2007: 23). In order to avoid confusion, the central authority must exercise summa potestas (supreme authority) in a given territory which had to be legitimate and therefore given legal identification. Bodin’s solution was in the establishment of a principle that he called souveraineté. He described sovereignty as the “absolute and perpetual power of a Commonwealth (Republique)”. To Bodin’s, one of the underlying attributes of sovereignty was its absoluteness. The defining nature of sovereignty was closely related to the idea of legibus solutus. Naturally for Bodin, sovereignty was located in the monarch, which was to be free from any higher lawgiver in a given territory. Although he confessed that aristocracy or democracy might be endowed with characteristics of sovereignty and, his disbelieve the rule by the people guided his preferences towards monarchy (Dunning, 1896: 96). In Bodin’s thought, besides its absoluteness, sovereignty was also featured as indivisible. In a given polity, there could be only one Sovereign, whose supreme power could not be shared nor divided. Furthermore, the sovereign authority was perpetual, not confined to a definite period time. The person endowed with sovereignty should exercise it during his whole life. Although Bodin clearly defined the nature of sovereignty as (i) …show more content…
Against the power of feudal localities, Bodin’s theory of sovereignty supported the idea that the state power should be free from external and internal restriction and the political power should be vested in a single source. In so arguing, Bodin provided the necessary theoretical tools in defence of the central authority against the forces of particularism and regionalism, and thereby helped to counter the balance on behalf of the former (Domaniç, 2007:
insist on our right of and capacity for being self-governing individuals. But we find ourselves again under the rule of a king - an authority exterior to the self. This time, however, we cannot as easily identify the king and declare our independence." Despite
Can certain people assume absolute rights over others? Do people deserve a voice in determining what goes on in their lives as well as their country? Are people liable for their own actions? The questions asked above all fall under one theme that will be discussed: autonomy and responsibility. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word ‘autonomy’ as self-government or the right to self-government; self-determination; independence.
The government within the monarchical society was populated by the aristocracy. It was they who were depended upon for directing the course of governmental affairs. The controls of all co...
middle of paper ... ... The sovereign is able to hold absolute power but is equally controlled by the actions of the people as they are considered to be a servant of the people. Hobbes’ political thought is said to be the foundation for Parliamentary sovereignty in Canada. He believes society's main goal is to provide a safe, functioning life without the constant fear of death.
After a hard won bitter revolution, America was given the opportunity to create its own government. The Founding Fathers did not want to create another monarchy, but instead a republic, or representative government, was formed. The Constitution was organized to establish laws for government and people. The Founding Father’s political theory was antithesis to American democratic faith. The philosophy of the founding fathers is analyzed including the idea of stability in government, republicanism, and the nature of man.
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
When asked about the definition of a sovereign nation, Selma Buckwheat (September 25, 2013), elder member of the Anishinabeg tribe, explains by stating, “We govern ourselves and have our own laws” (personal communication). They have a lot of meetings that help understand most of the sovereign nations. In other words, a sovereign nation is power or a territory existing as an independent s...
ABSTRACT: To overcome the gap between norms and facts, Habermas appeals to the medium of law which gives legitimacy to the political order and provides it with its binding force. Legitimate law-making itself is generated through a procedure of public opinion and will-formation that produces communicative power. Communicative power, in turn, influences the process of social institutionalization. I will argue that the revised notion of power as a positive influence that is produced in communicative space runs contrary to Habermas’ original concept of power in his theory of communicative action where power is understood as a coercive force that has to be avoided in order for the discursive situation to prevail. As such, I believe that the introduction of communicative power and its close tie to ‘legitimate law’ and political system greatly reduces our critical ability with respect to political systems as exercised in liberal-democratic states. In addition, I will argue that his revision alludes to a redrawing of the boundaries between the life-world and the system in favor of the latter, and consequently indicates a shift to the right in Habermas’ latest work.
The existence of the city-state (polis) requires an efficient ruler. A community of any sort can possess order only if it has a ruling element or authority. This ruling principle is defined by the constitution, which sets criteria for political offices, particularly the sovereign office. Aristotle defines the constitution as “a certain ordering of the inhabitants of the city-state” (III.1.1274b32-41). It is not a written document, but an immanent organizing principle, analogous to the soul of an organism. Hence, the constitution is also “the way of life” of the citizens (IV.11.1295a40-b1, VII.8.1328b1-2). Here the citizens are that minority of the resident population who possess full political rights (III.1.1275b17–20). Once the constitution is in place, the politician needs to take the appropriate measures to maintain it, to introduce reforms when he finds them necessary,...
In this essay, I will present three reasons as to why the absolute authority of the sovereign in Hobbes’s state of nature and social contract is justified. The three reasons Hobbes uses are: the argument from contract, the argument from authorisation and the argument from weakness of mixed or divided sovereignty. Firstly, I shall explain Hobbes’s understanding of human nature and the natural condition of humanity which causes the emergence of the social contract. I shall then analyse each argument for the absolute authority of the sovereign being justified. I shall then consider possible objections to Hobbes’s argument. I shall then show why Hobbes’s argument is successful and the absolute authority of the sovereign is justified.
In this paper, it is my intention to discuss the issue of legitimacy as it relates to government. I will explore what a legitimate government necessarily consists of; that is, I will attempt to formulate a number of conditions a government must meet in order to be considered legitimate.
When looking at Hobbes’ idea of the state and its relation with the citizen, it is strikingly shocking how supportive of the authoritarian and absolutist form of monarchical government he is. His ideas are extreme for today’s democratic world however, he is seen as the founder of great liberal political thoughts such as the natural contract. Furthermore he gives great emphasis to the study of the individual in the first book of his work. Although, obviously monarchical, Hobbes also argues in favor of democracy and aristocracy: two less authoritarian forms of government. Hobbes has a historical reputation for validating absolute monarchy, and his work is often dismissed as dictatorial. But it must be remembered that, for Hobbes, sovereignty does not only reside in a king but also in sovereign congresses and sovereign democracies and ultimately the people enable any of these three forms of government to rule, according to what best suits the community.
Some people say that the definition of independence is a complex word and idea to try to define. In al truth independence is a perplexing word to try to define. This is because everybody has their own speculations of what independence is. Very infrequently are their two people that have the same perception of what the definition of independence is. What I perceive the definition of independence is the absolute freedom to do what you want, and to not be held back by any rules or laws of government or man, but by the rules and laws of nature and your own self concise. My view of independence may greatly differ form your beliefs on the definition but in this paper I will try to show exactly what my perspective on the definition of independence is by my experiences, my beliefs, my thoughts, and research on the subject at hand.
Globalization has effect the role of the state immensely; as the process of present’s challenges to state sovereignty and autonomy. In spite of borders becoming more ill-defined and fluid in as a result of the process of globalization (Weiss 2000, 2-3). The state will remain relevant and necessary because citizens need a place to cast their votes, taxes have to be paid to particular authorities, which can be held accountable for pub...
In order to answer the question concerning the formation of states, it is necessary to clarify what constitutes a state; the Oxford English Dictionary defines a state as ‘a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government’. There are a number of ways and processes in which to analyse what state formation is, why they have formed and the way in which this has occurred. State emergence can be traced back to the creation of territorial boundaries in medieval Europe, such as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and its transition to a modern state can be attributed to the introduction of gunpowder in war (Hague & Harrop, 2010: 64). The formations of states have also been influenced by the growth of bureaucracy, administration and organisations. There are different theories as to the reason why states form, a certain few of which can be divided into the categories of rationalist, culturalist and structuralist perspectives. In this essay, these perspectives shall enter the debate in trying to justify the reason for state formation and the way in which it occurs. The most prominent feature in the formation of states appears to be the prevention and engagement of a state in war and its following consequences.