflict. Hobbes says, “In the first place, I put for a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death. And the cause of this is not always that a man hopes for a more intensive delight than he has already attained to, or that he cannot be content with a moderate power, but because he cannot assure the power and means to live well, which he hath present, without the acquisition of more” (Leviathan). Hobbes rests his despotism on consent assuming that without the restraints of government men will be in a constant state of war and insecurity. It is in “the nature of man” to fight his neighbours, and unless a power over them prevent it, they will kill each other. That is why Hobbes states the need to a coercive power, and, to him, God sends the coercive power, as an absolute ruler, to the earth.
On the other hand, a jurist, Jean Bodin’s particular concern, like Hobbes, is with the principle of sovereignty. Bodin’s The Six Books of the Commonwealth offers a wider-ranging account of the locus of sovereignty in political regimes. Bodin concludes that absolutism is the most defensible of regimes, as it establishes a sovereign who makes law but is not bound by those laws. Sovereignty, he contends, has an impact upon both the internal affairs of the state as well as its external affairs. Bodin says, “Sovereignty is the most supreme, absolute, and perpetual power over the citizens and subjects in a commonwealth” (Bodin, On Sovereignty, p. 1). Bodin claims that the overriding merit of vesting sovereignty in a single individual is that it would then be indivisible: sovereignty will be expressed in a single voice that can claim final authority (On Sovereignty, p. xiii). Bodin nevertheless argues that absolute monarchs are constrained by the existence of higher law in the form of the will of God or natural law (On Sovereignty, p. xxiv).
Niccollo Machiavelli, the author of The Prince, too, is an absolutist and against liberalism like Hobbes and Bodin. However, in contrast to Hobbes and Bodin, Machiavelli defends the idea that in this world, God’s will has no role. Therefore, according to Machiavelli, there is no place to ethical politics in the existing world of power. It is “fortune” that grants opportunities to the ruler, the prince, and the prince must seize each of these opportunities by using all his manly courage to press forward social and political change (Cyril Smith). Machiavelli considers the respective importance of “fortune” and will: “As not to eliminate human freedom, I am disposed to hold that fortune is the arbiter of half our actions, but that it lets us control roughly the other half” (The Prince, p. 85). By emphasizing the importance of “fortune”, Machiavelli also develops a strictly realistic account of politics that draw attention to the use by political leaders of cunning, cruelty and manipulation; that means the political leaders may use this “fortune” for only their wealth. So, Machiavelli is pessimistic about both the people and, in some ways, the rulers.
In contrast to Hobbes’ defence of the God given “divine rights” of the rulers, Bodin’s defence of “perpetual power” of whom and Machiavelli’s defence of “fortune” given to whom, Locke defends the “natural rights” of all human beings. In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke considers these “natural rights” as life, liberty and property. Although Hobbes, too, speaks of “natural rights” and ‘natural laws’, they seem to be simply “what my own (instrumental) reason permits and orders me to do for my own preservation” while Locke’s ideas require each man to try “when his own preservation comes not in competition, to preserve the rest of mankind” (Second Treatise of Government p. 9). Locke plunges right into a supposed state of nature, but uses it not to depict men’s necessary behavior or motivation, as Hobbes does, but to assert men’s natural rights. According to Locke, no government can legitimately retain its title unless it protects certain “inalienable rights” of its subject. So, Locke, unlike Hobbes Bodin and Machiavelli, is strongly optimistic about the human nature.
Montesquieu, who, like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, draws attention to “natural laws”, champions the cause of constitutional government, in other words parliamentary liberalism whose basis is the writings of Locke, that exists in the modern liberal governments. “Laws of nature” form the framework for all of Montesquieu’s account of society and its political forms. Montesquieu starts his first book of all with these sentences: “Laws in their most general signification are the necessary relations arising from the nature of things. In this sense all beings have their laws: the Deity. His laws, the material world its laws, the intelligences superior to man their laws, the beasts their laws, man his laws” (The Spirit of Laws). However, Montesquieu does not believe that there is some universally best form of government, appropriate for all nations. Each nation has its own specific conditions, for which it must find the optimum form. Montesquieu says, “Better is it to say, that the government most conformable to nature is that which best agrees with the humour and disposition of the people in whose favour it is established”, and continues: “Law in general is human reason, inasmuch as it governs all the inhabitants of the earth: the political and civil laws of each nation ought to be only the particular cases in which human reason is applied” (The Spirit of Laws). Montesquieu attempts to develop a “scientific” study of human society, designed to uncover the constitutional circumstances that will best protect individual liberty.
Moreover, severe critic absolutism, Montesquieu proposes a system of checks and balances in the form of a “separation of powers” between the executive, legislative and judicial institutions in order to resist tyranny. Montesquieu sets out his theory of the three powers within the state. Montesquieu says, “In every government there are three sorts of power: the legislative; the executive in respect to things dependent on the law of nations; and the executive in regard to matters that depend on the civil law. By virtue of the first, the prince or magistrate enacts temporary or perpetual laws, and amends or abrogates those that have been already enacted. By the second, he makes peace or war, sends or receives embassies, establishes the public security, and provides against invasions. By the third, he punishes criminals, or determines the disputes that arise between individuals. The latter we shall call the judiciary power and the other simply the executive power of the state” (The spirit of Laws). The conflicts between these separate powers are the way Montesquieu thinks corruption can be avoided.
Each of the six theorists, Hobbes, Bodin, Machiavelli, Locke, Rousseau and Montesquieu tries to make their political works concerning and serving the needs of the societies of both their contemporary and future. At one side, there are Thomas Hobbes, Jean Bodin and Niccolo Machiavelli defending absolutism; and at the other side, there are John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Charles Montesquieu defending liberalism. It is hard to determine which of these two sides, absolutism or liberalism, are the best for the governments; but it is very clear that, absolutism has no longer been in practice in the governments of the modern world while liberalism has been the basis of the governments that exist in the contemporary world.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bodin, Jean. On Sovereignty. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1992.
Heywood, Andrew. Politics. Palgrave Foundations: Hampshire & New York, 2002.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Hacket Publishing Company, Inc: Indianapolis & Cambridge, 1980.
Locke, John; Hume, David; Rousseau, Jean Jacques. Social Contract. Oxford University Press: New York & London, 1960.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1988.
http://www.biola.edu/community/downloads/ta/sample/precis2.pdf
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-b.html#CHAPTERXI
http://www.cix.co.uk/~cyrilsmith/book6.pdf
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/montesquieu/sol-01.htm
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/montesquieu/sol-11.htm
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder