Political Justice

by Alexander J Illingworth

  It is the natural state of man to live in liberty for the sake of his own improvement, as proved by our readings of history. Whenever man has lived in liberty, by which we mean with the freedom to gain knowledge, express himself freely, give his opinions and move around his homeland without harassment, he has always nurtured the most amazing of advancements: it was the spirit of intellectual liberty that gave birth to the Renaissance and Enlightenment, and it was the recognition that restrictions on religious sects were tearing Britain apart in civil war that gave rise to the tolerance of nonconformist Christian sects in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the finest laws that can ever be legislated are those which align themselves with the nature of man and prevent that which harms the improvement of mankind, so as to allow for the best of situations where we may live most happily.

  The truth is that any form of non-democratic government, by which we mean where the government does not derive its authority from an arrangement with its people, cannot have any legitimate authority whatsoever, since it enforces its authority by means of force, which is contrary to virtue and can only ever be harmful to the members of society as a whole. No matter how benevolent a despotic leader may be, he must always enforce his rule rather than rely on the people to applaud it out of their respect for virtuous actions. It is this sort of government, one that has to enforce obedience rather than gain it by its own virtues, which ought to be actively disobeyed.

  Some people are actively obedient to despots, however, and can be rallied behind great leaders in order to further their ends under the illusion of virtue. History has shown us leaders like these from Alexander to Napoleon. Burke writes that ‘it is [the people’s] attachment to their government, from the sense that they have a deep stake in a glorious institution which…infuses into that liberal obedience’.11 The art lies in identifying where a government is offering a genuine stake in the institution of government, or excluding the people from their moral right. Obedience to despots often comes from long-established conceptions of duty and loyalty to a particular ruler, or the offer of some sort of benefit which a ruler gives to the people.

  Long-standing conceptions of loyalty are often based on religious beliefs, with many of the monarchs of 18th-century Europe demanding loyalty from their subjects due to the derivation of authority from God. In more modern times, rulers of supposedly democratic countries such as Hugo Chávez of Venezuela gained a great deal of personal popularity by enacting policies which, for the short term at least, made life easier for the poorest in their countries, who often made up a large portion of the population. What despots can never offer, however, is long-term happiness; they may give money out for free, perhaps food and healthcare, but eventually they must resort to force when they can no longer continue to provide what previously made them popular. Caesar claimed he would reform the Roman republic, and offered his soldiers land and increased pay as a result of his overthrow of the state, and by doing so made himself the precursor to Rome’s emperors. Despotism, be it the absolute rule of a single man or the oligarchy of a few interested parties, is by nature a government of trickery and deception. The people, rather than being offered a constitutional arrangement which embodies their values and protects their moral rights, are instead deceived with bread and circuses, popular events and free handouts; these things may provide short-term happiness, but eventually, when the goods run out, can only lead to misery and discord. When governments offer these despotic tricks, they are owed no obedience whatsoever, for they offer no improvement to their people, and certainly no virtue.

  What all politically minded men must obey is virtue. If there is no virtue, there is nothing to obey. A system of government where the people are represented allows the most opportunity for virtue and the benefit of all rather than the few. Obedience is something which must be natural within society, rather than forced. If the law is disobeyed and liberty is infringed, then nature itself has been disobeyed. If the statue of a tyrannical ruler is defaced, can we say that this is vandalism, or is it a gesture that the people seek their natural state of liberty? People must be educated to know that their natural state is liberty, so that if the time ever comes that they feel that they are not in their natural state, they may take the necessary action to ensure that their moral rights are being protected. In states such as North Korea, where a despotic regime has held power for over seventy years, obedience from the people has only been gained after years of harsh treatment combined with a comprehensive re-education of the populace which defines virtue in terms of love and praise for the oppressors. If morality is warped into being centred around particular individuals, rather than the betterment of society, people can easily be duped into believing that they are living in the best possible society already.

  If the people of society do not know what morality is, and do not know why certain laws require obedience, they will be consistently oppressed by those who know how to manipulate them into obedience.

  Chapter VII

  Forms of Government

  We shall now examine how best to constitute a good government. There is an important caveat to place on this discussion, which is that we should not claim to ever reach a state of perfection in mere theory: there is no such thing as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, perfect government. In the manner of Aristotle, it is best to consider the possible roles and forms of government and consider how a government might best structure itself in order to achieve the constitutional goals we have said it should set for itself in the preceding chapters. We are approaching this subject from a Western democratic perspective, and we should not assume that a culture very alien to ours will consider our reasoning to be valid; however, we have already stated that liberty is a perfectly attainable goal for all cultures. Rather than seeing the following as a model constitution, we should think of it more as a set of guidelines, derived from reason and an understanding of human nature, by which we can more easily consider how governments may be constituted.

  There are of course countless different forms of government which have been tried by various civilisations across history. Godwin considers differences in national constitutions to be worthy of scorn, since the primary purpose of government across the world should be the freedom and independent exercise of the human mind — hence, he is not keen to find positive arguments in favour of any sort of meaningful government at all. Since, however, we know that every human mind is different, and every culture is different in terms of customs and history, we cannot say that government can function in the same way in every single state. Whilst a certain concept, such as democratic representation, might be one of the best paths of liberty, the path to liberty must be nuanced. If we consider mankind to be a fundamentally unequal race due to the differences between every individual, then every culture must have its own nuanced way of structuring a constitution and building up a complex system of governance to further its self-improvement by working upon the inheritance it has received from the ancestors of that culture.

  When structuring a government which is based upon representation (which, given the arguments against despotism and in favour of liberty above, we shall consider to be the most virtuous form of governance), we should consider what the word ‘representation’ actually means. It is one thing to allow people to elect representatives to hold authority on their behalf in a designated chamber of representatives, but we must also consider the role of elites. The word ‘elitism’ is often considered dirty in modern political discourse, but in truth, elitism can be used for society’s advantage.

  Ancient poems, such as the Nordic sagas and Eddas, the Greek and Roman epics, and the medieval romances, all speak of virtuous conduct, of heroic deeds and a race of strong and intelligent men whose history is defined by their great deeds. Not all of us can be defined by our deeds, and indeed, very few of us will ever be remembered for heroism on the battlefield. The original implementation of aristocracy was a means to honour those who had performed mighty deeds, and the onus fell on those mighty men to educa
te their sons in their ways so that their virtue might be carried on down the ages. In England, and later Britain, the idea behind balancing a House of Lords with a House of Commons derived from the principle of equal representation for all people. The Houses had equal power — members of the House of Lords, as privileged aristocracy, could not vote in the elections to the Commons, and the House elected by the people and the House of the appointed aristocracy balanced each other out. The idea behind such balanced government, with elites being given a separate institution to the people, is founded in virtuous governmental structure. Aristocrats were often, and for a large part remain now, wealthy landowners. Does this mean they had the right to absolutely rule those below them? Absolutely not, and hence more and more of the ordinary people were permitted to take part in elections to the Commons, since all citizens as contributors to society have a right to take part in electing those who represent them.

  Aristotle was the first to propose a system of balanced government.12 He saw that the non-elites made up the vast majority of the people in each Greek city-state, and he saw the flaws of the governmental systems which favoured each group of society: absolute democracy allowed the common people to outvote the more wealthy and privileged, while oligarchy allowed the wealthy and privileged absolute power over the common people. He proposed a system of checks and balances where what we might now call aristocracy were represented, and could debate legislation introduced in government, but the people had their own assembly where they might do the same until a consensus was found.

  Modern conceptions about aristocracy and the ordinary person are rather vile. Instead of recognising the virtues of this long-established system, thinkers such as Godwin, and his successors in communist and socialist circles, sought to breed hatred between social classes. Privilege is often seen as a ‘dirty word’ today, but it was instituted as a reward, and remains so. There will always be instances of privilege being awarded to those who do not deserve it, but the solution is not to deny privilege to all. Aristocracy is a useful means to award a certain status on those who have made extraordinary contributions to society, perhaps over the course of generations through inheritance, and it has its role to play in a virtuous society. Aristotle’s system allows for complete representation, since it lends weight to the will of both the privileged and the ordinary person. This allows for a perfect balancing act between the two classes, and for cooperation. So long as the two houses of a parliament of these two classes have equal power, and represent the interests of all kinds of people in society, they allow for a government which does not exclude any part of society from representation.

  In the British House of Lords, it was not merely aristocracy who received representation; bishops of the established churches were also allowed seats. This leads us onto our next consideration: should the Church have a role to play in government at all? Secularism is often lauded as a Western value in the modern age, but as we shall discover, this is not necessarily a good thing. Liberty is as much derived from religious tradition as it is from the ideas of man, and religion, whether adhered to in complete consistence with doctrine or followed in more abstract ways, has an important role to play in the moral guidance of government and cohesion of society.

  Thanks to the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine to Christianity in 313 AD, Christianity was the majority religion of Europe. Today, due to secularisation, this is on the decline. In Europe, a 2010 Eurobarometer Poll found that roughly 50% of European citizens believe in a god, about 25% in a ‘spiritual force’ of some kind, and the rest did not believe or did not provide an answer. The process of secularisation and separating the Church from the State has been ongoing since the Enlightenment, with philosophers such as Kant realising that the communitarian value of religion was something to be lamented if it was lost, even if the theology of the various European Christian Churches was leaving something to be desired among rational men. We are discussing political justice, not theology, so we would do well to avoid a theological debate, but in the manner of Kant, we cannot deny that whilst religion has been used for the purpose of control and exploitation (as demonstrated by the pre-Reformation Catholic Church), it is also capable of great amounts of good.

  Of course, theocratic government is somewhat ironically not a virtuous one. Due to the darker aspects of human nature, a man, such as the Pope in pre-Reformation Europe, imbued with such power over even other monarchs, and told that he has the authority of God in his hands, would naturally be inclined to abuse his power, and consider himself morally superior to all others. It undermines the very concept of an all-loving, all-powerful God to bequeath that representative power to one man holding influence over all. The understanding of God as taught by Christ is perhaps the most important one for Western democratic states, and indeed, for the purposes of pursuing political justice. We are taught that God gave man free will, which surely embodies the natural state of man well. We may all choose whether to commit immoral acts or moral ones, and whilst we may have the ‘freedom’ to be immoral, religion also teaches us we may be punished for it — as a virtuous state does to those who commit immoral acts which harm others. We cannot rationally define God as an anthropomorphic deity who clicks his fingers and creates new life, or takes sinners aside to be burnt in Hellfire for a life of sin — God is the spiritual embodiment of the human capacity for moral self-improvement. God is virtue, and he holds out inspiration which becomes moral law. Understanding God is the spiritual way to teach the people the difference between virtue and vice and how to use the gift of free will for moral ends, rather than selfish ones. Jesus Christ is, after all, the embodiment of selflessness, whether one considers him the Son of God or not. Since we are all capable of contributing to human self-improvement, we are all capable of knowing God.

  It so happens that Christianity is the religion of Western tradition; it also so happens to be a religion which teaches peace among its adherents. Christ was not a man who infringed on the freedoms of his fellow man. He for the most part tolerated and forgave sin, and merely encouraged sinners to leave their sins behind without prying into their private business, only becoming angry at the desecration of the Temple of Jerusalem — which of course could be interpreted as misuse of property which was not the moneylenders’ to be misused (since a temple is of course God’s). If peace and the virtuous use free will are the fundamental teachings of Christianity, it is difficult to find fault with this. There may be some who will say ‘But how can you rationally believe in a God?’ or ‘How can you be a slave to dogma?’ but dogma can be effective, if it is truly virtuous. Whether or not we should believe in God is a separate argument entirely — the moral value of Christian religion is supportive of virtuous government.

  Thus, we must consider the Christian Church, whichever one is traditional to a particular nation, to be of some use to society. In Britain, the model used is most effective, since Bishops do not actually hold any executive power; although they have a place in the House of Lords to add spiritual advice to debate, they are too few to influence the majority of parliamentary votes. The Church does not govern any particular region of the nation or control any group in society, yet parliamentarians must swear an oath of loyalty to the monarch, who in turn must be the defender of the Established Church. To lack a state religion has been much bewailed by other thinkers, with Burke pointing to the excesses of the French Revolution, the violence against peaceful friars, and the confiscating of private property as a result of irreligious and immoral leadership. In other nations, when religion has been applied seriously for the benefit of society, the same moral and intellectual improvements have been seen. At the height of the Arab Empire, the Mu’tazilites understood Allah as a bringer of reason and logic, a teacher and bringer of understanding rather than violence and inter-religious hatred, which allowed for scientific breakthroughs in algebra and astronomy. In India, the Hinduism of the Marathas brought great prosperity, creating a legal code based on religious teachings which allow
ed for a great empire which lasted nearly two hundred years.

  ***

  We mentioned monarchy, and this leads us to our final point. Over the course of history, monarchies have risen and fallen. Most monarchies have died out and had their rule replaced by some form of republican government or non-hereditary head of state. In Britain, the monarchy has largely survived because of its willingness to allow parliament and the elected government to run the affairs of state. This constitutional arrangement has served Britain well. The fact that some monarchies have been removed is not to be cared for at the present time. For now, we shall use the example of Britain, where republic is sometimes called for as an alternative to constitutional monarchy, and consider why the present system is worth keeping.

  Common arguments against monarchy are seen regularly. Monarchy is often seen to contradict democracy, since in a democracy, it is the people that rule in the sense that they elect their governments, and the people are ultimately the ones to whom the government should be accountable. In a monarchical system, the government is constitutionally accountable to the monarch. In the now commonly held belief that equality is important in society, many object to the fact that monarchy demands subordination of the citizen to the monarch. Deference in terms of titles, respect and address is expected in a system where a monarch exists as head of state. It is also argued that since monarchy predetermines who will become head of state, it denies those who may be best suited to the role based on merit and intellect the chance of becoming head of state. Others worry about special powers granted to the monarch such as the royal prerogative, impartiality, and most gloatingly: expense.