Spinoza’s Philosophy: Democracy as the Ideal State
Location of the Author
Spinoza is an author who belongs to the period of modern philosophy, namely the seventeenth-century rationalist stream. Regarding his political views, he could be included in the contractarian doctrines, which reached their roots and height from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with writers such as Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke. He championed democracy as a regulative idea of politics and criticized the absolutism of the monarchy of the time and the intrusion of religious power in civil matters.
Topic of the Text
Defense of the democratic state as a guarantor of liberty and harmony among men, as it is the closest to nature.
Ideas of the Text
- For a state to retain power and avoid sedition, it is necessary to ensure freedom of thought and conduct a kind of government that ensures respect for differences in harmony.
- This form of government is the best, as it resembles, more than any other political organization, human nature.
- In the democratic state, all agree to act according to common law, but this does not mean that all men think the same way.
- Since all men cannot think alike, it has been agreed that the force of law is as decided by the majority, but this decision can be changed if there is a better alternative.
- The less freedom of opinion is guaranteed, the farther from the natural state and the more violence is inflicted by the government.
Relationship Between Ideas
At the beginning of the text, the fundamental thesis Spinoza defends is introduced: the need for a government that guarantees freedom of thought and that, despite differences, safeguards the harmony between individuals. This will ensure power and the absence of seditions. Below, he outlines the premises he will use to defend his idea of government: First, it is clear that the best form of government will be the one closest to human nature. This premise will be supported by the following idea of the text, which states that in the democratic state, all agree to follow the common law because they cannot all think alike. We, therefore, agree to raise to the status of law what is decided by the majority, but it could be revoked if there is a better alternative. Finally, he concludes that the less freedom of expression there is, the farther it is from the natural state, and the more violence is exercised by power.
Explanation of the Ideas of the Text
In this text, we see reflected the central idea of B. Spinoza’s political thought. This author supports the rationalist thesis of democratic life as a regulative idea of what should be the social and political life of men.
Thus, the text is committed to the need to guarantee freedom of thought and a kind of government that protects and enables concord among men. The aim will be to retain power and prevent uprisings and insurrections in the absence of an inalienable right in humans.
For Spinoza, a government that respects the fundamental objective of human beings, which is freedom, is more consistent with human nature, as in a state of nature, all men have this right.
As mentioned earlier, Spinoza might fit within the contractarian tradition, which states that civil society is the result of a pact to guarantee the rights that human beings possess by nature. Spinoza characterizes the natural state as a situation in which man uses all his power to defend his appetites and desires and can be led more by his passions than by his reason (both natural powers). In such a state, there is no peace or security, and fear prevails; hence the need for a pact to safeguard security and freedom.
As shown in the text, civil society, as an alternative to the state of nature, should be governed by a kind of democratic government or state, as it is the closest to nature, thinks Spinoza. This state shall exercise sovereign power over individuals who cede some of the rights possessed by nature to ensure compliance with the agreements. Civil society, therefore, is seen as a lesser evil compared to the dangers of the natural state.
Thus, the text says that in the democratic state, all agree to act according to common laws decided by the majority (if not everyone can think the same way), although this agreement may be revoked if there were a better proposal.
Why a Democracy?
According to Spinoza, the sovereign power may be held by an individual, a group, or an entire society, thereby distinguishing three types of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. The latter is the most rational since it is also the freest. Freedom, according to the author, is to live according to the dictates of reason, aside from attachments and passions, and that can only be achieved in a democratic system. In fact, at the end of the text, the author appeals to the need to safeguard freedom of expression as a basis of harmony among men. Freedom of expression is the closest to human nature, and a state that restricts it will exercise power with violence.
As we see in this passage, there are two complementary and inalienable rights in Spinoza’s view: freedom of thought at the beginning and freedom of expression at the end of the text. According to the author, for there to be a state or civil society, the individual does not abandon the ability to act by choice but not his ability to reason. All, therefore, must respect the rules of the state and act in accordance with the law, but we can think, judge, and think differently and express it just as freely.
The end of the state is not, therefore, to dominate human beings through violence and fear but to contribute to their release, allowing the use of reason. This requires being free to think, judge, opine, and teach what you think, and this is only possible in a democratic state.
But the democracy Spinoza proposes is more participatory than direct, so he was also aware of the impossibility of his project. Democracy, therefore, is not intended either as a utopia or as feasible as a fact (which is itself made by the authors shown) but as a regulative idea of political life.
For Spinoza, it is not enough, then, with a democratic government but with the possibility of “living democratically.”