The inevitable abuses of power, the immoderate power of one, required to be limited, the idea of the separation of powers is one of the closest lessons to be learned.
Political philosophy for what?
Civilization, the current degree of development, is something so common, so daily, that there seems to be no point in stopping to reflect on it. The origins of this civilization seem to be a process that has already been overlooked. The institutions of today's civilization seemed so strong, its armies so powerful, its hegemony after the Soviet collapse so unquestionable, that the very idea of thinking of a return to barbarism and the end of civilization seems absurdly impossible, while ignoring the germ. which led to the decline of past empires of unquestionable power. How was it that with the passage of time concepts -which could sound trite today- took shape such as «civil rights, public liberties and human rights or individual guarantees, civil society, sovereignty, anarchy, assembly, parliament. Etc.before the government and state, brutal and "all powerful"? Why were these formalized in modern capitalist society? Why were these concepts taken with some contempt by the leading bureaucracies in the self-proclaimed "socialist states"? Why does the entire capitalist world still fail to universally apply human rights? Anyone who wants to reflect on this topic for the future, forces us to look back, reviewing the long road of our social evolution that sometimes goes unnoticed.Why were these concepts held with some contempt by the leading bureaucracies in the self-proclaimed "socialist states"? Why does the entire capitalist world still fail to universally apply human rights? Anyone who wants to reflect on this issue for the future, forces us to look back, reviewing the long road of our social evolution that sometimes goes unnoticed.Why were these concepts viewed with some contempt by the leading bureaucracies in the self-proclaimed "socialist states"? Why does the entire capitalist world still fail to universally apply human rights? Anyone who wants to reflect on this issue for the future, forces us to look back, reviewing the long road of our social evolution that sometimes goes unnoticed.
It is valuable to know that discouragement should not reign, the expectation of society intervening for and not against, is not a negligible thing. Political philosophy, even, is useful to us, not only to discuss, what is the best and fairest form of government, more than that, it serves to rethink our political reality, building an always better life, not only in the abstract and cold. of this, but, in the daily facts, and to the step of the armies and in the end of their lances or the fire of their rifles, one of the philosophical postulates is behind. Political philosophy often constitutes the antecedent of political action and it is from this very action that it came from. It is the theoretical way in which social classes interpreted their practical life. Individual guarantees are a triumph of the individual before the State,they are the triumph of the classical postulates of the ideologues of the democratic and revolutionary emerging bourgeoisie, which is based on violence, of one class against another, - according to Marxism, or, in Weber, it would be legitimate violence ».
But these guarantees can be understood as the privilege that every human being has, for the simple fact of being a human being, who enjoys rights that, in theory, neither the most powerful state should or can violate in normal periods of peace. That is a triumph of civilization, that is one of the conquests of the revolutionary intelligence of the bourgeoisie, which I bring to future generations, those are the lessons that we must not forget. The history of political ideas is something that we have to constantly relive.
An important example is the evolution of the concepts of equality, freedom or justice. There are not a few authors, who throughout history have addressed these concepts, in their great essays, whether in defense of the monarchy or the oligarchy, the republic, the proposal of the dictatorship, of one man, or on behalf of class or democracy. Knowing the past, we understand the present better and we can always intervene in the future. Political philosophy is the art of constructing the present or justifying the past without ignoring the consequences in an "ideal society."
The path of humanity, towards civilization, was not an easy and short thing and once in it, in the meeting of human rights, it found rocks and the tortuous lessons of inhumanity. It is not a bad idea to prevent this journey from falling into oblivion, after all, that path traveled by savagery and barbarism towards civilization, is our historical identity as a human species.
Among all the lessons we can collect, one very valuable; history is not linear. The degree of civilization hitherto achieved does not exempt us from a future and possible zig-zag backsliding to barbarism, so also the development achieved so far is not representative of what we could achieve.
Vico, imagined men as »animals in the jungle of the earth, where they persecuted women, who lived in savagery, elusive and harsh conditions, who after having given birth and weaned their children, they abandoned to their fate forever, while they grew naked, wallowing in their excrement, without knowing the human voice »But now we focus on the rescue of some of the lessons of the great classics of political science, which they left reflected in their works The task of rediscovering your ideas is to explain the here and now.
"… he who studies things of now and old, easily knows that in all cities and in all towns the same desires and the same moods have existed and exist, so that by carefully examining the events of antiquity, any The republican government foresees what can happen, can apply the same remedies that the old ones used, and, if not in use, imagine the new ones ».
Contractualism, its tradition and controversy between Hobbes and Rousseau.
In Hobbes and Rosseau, the roots of the meaning and importance of contractualist theory can be found, only in a deep controversial sense between both characters. Discrepancies on the leading role of man as a social being. Which through different ways, that each one expresses, the societies came to the need to sign a pact, an abstraction that both call "The Contract", that abstraction we can only say that it materializes in the idea of the "State".
The "pact" only matters for Hobbes in the sense that it represents the path to defeat anarchy, from which it follows from the very behavior of the human being, which will always be dominated by his fears, passions and other spurious feelings. That pact will form the basis of a legal order that has as its end, Peace, understood then, as respect for property, in general, and life itself, as one of the inalienable assets of each man. At the head of the pact, as at the head of a monster is the figure of the KING, the sovereign who can do everything, but who always promises to keep his duties, guard the peace, care for the property and life of his citizens.
Hobbes makes an explanation and a justification of the monarchy, from a materialistic point of view, that is to say, he leaves aside the old theories on «The divine right of kings.
Moral science
For Hobbes before the appearance of different rites, interpretive of the divine word the Bible, Christianity, arise as the need to overcome the old and worn out argument of the "divine right" of kings. Which is a successive transmission of divine power to the Supreme Pontiff, and from this to the kings.
This would be equivalent to legitimizing the direct power of God to the local representatives of the political power. But in a climate of burning civil war between Catholics and Protestant religious. This rarefied climate makes the power of the monarch virtually inefficient, formal authority was gone, and the will of ambitious mercenaries or soldiers who abuse their power, since they have the power of arms on their side, made a chaos of that peaceful society. Although not consolidated, it maintains a climate of uncertainty that distresses the gentle and conservative professor of mathematics at the old Oxford University.
Which is seen in the need and duty to make propaganda in favor of the monarchy, but both sides did not know him as their ideologue. However, his argument is a historical proposition that will influence political thought, either to find new disciples or to encourage new controversies, controversies that even now encourage divergences on the interpretations of power. The central idea is that man creates laws and man himself violates them. The question of freedom will occupy a secondary place in the construction of the state. Analyzes the performance of human behavior, which -according to Hobbes- must be perfectly known to avoid great calamities, a new method, Hobbes -doctorate in Mathematics- which aspires to propose the bases of this new method.- As a moral science- the "nova methodus" will no longer be the "interpretation" but the "demonstration". The jurist's impetus is no longer to interpret already given rules, but to demonstrate them. A sample of political thought in general by Hobbes, is the subject on «The state of nature» –and he asks himself– that if it is of peace or war? For Hobbes, it consists of permanent war. Since "Man is the wolf of man", to avoid this madness - Hobbes says - that men give up their right to self-govern to subject themselves to a person or an assembly, but with the understanding that all men will do so.It is the theme of "The state of nature" - and he wonders - what if it is about peace or war? For Hobbes, it consists of permanent war. Since "Man is the wolf of man", to avoid this madness - Hobbes says - that men give up their right to self-govern to subject themselves to a person or an assembly, but with the understanding that all men will do so.It is the theme of "The state of nature" - and he wonders - what if it is about peace or war? For Hobbes, it consists of permanent war. Since "Man is the wolf of man", to avoid this madness - Hobbes says - that men give up their right to self-govern to subject themselves to a person or an assembly, but with the understanding that all men will do so.
Werewolf man
Hobbes starts from analyzing man himself, as if he were a kind of ideal model, a frame of reference to study the same State, and the same society. Where man is exposed separately in his primal needs, concerns, fears, feelings, his minimal and basic psychology, which is always waiting. In this study of the human being in particular, he extracts the lessons that will be used to analyze human society in general, in a correct analysis, based on merely "material" reasons, the justification of the "Sovereign Power" of a King, of an Autocrat, not now justified by way of divine legitimation, but by way of empiricism and conservative rationalism, but ultimately a rationalism that wants to rescue the monarchy and its authority, without entering the religious topic.Man and his behavior, physical and mental composition represent a complicated network of feelings, passions and anger, frustrations, fears, ambitions that encourage him to live in eternal competition, to live insecure and in a latent distrust, in a latent state of war.
"Man is the wolf of the same man" this phrase is inscribed in Latin as, "Hommo lupus et homme". Hobbes's analysis of man in particular is very insightful and falls within a pessimistic logic, coming from the life experience of the English mathematics teacher, which was quite stark in the face of the chaos of the undefined revolutionary power. Civil war is a painful lesson in irrationality on both sides of the dispute.
From its conception, that irrationality, that violence and social chaos, which in it are the terror of anarchy, are bearable. Man lives in a latent state of war. "Strong government is preferable to chaos and lawlessness" was Hobbes's conclusion.
Controversy of the contract against hobbes
But one of the most important polemicists against the idea of Hobbes is Rousseau, many of his ideas product of his experience and worldview concentrated in social contract, in summary in the Roussonean idea, as the spearhead of the controversy is his thesis that man is good by nature »–exposed directly against the departure of Hobbes- and Rousseau continues saying in The Social Contract, that all men by themselves are equal and free people.
"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." With this provocative phrase, he begins a series of ideas, where step by step he will expose his idea of ideal government. For Rousseau we could differentiate different forms of contract. One where "free and equal" men decide to live in society and another whereby they would grant provisional authority to the government.
Hobbes Versus Rousseau
The main difference between Hobbes and Rousseau is perhaps how the obligation to be subject to power is interpreted. Being "forced" to obey a sovereign, forcing man to be subject to power. Being forced to obey a sovereign, forcing man to be subject to an obligation that involves a certain type of personal choice. For Rousseau, citizens owe obedience to the law not because of the coercion suggested by Hobbes, but because they are convinced that following the dictates of the General Will is the right thing, the best choice. Not because a single individual imposes it but because the people have expressed their will. On the other hand, in his - Discourses on inequality - Rousseau condemns that Hobbes has imputed to the man of the natural state the idea of a warlike and not to civil man. The social "contract";He calls for a general agreement to establish a common power, "voluntarily subscribed by free and equal individuals."
This is the ideal - but Rosseau calls the contract between "poor and rich", which gave rise to the current state - as a contract started with deceit. Where he sentences that the rich managed to convince the poor to be bound by a contract in which the rich govern them, convincing them of the many dangers of disunity. "They all ran to meet their chains believing to find freedom." the starting point of his "Social Contract" says; "Man is born free and yet lives everywhere, in chains."
Man is free only when he obeys the law that he has given himself. In the state of nature man is not free because he obeys his instincts. In civil society, divided between rich and poor, oppressed and oppressors, man is not free because he obeys the laws that made men above him. The only way to make a man free is to obey the law, which he made. The state must not only protect the individual, but also has the mission to transform it. –These are ones The «social pact» consists of an agreement for the constitution of a common power, for Hobbes it is to transfer power to a third party, for Spinoza, it is to transfer it in general to all the contracting parties. But despite Hobbes being considered a theoretical bulwark of absolutism,but it also justifies and theorizes around the bases of the right to "rebellion", to which all people have a right after "The sovereign", when he breaks his pact, the subjects, they have no obligation to support him, and the sovereign who does not fulfill his responsibility, whether by inept, negligent or tyrant, must pay with death. It is surprising to many to know that in Hobbes, the conservative defender of the crown, his justifier par excellence. We could find at the same time theorist of the right to rebellion, perhaps this is the reason why H. Sabine comments that no one wanted to take Hobbes as his theorist, no monarchist side made him their own. As we also find in the theorist of the modern division of powers Montesquieu,to the theory theoretician who justifies the "racist" conservatives in his famous "Theory of Climates.
The end for which man considers it useful to renounce all his rights to the state of nature, is the preservation of life, a more valuable belonging and that in the state of nature, we could say; that without the "pact"; "Life is worth nothing" as it becomes insecure due to the lack of common power. The only right that man does not renounce is the right to life. and when the latter is threatened in the civil state, either by the ineptitude of the State or by its extreme cruelty, the pact is considered violated, the individual regains his free personality to defend himself as he sees fit.
The inevitable abuses of power, the immoderate power of one, required to be limited, the idea of the separation of powers is one of the closest lessons to be learned. Initially the proposal is to divide the power between the two organs. The Executive and the Legislative where the first should be subordinate to the second.
"The Iusnanturalist theory of the state is the not only rational theory of the State, but also the rational state" This theory of law, of the state called natural law, was the best of an era when the "divine right of the Kings" was the rule. I surpassed by far that era of clientelism between the prince and his officials, that was a paternalistic vision, of the King-father, the people-the children, alien to science, to public questioning, it was one of many dogmas of that era of dogmas. These.. Men later contributed to being the intellectual fuel of the changes to come. »… the state of nature reflects the individualistic vision-distinctive feature of bourgeois ethics, the contractualist theory-a State founded on the consensus of the individuals- who were part of it,It represents the tendency of a class that is moving towards political emancipation - in addition to economic and social ones - to put the state machinery under its control and preparing to become economically and ideologically dominant, creating the state in its image and likeness. the idea of a contract is the basis of a new clever legality to replace the old existing order, and the resulting is the consolidation of a Contractualism.and the resulting is the consolidation of a Contractualism.and the resulting is the consolidation of a Contractualism.
It can be seen in Rousseau that civil association is the greatest voluntary act that exists in society, where everyone is free, and absolutely no one is subjugated. Where everyone has given their freedom to everything, their natural right, to live in a society regulated by the principle of reason and where permanent authority is given to the government.
Perhaps in the state of nature, not all of them are violent beings, but the possibility of facing the terrible consequences of a concussion, in that state of nature, and this is how, according to, little by little, men signed the "pact" with the gregarious organization. This is a point that Locke develops in his Essay on Civil Government; This thinker is formally considered the father of liberalism, -although merit could be disputed between other authors. Locke shapes his thinking along with some guidelines from liberalism. It defends the power of the state to decree penalties, from capital punishment to lesser penalties against everything that violates individual property. Locke believes that the state of nature is one of peace, but,the laws of the state of nature can be violated at any time and then you live in a latent state of war, according to Locke in his "Two Essays on Civil Government" and that is why it is necessary to form a large contract signed by men that they want a more orderly social life, and that freedom and the right to life and property be guaranteed, among others. Natural rights, as they are facts that are reproduced in societies and the state, divine rights, while all religions reproduce them and rational rights.and freedom and the right to life and property are guaranteed, among others. Natural rights, as they are facts that are reproduced in societies and the state, divine rights, while all religions reproduce them and rational rights.and freedom and the right to life and property are guaranteed, among others. Natural rights, as they are facts that are reproduced in societies and the state, divine rights, while all religions reproduce them and rational rights.
Hobbes's political theses
Hobbes's book is very extensive, it is a justification that is generally called, materialistic, mechanistic, this in the sense that Hobbes was a man influenced by his time and his discouraged vision is cultivated and complemented by the great scientific advances of his time. His political proposal is that of the Monarchy, as an «autonomous sovereign! Like the head of a powerful body. The reign is comprised of certain principles (Life, Property and Peace) The subjects; made up of men from many different trades. They always seek to satisfy their needs. The Model of Hobbes and Rousseau, are opposite models, even even philosophically Hobbes is a materialist, a scientist, a mathematician who mechanically exports the philosophy of individuals to the state. While Rousseau,It is idealistic not only in a colloquial sense, but even philosophical, since it gives a very strong importance to the same religion so that the citizens do not break with the agreements that it exposed first. I will focus on delving a little deeper into the social contract, since its repercussions will affect the course of history to this day and will serve as the basis and ideological program of the modern state as we know it today.
Rousseau; The proposal
Now delve into Rosseau's text. Where the most important ideas will be extracted, and which from my private reading I believe make the touchstone in the controversy against the Hobbesian vision, these ideas will be taken up by the essayists, soldiers of the French Revolution, they will be some of the ideas they will use Both Jacobins and Girondins, both sides of the barricade in the years after the taking of the Bastille, and before the Thermidor, occupied Rousseau's writings and both recognized an ideological paternity to justify their political action in conflict. His ideas are summarized in the following: «… force does not make the right, and that it is not obliged to obey but the legitimate powers Since there is no man who has natural authority over his fellow man, and since force does not produce law any,only conventions remain as the basis of all legitimate authority among men Rousseau wants to convince his readers of the authority of the state, not by the methods of fear and coercion, without really being convinced of their usefulness, of the need to have a central authority, but how to convince man to renounce his natural rights and submit to a state?
"… the sovereign… would not respond to the commitments of these (the subjects), if he did not have the means to ensure their fidelity." «… such is the condition that, giving each citizen to the homeland (strength), guarantees him of all personal dependency; this condition is what forms the artifice and game of the political machine, and is the only one for which civil commitments are legitimate, which without it would be absurd, tyrannical and subject to the most enormous abuses] Rousseau, tries to expose the People in his group sometimes in different roles, that is, in this he sees the residence of political sovereignty, in this town he sees the citizen who votes and will participate in the assemblies, in this town the best legislator is, but also the town is his own subject of the law that the same people have made before themselves.«… what man loses through the social contract is his natural freedom and an unlimited right to everything he tries and can achieve; what he gains in himself is civil liberty and property to all that he owns. " «… we could add the acquisition of the civil state and moral freedom, which only makes man truly master of himself; because the impulse of the only appetite is slavery, and the obedience to the law that one has prescribed himself is freedom.and obedience to the law that one has prescribed is freedom.and obedience to the law that one has prescribed is freedom.
Rosseau's model goes beyond a moral obligation, it is a whole civil tradition that he proposes. This moral freedom is newer and more gratifying and is based on the voluntary acceptance of the Law. «… the general will alone can direct the forces of the state, according to the purposes of its institution, which are the common good,..» the general will is always upright and always tends to public utility… One always wants his good, but one does not always see it well; the people are never corrupted, but they are often deceived, and that is when they seem to want what is bad. "
The people are the legislator, the people are the general will. Liberty and obedience are summed up in his model of parliament. Where freedom and obedience are not in conflict, as Hobbes suggested irremediably. It is a position where man dictates the laws he is still free but in a better position than he was when he was in the state of Nature. The citizen makes the law, and then in his role as a subject he respects it. In this way it is as the people acquire a civic virtue.
Man renounced his natural freedom for his moral freedom. «The legislator is, from all points of view, an extraordinary man within the State. If he must be so because of his intelligence, he is no less so because of his position. «… he who commands men must not command laws, he who commands them or must command men; otherwise his laws, ministers of his passions, would often only perpetuate his injustices: the legislator could never prevent private interests from altering the sanctity of his work. » It somehow addresses the problems that arise while being at the baton of the state and proposes certain measures, for example one of the problems that most concern it is that of the loss or aging of the laws. »In perfect legislation the individual will must be void; the common will, proper to the government,it must be very subordinate; and, therefore, the general will must be the dominant one and constitute the sole rule of the others. ” Another problem that it takes on is the Abuse Of The Government And Its Inclination To Degenerate, «The moment the government usurps sovereignty, the social contract is broken; and the simple citizens who enter by law in their natural freedom have to obey not by obligation, but by violence. " The Death Of The Political Body. "… where the laws age, they can ensure that there is no legislative power and that the state is dead." He delves into the issue of the people and their strength in the organization and their power of decision, declares that: The Indestructible General Will. »While several men gathered consider themselves as one body, they have only one will,which refers to common conservation and general well-being. So all the springs of the State are simple and vigorous; its maxims are clear and luminous; there are no muddled, non-contradictory interests; the common good is evident everywhere… »
The Civil Religion and Conclusions
"..Our needs bring us closer as our passions divide us."
«… the process of society kills humanity in hearts,…»
«What answer can be given to these reasons, if we do not want to call religion to the aid of morality and intervene the will of God to unite society of the men?" "It is not about teaching me what justice is, but what interest I have in being fair."
It also addresses the role and importance of having a religious belief in the citizens of their ideal state. The Civil Religion; and writes the following: "At first men had no other kings than the gods, no other government than the theocratic." And later on, he connects that historical experience with the idea with his own; "… there is not and cannot be exclusive religion, all tolerant ones must be tolerated, provided that their dogmas do not oppose the duties of the citizen." Religions contrary to the state, to the general will must be avoided and hypocrites who affirm before God that they respect the state must be severely punished while in their atheism they make shameless acts against this state. But his most important proposal is the one that refers to the people's participation in the legislation,and the construction of its concept of General Will.
This idea of Civil Religion does not remain in constitutions like the Mexican one, but we can note its profound influence on constitutions as different as that of the United States of America and even the Bolivarian constitution of Hugo Chávez Frías, who continue to entrust themselves to a divinity above the state, of the nation and of all the powers that are and that are on the earth. » Rousseau is a classic thinker, his precepts were exposed at a time without comparison in history, in a country about to consolidate his own revolution, having written the correct text at the right moment immortalized him, his postulates surpassed the immaterial plane of Ideas and at gunpoint materialized in the French Revolution.Today they are hegemonic precepts in the organization of the modern state and Hobbes is surpassed by an idealist.
Bibliography
El Leviatán, Hobbes, Thomas, Editorial of the Fondo de Cultura Económica, México 1995.
«Without which no».
Machiavelli Nicholas, Discourses, Book 1, chap. XXXIX, p. 181. – Quoted in Bobbio, Theory in the forms of government.
Vico, JB Ciencia Nueva, Economic Culture Fund, Mexico. p 369
Society and state in modern society, Bobbio, Noberto.
Quoted in Bobbio, Norberto. Society and State in political philosophy.
ROUSSEAU, The Social Contract. Collection; The great thinkers of history. Ed. Sarpe.
