Bausas, Eloisa Villadolid

GRSS 200 Philosophy and History of Social Sciences

Jose Alejandro S. Tenorio PhD.

Autodidactic for Political Theory and Political Philosophy

1. Q: Why does the exercise of coercive power, manifested in governments, need

to be grounded in philosophical justification?

Answer:
As theories of governments sprung forth throughout history, people have
always found the need to ground the exercise of coercive power, as seen in
governments, on philosophical justifications so that it can be more morally
defensible. Starting with Plato’s Republic, the concept of a few and specialized
people (the ‘guardians’) steering the mechanisms of the ideal government, was
the beginning semblance of the few exploiting the many. Although vested with
the necessary training and rationality to make all their actions beyond
questioning, the theory that their innate talent and tested competence
unequivocally qualified them to decide for the majority was a philosophical
approach to justify their elite position in the government. Furthermore, Plato
required the guardians to be philosophers who have the ability to determine the
ideal properties of what makes a ‘perfect social order’, the ‘pure form’ of reality,
or the ‘pure form of the good’. Lastly, Plato believed that this ideal society can
only be maintained if the mass would allow the few guardians to rule over them,
through the ‘creation of a myth or ‘falsehood’, so believable that it will be
accepted beyond reproach even by the guardians themselves.
For Aristotle, on the other hand, the philosophical justification of coercive
power was discussed in the normative platform of division of labour and
specialization. Aristotle believed Plato’s idealism as projected in the purpose of
the guardians was too abstract. Thus, he applied empirical observations of real
systems of government and arrived at the conclusion that specialization allowed
the maximum participation where everyone fully comprehends their roles and
duties in the holistic view of society. For it is true that even up to the present view
of societal organization, not everyone can lead because some are born to follow.
In Aristotle’s Politics, the exercise of coercive power was given light through his
obsession with classifying. He gave the classification of government according to
who wields power, namely, a monarch (in a monarchy); the few elites (in an
aristocracy); and the majority (in a democracy).
As for Polybius, the philosophical justification of the exercise of coercive
power, was explained in a different normative plane, that is, how to arrive at a
system that should successfully oppose powers belonging to one government
organ without hampering that organ’s functionality and fruition. He did this by
using Rome’s internal political stability, civil liberty and even its military capacity
as examples which he claimed as having no hierarchical command but an
equilibrium of counterpoised elements. By acknowledging that the best form of
government is a conglomeration or combination of Aristotle’s three forms of
government, Polybius fostered the belief that through a mixed form, no virtues of
the three individual forms of government would be sacrificed and the exercise of
coercive power is further justified because all organs can counterpoise each
 other and thus prevent any form of abuse which could threaten the liberty of the
citizens.

2. Q: How did John Locke’s political theory influence the political thought of the
West and consequently become the intellectual pillars of the modern theory of
political democracy?

A:
Although Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both subscribed to the ideas of
a political society formed around the concept of a covenant entered into by the
people, the thought of Locke became the springboard of Western political
thought because it became the fire that forged the spirit of democracy to what is
known in free countries of today as political democracy.
While Hobbes ‘peddled’ his social contract theory as the panacea to the
ever threatening chaos that the ‘state of nature’ could bring to civil society, Locke
proposed a different normative framework by concluding that the malaise brought
by a return to the ‘state of nature’ is nothing compared with the plague brought by
a political despotism. To Locke, the ‘state of nature’ was not completely without
the presence of laws. There were still the ‘laws of nature’ which humans were
more than familiar with since the beginning of time. This familiarity with the laws
of nature has been dictating human’s rationality to do good and avoid evil. So, if
there were laws in the ‘state of nature’, why would humans enter into any social
contract to subject themselves into an absolute power? The answer, according to
Locke, could be found in the desire of humans to avoid the inconveniences
brought by the ‘state of nature’ when every human interprets the laws as deemed
fit to interpret them, resulting into a multitude of interpretations and no clear
resolution of any conflict. But this did not mean that they enter into a contract to
establish an absolute authority which cannot be overthrown in the event that it
became a despot. On the contrary, Locke emphasized that a ruler who has
abandoned the mandate of the social contract should be treated by rational
humans as a wild and dangerous beast and thus be overthrown legitimately in
the interest of the people’s welfare.
This then became his resonating contribution to modern theories of
political democracy. People submit themselves as ‘signatories to a contract’
which in effect surrenders a portion of their rights in exchange for protection of
their property “which men have in their possessions as well as in their goods”, so
that they may enjoy the fruits of social organization in the interpretation of what
ought to be for the interest of the people’s welfare. However, the contract must
be seen in the light of establishing a government who will not rule with absolute
authority because this goes against the moral fiber of what a government should
do for the people. Thus, the government of, for, and by the people was
introduced to the West and to date, remains an effective machinery to safeguard
the blessings of liberty.