Political Power, State Formation, and Social Contract Theories
I. Political Power and the State
Power is the ability of an individual or social group to impose its will on others. It is determined by a relationship in which one element is controlled and determined by the other component of the relationship.
When power relations are predominantly social functioning, there is talk of political power. Political power is organized within the polis. Political power is the power exercised in the management, control, and distribution of the commons.
In most modern societies, the regulation of political power comes from the State. There is a state in any society in which there is some kind of political organization. In any society, there are agencies that hold power and whose function is to control, regulate, and manage the common property and the rights and obligations of citizens. The modern form of the state emerges in the sixteenth century.
From the work of Machiavelli, the state is a form of political organization characterized by permanent and unchallengeable power in a defined area. For Max Weber, what characterizes the state is the possession of a monopoly of force and violence within its territory. The State is an organization that has the following features:
- First, it has land. State power is confined to the territory that defines its borders.
- Second, it is sovereign. At the state level, there is no higher court to which the state must submit. This feature of states is discussed with the emergence of supra-state bodies that can reach, usurping some functions of nation-states.
- Third, it maintains order to protect members of society from external dangers. Domestically, the state must enforce the law, guaranteeing peace and security. Externally, it must protect citizens from raids, establish international relations with other countries, and meet international commitments arising from international agreements.
II. Early Forms of Political Organization
II.1. Athenian Democracy
In archaic Greek communities, different tribes were structured to meet a number of sibships, surely the fundamental hierarchical unit, which in turn are grouped into several sets of families that had a single common ancestor of mythical character. Articulated in this way, a hierarchical and pyramidal dependence in a given territory presides over both the organization of political decisions and the military defense of the community.
We are not dealing with a political theory until a social, political, and economic crisis enters in the second half of the eighth century BC, and especially in the seventh century BC. This is often called the pre-classical period because it precedes political theories.
In this society, the aristocracy was covered with special virtues. The concept of dike—justice—appeared vaguely characterized as the order given by the rules, by tradition. On the other hand, among the aristocratic ideals, we have the hero equipped with an arete—virtue—which included both the ability to express the best opinion and the ability to carry a higher material and spiritual life.
Pre-classical theory has evolved beyond the traditional situation. On the one hand, it intends to include in the universe of the dike the most disadvantaged sectors in the social scale. On the other hand, there is the conviction that the ‘measure’ is the ideal that should govern our actions, just as it is the ideal related to the knowledge of our own limits. This new ideal measure will allow a process of rationalization and moralization of behavior that takes on a constitutional expression in the Athenian system of Solon in 549 BC. This streamlined process will allow us to understand the universe as essentially rational, chaired by a common Logos. The political consequences will be decisive in the democratic period. The egalitarian force of justice will be back at the base of the democratic system.
Reforms. Successive reforms will be aimed in two directions: on the one hand, it is aware that democratization efforts necessarily limit the power of aristocratic sectors. It is not possible to eliminate the aristocracy as a class, but you can suppress the functions of the political bodies that represent them. The major policy issues are addressed at the meeting, where demos will have a greater presence. On the other hand, the constitutional reforms will politically organize the police and the bodies where decisions are political, administrative, and economic, allowing the demos to be incorporated into the tasks of government and politically empty aristocratic institutions of content.
In the 6th century BC, the Athenian system could be considered an Isonomía, or equality before the law, or an Isegoría, or equality of citizens before the Assembly. In the 5th century BC, the term Demokratia appears to describe the political system in Athens during the period of the Medical Wars.
II.2. Personal Forms of Political Authority
The form of political authority that is prevalent in ancient times is that of personal authority in the exercise of power. Legitimacy comes from various types of discourse. Among these forms, despotisms predominate, in which power is linked to the hero, the founder of a city, a clan, or a dynasty. The transfer of power in these cases is inherited, as in current monarchies.
With the demise of the Roman Empire in Europe, a system of personal power focused on the subordination of one individual to another appears, what is known as “serfdom.” The vassal swears allegiance to the Lord in exchange for a commitment from the latter to his defense.
The relationship of vassalage allowed the transfer of a portion of land by a lord to a member of his entourage, which thus provided the means of subsistence. The Lord does not need to maintain all his entourage but could use them if necessary.
The characteristic of these socio-economic relations was not the ownership of the property, but the right to use, the right of inheritance was transmitted along with the burdens and charges which it entailed. The priority, therefore, was to control the use of land and the working population.
At the end of the Middle Ages, two major political institutions existed: the State-Empire and the Church. Both the State and the Church developed elaborate systems to perform their administrative and governance functions that would subsequently lead to the formation of modern states.
II.3. Modern Civil Society and Social Contract Theories
A characteristic feature of modern society is the defense of property rights. It guarantees the existence of free and autonomous individuals able to establish social ties between them while respecting their individuality. As a result of this linkage between social and political autonomy and the economy, the individual takes precedence over the social community. Sociability is now based on the idea that society is the result of individuals forming social relationships governing the political, economic, and the use of force.
The thinkers of the time reflected on the source of power. Since the individual is free, the power they wield over each other must have its origin either in the violence that some individuals may exert over others or in the idea of a covenant or contract between free individuals. Power based on the constant use of violence does not guarantee stability. A series of standards that are binding only makes sense if those rules would be useful and beneficial to all, or at least for most. It was then found and legitimized a series of standards to ensure possession of what each does not belong, and their own safety. It postulates the existence of the State whose function is essentially to ensure compliance with the covenant.
The social contract theories distinguish between the covenant of partnership, by establishing civil society, and the pact of submission, by which the individual gives the State authority. There is a fundamental distinction to understand the social contract theory. This new distinction could oppose the civil state against the state of nature. What characterizes the state of nature is the radical freedom of the individual, it does not establish any form of coercion on the individual, it also guarantees possession and enjoyment of their property or their personal safety. Against the state of nature, marital status guarantees the possession of the goods through their recognition and legal expenses. Marital status is a state of law in which private individuals legally regulate their relationships and act collectively in compliance with joint standards.
I. Thomas Hobbes
His political theory is to ensure social order and avoid widespread conflict in the population in a state of war of all against all. This idea should not be taken literally as a civil war, but rather as a widespread social conflict that prevents the development of the qualities or the potential of human beings and their culture.
Thomas Hobbes is based on three premises:
- Human beings are equal in regard to intellectual or physical capabilities, which leads them to pursue the same goals.
- All human beings seek their own preservation and pleasure in the actions they take.
- The fact that each seeks their own preservation and to meet their own needs leads humans to widespread competition among individuals.
The way to avoid this conflict would be for everyone to be subjected to a political power so as to prevent the subjects from turning against each other.
What characterizes the state of war is its permanence in time and the fact that the individual is dependent for its security on its own strength and ingenuity.
The natural state of war is a consequence of the nature of man and of his passions. Force and fraud are the two virtues of war; in this state of affairs, justice has no meaning either. The general conflict in the state of war would prevent mankind from benefiting from the achievements of civilization, and only within a society and the establishment of a social body can peace and civilization be achieved.
The state of war is not a historical fact that has existed in history that preceded the creation of all societies, but it is a state that precedes society from a logical standpoint. If we disregard what characterizes society and the benefits it provides, it would lead to a situation prior to the State in which everyone would have to fend for himself and his chances of survival to ensure its conservation. What Hobbes might argue is that the state of war represents the condition in which one could find man if he ignores civilization and the social model based on the notion of a State to ensure compliance with a law that limits the abuse of power that could put one over the other. Hobbes would be opposed to the principle advocated by Callicles that there is a natural right of the stronger to impose his will on the rest of the people who do not have the strength to oppose them. All power must be concentrated in a State conceived as a ruthless power to prevent the chaos that would be established in a situation described as a state of war of all against all.
The foundation of this State must be in what Hobbes called the Laws of Nature, which are the laws enacted by the right use of reason.
Natural law is not based on any metaphysical or theological principle, but on a selfish principle of survival. The laws guarantee our survival better than the continuous struggle for existence. There would be a natural tendency in man to be ruled, and this would explain the ultimate source of power.
In Leviathan, Hobbes describes 19 natural laws.
These laws seek to ensure self-preservation and personal safety. The laws themselves cannot achieve this unless there is a power of a coercive nature that imposes and enforces compliance by threat and punishment and is backed by force.
From this conception of political power, it is inferred that citizens “shall transfer all his powers and strength to one man or one assembly of men that may reduce all their wills to a single will.” This takes place after an agreement between people. It would be to waive the right to self-government and authorize an assembly of people or one man to rule in my own name, provided that they renounce their right to govern themselves once.
The person on whom falls the responsibility of the government is the name of the sovereign, and the other people are the subjects. For Hobbes, the contract is between subjects, equal among themselves, and not between subjects and sovereign; the sovereign’s legitimacy comes from the contract between the subjects, although he is not part of it.
Sovereign power is absolute and cannot be granted conditionally. Subjects cannot change the form of government nor repudiate the order established after the contract. The sovereign cannot be blamed for their actions or punished by their subjects. When each perpetrator of the acts of his sovereign, the sovereign would punish another for one’s actions.
Sovereign power is absolute; there are no limits on their actions. The sovereign cannot ask any of his subjects to renounce their basic rights of survival or limb. Neither is a person forced to confess their crimes or to kill on command. The subjects are removed from their obligation to obey when the sovereign waives its sovereignty or when unable to exercise power and protect his subjects.
II. J. Locke
Locke agrees with Hobbes on the state of nature. “All men are naturally in this state and stay there until their own free will become members of a political society.” His idea of the state of nature is very different from Hobbes’. For Locke, there are essential differences between the state of nature and the state of war. “The state of nature is characterized by men living together according to reason, with no land in a common superior for resolving conflicts among them.”
The state of war arises when force is used outside the field of law.
The existence of the state of nature is based on the existence of a natural moral law that can be discovered through the use of reason. “The state of nature has a law that governs it, and the reason is that this law teaches all people who consult it are equal and independent and that no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or property.”
The existence of a natural state based on a natural moral law that acts in the consciousness of all men regardless of the state allows Locke to justify the existence of natural rights.
The emergence of marital or partnership is a need that is in human nature. For Locke, God created man free, but in the state of nature, he also gave a strong inclination to live in society. Locke lets us say that society is something in human nature. The first form of social grouping would be the family, while civil society would meet human needs. These human needs cannot be covered in the state of nature, and what characterizes it is the total independence of one another. For Locke, the satisfaction of certain human needs is possible only if men are endowed with a certain social organization, especially to preserve their freedom and natural rights.
Locke recognizes the need for a positive right to establish laws that are recognized and accepted by all. Political society arises “wherever a number of men in a state of nature come into society, or if a man is associated and incorporated into a political community established.” This law prevents any man from being missed in this state and subject to civil political power without their consent.
Acceptance of status means giving up their legislative and executive powers as used in the state of nature with the aim of ensuring their safety and freedom. “That being in a state of nature are grouped into society.” This situation requires the consent of individuals to submit to the will of the majority.
Locke recognizes the possibility that most behave tyrannically with the minority; it is always less than in the political system of absolute monarchy, which Locke considered inconsistent with civil society.
What compels a man to accept the power of the majority is the acceptance of the advantages of living in society.
Locke tacitly establishes two types of agreements by which government is formed and transferred power to the sovereign. By the first covenant, a man would become part of a political society and would be forced to accept decisions made by most members of the community; for the second covenant, community members themselves decide or are responsible for government or establish a monarchy or an oligarchy. The difference between the covenant in Hobbes and Locke is that, in the first case, the overthrow of the sovereign would mean the dissolution of political society. In the case of Locke, political society cannot be dissolved because it would have made a different pact and could only disappear by agreement of its members.
Locke believes that there are ways by modifying the internal dissolution of the legislature. Locke tells us that in the case where the assembly transfers power to the prince when he confuses the law with your personal will, or prevents the call and the meeting of the assembly, it can be seen that the legislature has changed the role for which he was appointed, and therefore must be dissolved. If those who hold the legislature abandoned or neglected his duties, the government is dissolved. The government is dissolved when the legislative power works against the interests of citizens or against the mandate they have received.
In cases where a government is dissolved, rebellion is justified. Locke’s political theory leaves open the possibility of a rebellion against power, provided that it leaves to defend the collective interests. The rebel is the government that ignores, disregards, or contradicts the interests of the community or acts against their rights.
Rousseau
Increased poverty and inequality among human beings could only be curbed by the creation of a covenant or contract that would lead to a fairer society.
Rousseau said, “the innate goodness of men.” Social life is what makes natural inequalities into social inequalities that make possible the unequal appropriation of wealth.
Responsible for this situation is civil society; it will be necessary to establish a concept of “civil society” in which all of its members could be reflected in a “general will,” understood as a body that is moralized over the individual will and the selfish interests of particular individuals. The political structure would be direct democracy and not a representative democracy.