1

Chapter One Political Obligation: Meaning and Scope

It is often said that man is a social animal, it means, man is gregarious by nature and can hardly live alone, outside the community of its own fellowmen. The living together of men generates different kind of problems ranging from disputes between two people to dispute among groups of people. The extent of disputes also ranges variedly. Thus, the need to have some authority to regulate the human behavior in community life has been felt since time immemorial. But once human beings realized that they need to have some authority, i.e. when they developed political consciousness, they entered into a politically organized society. However, in due course of its existence the politically organized community developed numerous conflicts of different hues. One such conflict was related to individuals allegiance towards the political authority. This led to various questions as to: How to generate trust among their fellow beings to surrender their some of the rights to restore order in the society? What kind of relations should be there between the political authority and the people? What kind of authority should the people endeavor to establish? What should be the limits of the political power/authority? Why and how should they trust the authority that the authority will always aim at common interest rather than self-interest? How that authority should regulate the behavior of individuals with each other and with the authority of the State? Above all why the individual should or must obey the State? What should be the extent of obedience or political obligation of the individual towards the State? The above-mentioned questions led to various kinds of arrangement to regulate the human behavior in their day-to-day interaction. Subsequently, such authority came to be known as political authority which later came to be regarded as the State. With the passage of time State became omnipotent in human life. The stateor apparatus of governmentthus, appears to be everywhere, regulating the conditions of our lives from birth registration to death certification. Yet the nature of the State is hard to grasp. This may seem peculiar for something so pervasive in public and private life, but it is precisely this pervasiveness which makes it difficult to understand. There is nothing more central to political and social theory than the nature of the State, and nothing more contested also. The concept of State has been so contested that the political philosophers are speculating about the idea of a perfect State even today and nobody can claim to exist in a perfect State. So far as the conflict of this interpretation is concerned that will be discussed in the subsequent chapters. This chapter provides the meaning and scope of the term political obligation which concentrates on the peoples

2 obedience to that authority which they conceived to regulate their own behavior, or the State. When one talks about peoples obedience to the State in political science terminology it means peoples obligation towards the State. The term obligation here means the various responsibilities that the citizens of a State owe towards their political authority or the State. Therefore, it makes it obvious that the problem of political obligation means problems of obedience within the State. More precisely it addresses the perennial question: Why do men obey the State? Why should individuals obey the political authority? This also leads to the question as to when and under what circumstances should individuals register their disobedience? Political Obligation: Meaning The term obligation originates from a Latin word obligate which means the performance of duty. The term obligate implies something that binds men to an engagement of performing what is enjoined. If so, it acquires different connotations. Thus, in the realm of ethics it informs a man to fulfill his rational understanding. Similarly, in the field of jurisprudence, it requires a man to obey law by which he is tied to some performance. Since law regulates the social life of men, the principle of legal obligation takes the form of a bond between private persons tied to one another for the performance of some act as desired by the enforcement of law. However, in the realm of politics, it takes the form of a bond between individual as a citizen and the authority under which he lives to perform an act, or a number of acts, for the governing authority.1 When a man is a political animal, he is bound to live under the authority of the State, and then it becomes his obligation to obey its commands. Therefore, when the authorizing rule is a law, and the association a State, we call this Political Obligation.2 Therefore, the duty to obey the State is called Political Obligation.3 Hobbes also has explained in the same tone that in its paradigmatic form, political obligation is the duty incumbent on any person or set of persons legitimately subject to a legitimate political authority to obey the legitimate commands of that authority.4 Every individual is held by at least one particular State to be subject to such obligation, in many respects and usually for life.5 Therefore, the idea of political obligation or acceptance of the commands of the men in authority roles is integrally connected with the pattern of mans life in an organized whole. It is quite certain that there can be no life if there is no order; and since order impels obedience, we may also say that there can be no order if there is no acceptance of it.6 The
1 2

E. Barker, Principles of Social and Political Theory (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), p.184. Benn and Peters, Social Principles and the Democratic State (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1975), p.308. 3 Prof. M.V.Subba Rao & Dr. M. Srinivasa Sastry, Lectures on Political Science (Hyderabad: S. Gogia & Co., 2001), p.118. 4 Thomas Hobbes, De Cive The English Version, ed. Howard Warrender (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), prefece, p.32. As quoted in John Dunn, Political Obligation in David Held, (ed.) Political Theory Today (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1995), p.23. 5 Stateless persons, diplomats or officials of international agencies such as the United Nations, at least at the time, hold somewhat different schedules of entitlements, immunities and responsibilities. But there is no part of the world today in which a human being can confidently expect to escape from the presumption of political subordination. 6 For example people cannot play the game of cricket without obeying the rulings of an umpire, so they cannot live without accepting the commands of the persons charged with the job of maintaining peace and

3 state of nature may subsist, for some purposes, between the jurisdictions of particular modern States; but nowhere, not even in the unappropriated polar territories or the far recesses of the great common of the oceans,7 is there habitable space on earth which lies simply beyond the jurisdiction of State power. Virtually everyone in the modern world accordingly claimed as subject to political obligation. The term political obligation, therefore, is intended to include:8 The obligation of the subject towards the Sovereign; The obligation of the citizen towards the State; and The obligation of the individuals to each other as enforced by a political superior.9 Thus, what emerges from the above explanations is that political obligation involves three aspects: (i) the identifiable authority to whom political obligation involves is rendered; (ii) the extent of political obligation; and (iii) the basis of political obligation. The first question is related to the origins of political authority with which political obligation corresponds. If a person has an obligation to do or abstain from performing an action, there must be somebody who possesses authority over the person with respect to his action. Characteristically, political authority is taken to mean the State or the government and its representatives. However, a persons political obligation is linked to citizenship of a State, which means a foreigner will have legal obligation and protection but no political rights. The second question entails that the State has the sole right to make and enforce laws and demand minimum political obligation. It further implies obeying all the laws, as one cannot be selective in this aspect. Besides obligation to obedience, a person also has an obligation of civility namely to support and sustain the basic institutions of the State by participation, e.g. voting, jury service and military duty. In some countries voting and military service are compulsory. The third question deals with the basis of political obligation as to on what basis the individual is asked to render their obligation towards the State? As for example force could be one of the bases of political obligation, consent of the ruled (people) could be another basis of political obligation. Utility of the State yet could be another basis of political obligation. Since the sixteenth century the issue of political obligation has become central to political theory. Prior to that, a persons political obligation was explained as something that is inherited or as the will of God. However, modern political theory differs in its rejection of the certainty of political authority and by accepting that all citizens voluntarily
order in the society. 7 Rights to use the ocean are defined legally today, in the last instance, by agreement between States; and opportunities to do so are secured principally in practice by the capacities (and inclinations) for enforcement of the naval, air and land forces of the great world powers. Consider, for example, the commercial practices of the international drug trade or the ghastly vicissitudes of maritime refugees from Vietnam. Japan, to take a prominent example, may own a remarkably large proportion of the world economy; but it lacks the capacity to protect physical access to the great bulk of the raw materials used by its own domestic industry. 8 T.H. Green, Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation (Great Books of Western Philosophers), p.29 9 The main function here is to consider the moral function or object served by law, or by the system of rights and obligations which the State enforces, and in so doing to discover the true ground or justification for obedience to law.

4 assume what they consider to be valid obligations. There are two reasons for incurring such obligations: first is the self-interest which means that the State is the necessary means to provide few essential services like physical safety, security of property or commodious living. Second is the realization that certain basic moral duties like securing justice or maximizing happiness may not be possible without political authority. Principles of Political Obligation The meaning of the term political obligation as explained above reveals that there could be no life, if there is no order. Similarly, there can be no order if the people do not obey the State. Therefore, the principle of political obligation is based on the maxim of common prudence. People obey or disobey the authority of the State depending upon the circumstances. They scrutinize the actions of their rulers and resent in the event of an invasion on their liberties. As Benn and Peters have explained, Of course, there are plenty of good reasons for accepting authority in general (though they may not always apply in particular). We are often in situations where it is more important to accept an umpires judgment than to insist on our own.An army will usually do better even with bad generals than with no generals at all. We accept authority because most social enterprises would be hopeless without it.10 Political Obligation and Political Authority: The Scope of Political Obligation Political obligation is correlative with political authority. Thus, if I have an obligation to do or to refrain from doing some action x, there must be someone else (or somebody) who has the right to require me to do or not to do x and consequently possesses authority over me in respect of x. Typically, the political authority is taken to be the State, or the government, or its representatives. However, the political obligations of an individual are not owed to any or to all States, only to the State of which that individual is a member (though the same individual may have legal obligations as an alien in another State). The fact that the political obligations of an individual are particularized in this way has been thought to pose difficulties for any attempt to derive political obligations from higher general moral principles, such as general utility or justice. For it is far from obvious that be it general utility or justice, it must invariably best be served by adherence to the commands of ones own state. Hence the attractiveness, despite other disadvantages, of contract theories of political obligation which argue that it is precisely because the individuals promised or consented to obey the commands of their State that they are obligated to it rather than to any other. In so far as the State is thought to enjoy political authority over its members, this is usually taken to imply that it possesses the sole right to pass laws and to monopolize the use of coercion in enforcing them. Hence the minimum content of my political obligation is not simply to obey this or that law as I happen to choose but to obey the law. In addition to obligations of obedience it is often held that we have obligations of civilityto support and sustain the main political institutions of the State by participation therein, e.g. voting, jury service, military duty, payment of taxes. Broadly speaking, these duties are regarded as part

10

Benn and Peters, Social Principles and the Democratic State (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1975), p.329.

5 of the individuals political obligation which is necessary for the maintenance of political institutions.11 Justification for Political Obligation States claim to differ from organized mafias that are capable of enforcing their rules within a territory. States but not mafias are said to have the right to coerce the residents of their territory into obedience. This right is believed to be correlative to the subjects being morally required to follow the official directives or the commands of the authority. This moral requirement is defeasible but general: it holds with regard to most directives, most people, on most occasions. This is the claim of legal or political obligation. It needs to be justified. Is a justification of it possible? Anarchists and classical Marxists answer the question in the negative. Liberals, traditionally, defend a positive answer for a subclass of States (constitutionally limited democracies). However, in the last couple of decades, an increasing number of liberal philosophers came to take a skeptical view on the possibility of justifying political obligation. During the course of the book the following will be examined: the directions in which justification was traditionally sought; the skeptical arguments against the available strategies; and the more recent attempts at meeting those arguments. Political Obligation: A Moral Obligation or A Moral Duty An obligation is a requirement or duty to act in a particular way. H.L.A. Hart (1961) distinguishes between being obliged to do something, which implies an element of coercion, and having an obligation to do something, which suggests only a moral duty. Though a cashier in a bank may feel obliged to hand over money to a gunman, he is under no obligation, in the second sense, to do so. This can be seen in the distinction between legal and moral obligations. Legal obligations, such as the requirements to pay taxes and observe other laws, are enforceable through the courts and backed up by a system of penalties. Such obligations may be upheld on grounds of simple prudence; whether laws are right or wrong they are obeyed out of fear of punishment. Moral obligations are fulfilled not because it is sensible to do so but because such conduct is thought to be rightful or morally correct.12 As for example, to give a promise to be under a moral obligation to carry it out, regardless of the consequences which breaking the promise would entail. Philosophers in the liberal tradition argue that ones political obligations are significantly limited in a number of ways. In the first place, they are merely one kind of moral obligation among othersalong with, for example, familial, professional and religious obligations. Moreover, moral obligations in general must be distinguished from moral duty that is to say from what, all things considered, one ought to do. So, if I ought to do x, then x is my morally required action. But, if x is an obligation upon me then it may be overridden, either by more exigent obligations, or by other higher moral considerations (for ex. what Mahatma Gandhi advocated during Civil Disobedience).13 Consequently, liberal
11 12

The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought (1986), p.379. Andrew Heywood, Political Theory: An Introduction (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), p.197. 13 The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought (1986), p.379.

6 theories of political obligation are usually not offered as final answers concerning our moral duties in regard to the State. On the other hand, some critics of liberalism argue that conformity to ones political obligations constitutes ones highest moral duty. Kinds of Political Obligations 1. Unconditional Obligation: When individuals have no right to question and resist the political authority under any circumstances the kind of political obligation that is incumbent upon the citizens is termed as unconditional political obligation. As long as it is generally believed that political authority is an immutable fact, natural or divine, the question of whether we really have political obligations or not cannot even be raised. Reflective defences of unconditional obligation appear only when circumstances begin to change and the source of the States claims to authority come to be questioned. Thus, in the political turmoil accompanying the religious Reformation in the sixteenth century, Luther responded to those who claimed the right of individuals to follow their conscience in all things, including their political duties, simply by reiterating St. Pauls severe injunction passively to obey the powers-that-be. A century later Filmer presented kingly power as a kind of paternal authority, thus invoking the traditional reverence for the natural hierarchy of the family in support of the absolutist pretensions for the natural hierarchy of the family in support of the absolutist pretensions of the Stuart monarchy. Neither form of argument is of course likely to impress those who lack a predisposition to piety; consequently more modern advocates of unconditional obedience have tended to follow Hume in defending submission to the State on the grounds that the advantages of virtually any kind must almost invariably outweigh the disadvantages of disturbing it. 2. Conditional Obligation: When individuals have right to resist the political authority under certain given circumstances the kind of political obligation that is incumbent upon the citizens is termed as conditional political obligation. Utilitarians with a less jaundiced view than Humes of the likely consequences of political innovation usually advocate some form of conditional political authority. Historically, however, absolutist claims of the kind advanced by Luther and Filmer were opposed largely by thinkers in the contractarian tradition, a style of political thinking first hinted at by Plato in the Crito, systematically developed form the sixteenth century by thinkers such as Buchanan, Hooker, Althusius, Grotius and Milton, and crowned in the seventeenth century by the masterpieces of Hobbes and Locke. Development of the concept of Political Obligation The development of the concept of political obligation is rooted into the history of Western political thought and Indian political thought. Therefore, if one wants to comprehend the development of the concept of political obligation one needs to discover the ways and explanations through which different political philosophers have tried to address the problems of obedience in their thought about the State.

7 Plato has enunciated certain principles in his ideal State which is there in his masterpiece Republic and has tried to ensure minimum rules of obedience to address the problems of obedience. Plato to achieve ideal democracy in his ideal State has enunciated two instruments: first is the positive method of education and the second is the negative method of communism of wives and properties for the rulers and auxiliaries i.e. the guardian class. Through the first, which he makes the whole purpose of State a pedagogic whereas through the second he converts, the whole State into a family or family coincides with the State. Plato thus, through his positive method of education tries to create a society based on reason and consequently there exists the principle of non-interference by one class into the affairs of the other classes. Every one within the State follows the principles of functional specialization and thus in the Platos scheme of things the rules of obedience does not arises. Aristotle, who was the disciple of Plato, tried to turn the Platos political thought upside down. Though he started with an opposite premise by initiating a scathing attack on different principles of Plato, however, at his conclusion he turned out to be one of the greatest Platonists. He too like Plato laid increased emphasis on pedagogic role of the State towards making the citizens of the State a virtuous one. Consequently, in both the cases the whole edifice of the State seems to be present on ethical principles, which would ultimately ensure minimum rules of obedience in the State. According to Epicureans, the end of all human actions is Happiness. The latter according to him is to be interpreted negatively as it consists in the avoidance of all pain, worry and anxiety. Epicureanism holds that the individual is self-sufficient. He does not need the assistance of the State or of any other association in search of happiness. Rather, he should keep aloof from all associations e.g. family, the State etc. as they are hurdles in the way of happiness. They regard man as essentially selfish and they seek by nature, their own pleasure in preference to others. Some times there is a clash of interests. The State is necessitated only in order to resolve such a clash. According to Epicureans, the State originates in a contract or tacit agreement among individuals neither to inflict nor to suffer harm. The individuals have a working compromise to the effect that they shall respect the rights of others, provided the others also do the same. Justice would be the conformity with the terms of this contract and injustice the violation of it. A wise man considers it to be expedient to be just, instead of being unjust, as law and government exist for the sake of mutual security and to punish injustice. Hence, for Epicureans the government is based on expedience rather than morality. Though the Epicureans show a general sense of indifference to political institutions, yet they state that Monarchy is the best form of government as it is the strongest and therefore the securest of governments. The Epicureans are deadly against other-worldliness. They are forerunners of not only all social contract thinkers but also utilitarianism. It was Hobbes who in the sixteenth century revived the doctrine of the origin of the State on the basis of a contract. From Hobbes this concept passes on to Locke and then to Rousseau. They provide the basis for the utilitarian philosophy of the nineteenth century. The utilitarian learn from the Epicureans that the end of all human action is happiness. The individuals obey the State so long as the latter ensures such happiness.

8 Stoics drew their main ideas form Cynics but gave it a different and positive connotation. According to them a Law of Nature that is identical with Reason is regulating the Universe. This Universe is a rational system; it is a cosmos, not chaos. The individual should lead his life according to the Law of Nature or reason. The latter tells him that the highest end of life is Happiness. But the stoic concept of happiness is very different from the Epicurean one. For the Stoic happiness consisted in intellectual and spiritual pursuit, not in physical indulgences. The Law of Nature manifests itself in social conventions and law. The individuals should conform themselves to the established practices. The Stoic position in this respect is just the opposite of Cynicism. But they advise wise men to keep aloof from social life as far as possible. They deny the Platonic claim that good life is only possible in the State. To them, the good man is quite distinct from the good citizen. His personal life is quite distinct from his public life. The Stoics bring about a complete separation between Ethics and politics. According to the Law of Nature all human beings are equal despite the differences in languages, nationalities and races. All can lead universally one kind of life i.e. a life according to Reason. The civil laws of various States cannot separate them, rather they should conform themselves to the Law of Nature. The Stoics, therefore, drew the conclusion that men should stop living as citizens of various States, under different conceptions of justice and law. Rather they should live as citizens of one World under one Law of Nature. It is for this that the Stoics propounded their concepts of universal brotherhood and cosmopolitanism. As members of one great family, all men are brothers and equals and have equal rights. Polybius analyzed philosophically the constitution of Rome and declared that it was of mixed form and therefore better than a constitution of a pure type, because it embodied a system of checks and balances among the different organs. He also discovered that the secret of the stability of the Roman constitution lay in the principle of mixed constitution, which implied the incorporation in the constitution of the best elements of all the three pure forms of government. The three elements will keep one another in check. He emphasis the natural tendency of each of the three basic powers of government and is to check and balance the two others, so that none of the three is absolute, but the purpose of one can be counter-worked and thwarted by the others and any aggressive impulse is sure to be checked. He, thus, borrowed the Aristotelian classification of the governments/constitutions and improvised upon the same. According to him, in Roman constitution is to be found three organs, embodying respectively the principles of Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy. The Consuls represented the Monarchical principle, the senate the aristocratic one, and the popular assemblies the democracy. Each of these organs watched and controlled the other two elements. The powers of government were about equally divided among these three. Such a system of checks and balances was suitable to all societies and adequate to all emergencies. It was impossible to find a better political system than this. But Polybius is shrewd enough to warn us that no political system can in itself guarantee the growth and vitality of the State, and that ultimately the quality of the people, particularly its leaders and officials, will determine the issues of strength and survival. If the moral standard of the person at the helm of affairs is low, even this system might prove a failure. He had a great

9 sense of appreciation for the moral integrity of the Roman conquerors that made the working of the system efficient. Consequently, like Plato and Aristotle, he too ends up making the ethical principles the basis of the success of political process or the system, thus accepting the minimum rules of obedience theory. According to Cicero men become fellow-citizens of the world-state due to their common partnership in one Universal law. As the Roman Empire at that time was far flung, it needed some common bond of unity. That bond came in the shape of common partnership in the Roman law. Thus, due to equality of all men arising out of common partnership in one uniform Law of Nature, Cicero conceived a universal society coextensive with humanity and transcending the differences of particular States. Men, however, could be artificially divided from one another by the differences of particular States but by nature they were still members of universal commonwealth. They owe allegiance to their respective States, but such allegiance is only conditional, not absolute. They obey the law of their State only so long as they (the laws) conform to law of nature. If those laws do not conform to the latter, then though they may be compelled by the superior force to obey them, they are under no moral obligation to do so. If they conform to the law of nature then the citizens ought to obey them, but only because of this conformity, not because they are the laws of their State. All the important ideas of St. Augustine center round his doctrine of two cities: the Earthly City and the City of God. We live in a world of dual character. Due to the bipartite division of human nature into Body and Soul, consisting of the Earthly Commonwealth and a Heavenly Commonwealth. These two cities exist side by side and frequently intermingle and overlap. Sometimes they clash but ultimately victory will crown the City of God. The earthly city has its own laws; men are duty-bound to obey them but not when they interfere in the sphere of religion or morality. In that sphere, the Church as the representative of the City of God is supreme and is responsible to God. Augustine actually subordinates the State to the higher authority of God. The obedience to its laws and respect for its authority can be justified only so long as they do not go against the duty to God. As the representative of God on earth is the Church, he subordinates the State to it. He propagates obedience to the State laws even after subordinating the State to the church. But such obedience is not absolute. The individuals need the security and order, which it provides in order to be free from disturbance and molestation in the performance of their religious duties. They must, therefore, respect the laws by which this security is maintained and render obedience to the power by which the laws are enforced. Thus, according to Augustine the State should function as the secular arm of the Church. But he would draw a clear line of demarcation between the secular and the spiritual spheres. He would not allow the State any authority in any spiritual matters. And a citizen should render obedience to the laws of the State only within the limits of the secular affairs. If the State seeks to interfere in spiritual matters or to enforce laws of religion, which is the proper sphere of the church, the citizens should withdraw obedience from it. Hence, we find that Augustine makes the church supreme in its sphere and subordinates the State to the former in secular matters even. Thomas Aquinas distinguishes four Kinds of Laws: Eternal Law; Natural; Law; Divine Law; and Human Law. According to Aquinas, Eternal law is Divine reason

10 operative at the cosmic level. It is the plan according to which God has created the Universe and sustains it. In its entirety it exists in the minds of God alone. Since mans reason is finite and limitedhe cannot comprehend the eternal lawas in the mind of God. Natural Law according to Aquinas is the divine reason as manifested in the world. It is the reflection of the Eternal Law in the created Universe. It is written in the heart of man and sub-human world of animals, plants and inert matter. Its manifestation in the two worlds differ greatly i.e. Man, Animal. It is present in man in a more excellent way. Animals and plants conform to the reason of God in an unconscious and mechanical way. Divine Law according to Aquinas consists of the commands of God communicated to man by revelation. It is not a discovery of human reason as Natural Law is. For example it was reveled to the Jews on Sinai, to the Christians through Christ, to the Mohammadans through Prophet Mohammad and to the Hindus through Vedas. It determines the spiritual side of life and not so much the secular. Unlike Natural Law, it may vary from community to community in content and from time to time. He who has the care of the community, i.e. by the Prince, promulgates human Law according to Aquinas. However, Prince too works under certain limitations. Human Law must not contain anything contrary to Nature. Human Laws are ordinances of reason. Human Law must not be inconsistent with Natural Law. Finally, Aquinas concludes that if a particular law made by the Prince contravenes the dictates of reason; Citizens are not bound to obey it. Hence, the laws of the State shall conform to the Natural Law and individuals obedience towards the State is in reality obedience towards the laws of the State. Aquinas in his political thought has tried to balance the authority of the church with the authority of the State to resolve the conflict between Church and the State. According to Marsilio of Padua State comes into existence for the satisfaction of the diverse needs of man. It is a natural growth and rests on the principle of reciprocity of services. It involves co-operation between different groups or classes for the achievement of common ends, and is an organic whole. It is a perfect and self-sufficing community having for its end the promotion of good life. The various classes or groups into which society becomes organized e.g. farmers, artisans, soldiers, officials, traders, capitalists and priests contribute to this end through their specialized activities. So long as each part performs its own specific functions, the state maintains its health, the other name for which is peace or tranquilities. It is one of the most important functions of government to preserve this peace or tranquilities by maintaining perfect cooperation between the various parts of the state. He suggests that religion arose to keep perverse and recalcitrant men under control by placing before them the terror of hell. Priest supplements the work of Police and Judge by the fear of hell. Priests help us to achieve good life in the next world. As a class among other social classes priests can claim no privileged status; it must be subordinate to the civil authorities like the rest. Religion is a social phenomenon; it uses material agencies and produces social consequences. No other medieval thinker before Marsilio asserted the theoretical superiority of the state over the Church in such clear and unmistakable terminology and denied to the Church or clergy any coercive authority temporal or Spiritual. However, he makes the King the servant of the people and gives the latter the right to correct and punish him for his misdeeds. His legislator and pars principans must not be identified with the modern legislative and executive organs of the State. His legislator is more the source of the authority of the laws themselves, which may be made

11 by the King acting as the agent of the legislator or by a commission set up for the purpose. The King is the servant of the people and has to depend upon them as the source of his authority. He gives the people the right to correct and punish King for his misdeeds. Machiavelli, who is described as the child of his times, and regarded as the father of modern political theory, laid the foundations of modern political thought. He reveals himself as a practical statesman writing on the mechanism of government. He enquired about the causes of the sad plight of Italy and found disunion, disorder, defenselessness and devastation prevailing and thus, suggested remedy that Italy needed a strong and unscrupulous Prince or Tyrant, which he considered as a temporary necessity. Like a practical realist he suggested that means is indifferent so long as end is noble, i.e. end justifies the means. State is an end in itself, according to Machiavelli, thus, the restraints of natural law can have no value for him apart from the great end of the salvation of the country. He takes men as they are not as they ought to be. According to him men are born bad; there are no inherent goodness or virtue in them, they are ungrateful, fickle, deceitful, cowardly and avaricious, as mere animals driven by the motives of fear, lust for power, vanity, and scheming self-interests. Human beings find themselves in a state of perpetual strife and competitionresult is anarchy. Therefore, vulgar masses are interested in security and agree to the restraints imposed upon them by law. The origin of society, thus, for Machiavelli, is a matter of chance, arising as it does from the need for security and defence. Government arises because of weakness and inefficiency of the individual who is unable to protect himself against the other; therefore, a ruler must aim at providing security and should rely on egoistic or selfish rather than moral or altruistic methods. From the Universal egoism of man it follows that he has no social qualities as such; the qualities that pass for social virtues are nothing but expressions of self-interests in disguise. Thus, he concludes that the great game of politics cannot be played in accordance with moral principles. If men are deprived; if they are more prone to evil that to good; if no one does good unless obliged to do so; it becomes not only idle but also foolish for the Prince to rely on the moral and social virtues of the people. A wise statesman would be feared than being loved. Force breeds, fear; and fear is more disciplinary than love. It is only through force and repression that evil tendencies inherent in man can be kept under check and control. Thus obedience must be rendered to one ruler, or the Prince. Prince himself should resort to such practices that no one should dare disobey the commands of the Prince. Force, thus, becomes the basis of unconditional obedience in the thought of Machiavelli. Thomas Hobbes, who was a tutor to Charles II of England, sought to justify the absolute power of the sovereign in his famous work Leviathan. He condemned the Civil War of 1642 as he saw in it the forces of disintegration. Hobbes sought to establish the absolute sovereignty of the State as an essential condition of social solidarity. To Hobbes the law of nature is not a pervasive principle of the universe expressing the rational constitution of a divine mind. It is only a name for the means which the calculating human intelligence finds efficacious to achieve its ends of preservation and contentment. The laws of nature discovered by reason which are to usher in civil society are descriptive in nature and not at all regulative or obligatory. They merely lay down the way in which men are expected to behave after civil society has been formed; they become obligatory and acquire some binding force only after a sovereign authority has been established. Hobbes, though

12 made consent, the basis of the political authority, but obedience of individuals towards the State was unconditional and absolute. John Locke, an ardent advocate of constitutional monarchy, sought to justify the Glorious Revolution of 1688. In his Two Treatises of Government, Locke argued that if the monarch ever behaved in a despotic manner, the people had the right to remove him from authority. Brought up in the tradition of British conservatism, Locke was not the sworn enemy of monarchy, but he sought to establish it in the consent of the people. He, thus, made the individuals obedience to the authority of the State conditional. Jean Jacques Rousseau was a brilliant writer whose ideas not only inspired poets and men of letters but also induced the revolutionary upsurge that shook the French polity to its foundations in 1789. He is regarded as the source of inspiration of the great French Revolution. His oft-quoted obedience to the laws that we prescribe to ourselves is freedom speaks volume about the way he tried to address the problems of obedience in the State. Rousseaus General Will, which is his State, is the Leviathan of Hobbes with its head chopped-off. Rousseau, like other social contractualists, has made the consent of the people, the basis of political authority but like Hobbes he too demanded the complete and unconditional obedience to the authority of the State but on moral grounds. T.H. Green plans were: to state in outline what he considered the true functions of law to be, this being at the same time the true ground of our moral duty to obey the law; and throughout he distinguished moral duty from obligation; to examine the chief doctrines of political obligation that have been current in modern Europe, and by criticizing them to bring out more clearly the main points of a truer doctrines; to consider in detail the chief rights and obligations enforced in civilized States, inquiring what is their justification, and what is the ground for respecting them on the principle stated.14 The only political thinkers who are prepared to reject political obligation out of hand are philosophical anarchists such as Robert Paul Wolff, who insists upon absolute respect for individual autonomy. Others, however, have been more interested in debating not whether political obligation exists, but the grounds upon which it can be advanced. The classic explanation of political obligation is found in the idea of a social contract, the belief that there are clear rational and moral grounds for respecting State authority. Other thinkers, however, have gone further and suggested that obligations, responsibilities and duties are not merely contractual but are instead an intrinsic feature of any stable society. Nevertheless, few theorists have been prepared to regard political obligation as absolute. What they disagree about, however, is where the limits of political obligation can be drawn. At what point can the dutiful citizen be contrast, a right of rebellion?15 Summing Up

14

T.H. Green, Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation (Great Books of Western Philosophers), p.29
15

Andrew Heywood, Political Theory: An Introduction (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), p.197.

13 The problem of Political Obligation is one of the most prominent issues of political philosophy. It is primarily concerned with the above-mentioned and oft-repeated question: How far, when and why an individual is obliged to obey the law and commands of political authority? It is often claimed by theorists that much of the history of even modern (postsixteenth century) political philosophy revolves around the problem of political obligation. The problem has four main aspects: (1) To whom, or to what, do I owe my political obligations?the identification of political authority; (2) Precisely how far, or in what respects, am I obligated to those in political authority?the extent of political obligations; and (3) How is it that I come to have political obligations, or even, do I have any at all? the origins of political authority. (4) Why should we incur such obligations at all, i.e. why do I obey the political authority?the justification for the basis of political authority i.e. the source of political obligation or the grounds of political obligation.