Worldwide,
the existence of states depend a number of factors, reasons and elements which
may be used in justification of state. Justification of state refers to the source of legitimate
authority for the state or government. Typically, such a justification explains why
the state should exist, and to some degree scopes the role of government and what a
legitimate state should or should not be able to do[1].
Many years ago in feudal Europe, justification of the state emerged from the
idea of divine right of kings and
the ideology came with guidelines and principles believed by monarchs that,
monarchs gain powers from God and it was the will of God to appoint leaders to
serve other human beings, then the state should only be an apparatus that puts
the monarch's will into practice. In this justification of state method, there
was a belief that, a king is a part of God and a person who was given divine
power and rights to act as God, likewise a king was considered as a connection
between Heaven and Earth. For a long occupancy of power by a king, he was
required to work in accordance to the needs of people and it was believed that
such powers were only to be rejected by God himself and not human beings.
In the period of the eighteenth century,
usually called the Enlightenment,
a new justification theory developed and that theory recognized the power of
the citizens in formation of state in what was referred as social contract. During
this time, democratic powers of citizens were used to elect leaders for a
purpose of serving citizens and being their representatives in many issues[2].
It was a contract indeed because the leaders were to work in regarding what the
citizens wanted and any failure of a leader to do as required by citizens resulted
into losing their position by being withdrawn peaceful or armed from the reign.
Social contracts based on a concept that, no person
should have absolute power, and that a legitimate state is one which meets the needs and wishes of
its citizens. These include security, peace, economic development and the
resolution of conflict. Also, the social contract requires that an individual
gives up some of his natural rights in order to maintain social order via the
rule of law. Eventually, the divine right of kings fell out of favor and this
idea ascended; it formed the basis for modern democracy.
Justification of a state may be due to political ideology, in many years ago,
some states formed by regarding political ideologies or modes of production.
Ideologies like conservatism, socialism, liberalism, libertarianism, fascism
and capitalism came with it’s own mode of defining a state connecting it to
that mode of production existed in a state. Anarchism explains that, society
fighting to create states it is the same as fighting to create other stateless
societies, and the communists believe that it is better to have free societies
who share each and everything and no barriers in life. During communalism, most
of the states adopted this mode of production were religiously named as
communal states because they were using that mode of production as the basis of
the economy in a state. And due to the existence of too many different modes of
productions, there was also a rival in many aspects include political issues,
economic and social development[3].
Until today, there is still many discrepancy in
modes of production or life across the world and this was a result of the modes
of production existed since before the coming of capitalism which is the most
spread mode of production used in many countries of the world. In today’s
perspective it looks like all other modes of production compacted to form one
mode of production with all elements of all other modes include communalism,
feudalism and dictatorship.
PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR EXISTANCE OF
STATES
Thomas Hobbes is a famous English philosopher who lived between 1588 -1679 and he came with a lot of ideas most of it
helpful to the society. Hobbes came with various ideas include political ideas,
the natural condition of mankind, and the most important ideas which relate to
our task the law of nature and social contract. In justification of state
according to Hobbes, there is a contract between citizens and leaders, citizens
elect leaders to be their servants and the citizen empowers those leaders to
act on their behalf. The leaders were to work in regarding the interests of
their employees (citizen) and the failure may amount to the termination of a
contract (social contract) between them. Hobbes also tried to compare a life
during the law of nature as guidance of human life against the period of social
contract where the agreement between governed and governors bound. As to his
knowledge, a life during law of nature was a free life where people were free
to live the way they want and no problem were to arose as living in social
contract period, his statement was the same as saying “survivor for the
fittest”, everyone was to live according to his knowledge and power and no
legal control of positive laws as the control now days[4].
On explaining social contracts against law of
nature, Hobbes highlighted that, in social contract period the leaders and
citizens were all under the control of law. Both leaders and citizens were to
abide the law and no one was allowed to live the life of breaking the law of
the state. On cementing his ideas, Hobbes failed to hide his feelings and
expressed clearly that to him the social contracts in state was more better
than in law of nature. Law of nature always considered as laws from God and no
one has rights to deny it but only to follow and protect it. Take an example of
a law of gravity which state that, “every object with mass attract each other,
hence an object thrown in air fall on earth”, this is pure example of law of
nature and no one can change it in any matter, the it is will remain the same
ever.
Plato in his philosophical ideas a state is like a man on larger
scale, to him the state is the perfect organism and he argued that harmony must
reign between individuals and the state. Further that harmony is obtained by
virtual (moral goodness), it means for there to be peace and harmony according
to plato, individuals forming the state must abide to the existing set of moral
goodness. Plato ideas suggest that there was some friction between the governed
and the rulers and his philosophical view point was used as an ideological
tool.
In his ideas, plato suggested that the philosophers are the proper people to be
leaders and he supported classes in society, he clearly showed that, some
people must be rulers and other must be ruled but with respect[5].
In Plato’s ideal state there are three
major classes, corresponding to the three parts of the soul. The guardians,
who are philosophers, govern the city; the auxiliaries are
soldiers who defend it; and the lowest class comprises the producers (farmers,
artisans, etc). The guardians and auxiliaries have the same education, which
begins with music and literature and ends with gymnastics. The arts are
censored for educational purposes: for example, any poetic writings which
attribute ignoble doings to the gods cannot be taught. Only poetry which
nourishes the budding virtues of the pupils can be part of the curriculum.
Similarly, musical modes which sound sorrowful, soft, or feminine, are banished
from the education of the guardians. This apparently leaves only the Dorian and
Phrygian modes, of which Socrates approves because they incite the listener to
courage, temperance, and harmonious living. Certain instruments, such as the
flute, are also forbidden from the ideal city-state, as are certain poetic
meters, since Socrates associates them with vice
John Locke on justification of state, the issue of justifying the State was to show how its
authority can be reconciled with the natural autonomy of the individual.
He uses the libertarian notion of the individual as well as the device of the
social contract to lay out his arguments. According to locke, state plays
big roles in human life and he gave many examples to support his arguments.
Locke stated that, the power of the State affects nearly every part of our
lives. It affects the quality of the water we drink (who gives the State
the right to put Fluoride in it?), the homes we live in (why can the State
determine the minimum height of my doors) and even the air we breathe (what
gives the State the power to impose taxes on the most polluting organisations
and individuals?).
All examples used by Locke tried to show that we
form states so as to be able to grant powers to individuals to work for the
sake of the state. Justifying the State is usually thought to mean showing that
there are universal obligations to obey the law. Since the duties of
natural law apply only when our preservation is not threatened, then our
obligations cease in cases where our preservation is directly threatened. This
has important implications if we consider a soldier who is being sent on a
mission where death is extremely likely. Locke believed that a soldier
who deserts from such a mission is justly sentenced to death. Locke is
therefore claiming not only that desertion laws are legitimate in the sense
that they can be blamelessly enforced but that they also imply a moral
obligation on the part of the soldier to give up his life for the common good.
According to locke, the authority given to
government must be for the purpose of securing people’s life and their
wellbeing, a government on implementing that, cannot justify killing,
enslaving, or plundering the citizens. It will be considered by citizens as
there is no government if itself a government do things not allowed to do on
affecting citizens and citizens may decide to remove such government from the
power.
COMPARISONS AND CONTRASTS IN PHILOSOPHICAL
JUSTIFICATION FOR EXISTANCE OF THE STATE
COMPARISON
Their minds (Thomas
Hobbes, John Locke and plato) based on political ideologies on how
governments should be formed, how government should exercise its functions free
and fairly and the connection between governments and citizens. Also these
philosophers tried to compare a law of nature or state of nature to social
contracts between leaders and citizens and its operation. Democracy is a main
topic in the minds of these philosophers because they both pointed free minds
of people in forming government and the separation of powers in the country or
state as plato stated there should be rulers and governed who are producers of
the state.
CONTRASTS
Thomas Hobbes believed a contract exists
between the king and the people but once the king becomes king, he cannot be
overthrown and obtains absolute power. John Locke government conditional and can be overthrown if it does
not represent the people. Hobbes maintained that, the people have all
democratic powers to elect leaders but their powers are limited especially
after a king being selected then there was no any right to overthrow him unlike
to John Locke who suggested that, a government should be conditional and
legally controlled and a right to overthrow a leader exist any time when
clearly proved that a leader do not exercise his duties properly against
citizens.
To Thomas Hobbes “a state of nature” was
brutal. But John Locke believed
that the state of nature was good. Hence if governments could not do
as much for people than they did for themselves in the state of nature,
government could be dismantled. John Locke supported that the state of nature
where human controlled themselves freely was good and human still have that
nature in themselves and the positive government must make people feel more
better than their life in the state of nature for the survivor of government.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Myneni, S.R., (2004), Jurisprudence (Legal Theory), (2nd edn), Publisher, S.P.
Gogia
Penner et al
(2002), Jurisprudence & Legal Theory, Comments & Materials, Butterworths
Babel’s, (2001), Law Dectionary of Legal Terms,Indian
Press (Pubs) P.Ltd Allahabad
ONLINE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_for_the_state
https://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/
https://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Platos_Just_State
%20(10).png)
%20(27).png)
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.