“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” – Voltaire
Analysing political realities through the lenses of their theoretical frameworks can be useful to evaluate not only the underlying structures but the current implementation of these principles in political decision-making. In this analysis we are going to explore the philosophical ideas of the state of nature, as well as the oppositional state of war, to acquire a better understanding of the true origin of governmental sovereignty. Thus, the principle of the state of nature and the state of war, are two ideas mainly developed by the political philosophers John Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, explaining the driving factors for people starting to organise themselves in larger groups, eventually evolving into societies. As these principles remain present, for example as fundamental ideas embedded in the constitutions of France and the United States of America, analysing them does not merely involve the examination of theoretical constructs. Rather, it delves into foundational concepts that continue to shape core ideologies and practices in contemporary politics, influencing governance, legal systems and social contracts across the globe.
The State of Nature
The state of nature refers to a situation in which there are no governmental or societal structures, rules and regulations. It is a hypothetical scenario designed to predict human behaviour and understand the drivers of action in a state of maximum freedom. While this scenario emphasises the absence of external control, it also highlights the inherent instincts of humans, who, driven by the need for self-preservation, are primarily focused on securing their own survival. In order to guarantee their survival, people need to secure and expand their property. In this scenario, while securing their survival, people are by no means lawless but are bound by the laws of reason. The laws of reason, which can also be referred to as rules of conduct, are behavioural norms that evolved over time because they ensured the survival of groups that adhered to them.
However, as reason could potentially arise from incentives or threats as well, we need to add another concept in order to illustrate the true context of reason according to abovementioned philosophers; mainly, John Locke is known for the concept of the laws of reason. With institutionalisation and organisation being absent in the state of nature, an essential question that arises in the context of human behaviour drivers is the question of the true purpose of our existence. There is no doubt that this topic represents one of the most profound philosophical questions, with virtually limitless potential answers. However, to focus on the driving factors of human behaviour within the context of this essay, the question should be addressed conceptually. Existing concepts such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Essydo’s hierarchy of happiness suggest that, beyond securing basic survival, it is the realisation of one’s abilities and talents that brings fulfilment. Thus, the highest motivator of human behaviour is genuine knowledge production, which, when examining contemporary societies, provides ample evidence to support this claim. Logically following, when the highest form of fulfilment arises from genuine knowledge production, the concept of the objective truth becomes the essential ontological fundament of thought. Otherwise, there could not be any intrinsic motivation to gather more knowledge and improvement in all aspects of life. Even further, the intrinsic motivation and curiosity for new knowledge have been the driving forces that initiated the evolutionary process, ultimately bringing us to the point we have reached today. Concluding, the driving factor, when general survival is secured, must be genuine knowledge production in order to delve into the objective truth. The laws of reason then become more than just an incentive-driven reaction to threats or survival; they are a compass directed towards fulfilment. Briefly noted, the objective truth also comprises the concepts of right and wrong, providing further insight into an inherent system of laws of reason.
The state of war, on the other hand, illustrates the conflict that arises from primal instincts to secure one’s survival, as opposed to the inherent laws of reason that, once survival is ensured, lay the foundation for genuine knowledge production. It represents the condition an individual enters when it abandons the realm of reason and acts against others in ways that threaten life, liberty or property. In a scenario where individuals live without constitutional regulations or social structures, the simplest way to secure survival is by eliminating rivals competing for the same resources. Logically, this perpetual rivalry obstructs the process of knowledge production, as individuals cannot reach higher stages in either of the mentioned hierarchies. It is, therefore, clear that such conflict must be addressed structurally, requiring some form of organised system. On one hand, individuals organised into larger groups have a greater capacity to handle threats. On the other hand, a structured system involving cooperation between individuals enhances the protection and expansion of property, thereby reinforcing survival.
Origins of Sovereignty
The sovereignty of a state, the pillar of the government, entails that when free individuals give up their right to defend themselves and their property and lay this task into the hands of the government. The government needs this task to fulfil its duties: securing the property of every individual in the society, judicial authority, executing governmental duties and law enforcement. The rulers must ensure that the property and well-being of their citizens are protected, for the sovereignty entrusted to them endures only as long as they can fulfil this obligation. If the rulers fail in their duty, the citizens have no means to protect their property from potential threats, as they have relinquished their natural rights in exchange for legislative authority. Should the citizens be forced, as in the state of nature, to take care of their own protection and well-being, the rulers lose their sovereignty. Therefore, rulers need to be endowed with executive power in order to fulfil their duty.
The legislature is, thus, the highest authority in a society; it must create laws that not only reflect the collective will of the people but also ensure the protection of fundamental rights and the common good. Logically, it is constrained by two factors: property and reason. Since the laws are intended to serve and protect the citizens, these fundamental entities must be preserved; otherwise, society risks losing what prompted them to enter into it in the first place. The rulers’ competence is restricted to the law and must avoid manipulating or evading this framework. The citizens commit themselves to this authority by submitting to the authority and competences of the government. This further indicates the natural limitations of government, as no rational being would willingly subject themselves to another in a manner that is detrimental to their own well-being.
The Heirs
The sole claim for authority is based on the protection and the representation of its people’s will. Therefore, the government is entrusted with a unique sovereignty. What, then, is the situation for the heirs and the people joining a society after it is established?
“Where there are no laws, there is no freedom.” – John Locke
As analysed above, the legislature is the highest authority in a state and without such an entity, there would be no difference to the state of nature. Therefore, laws, in their purest form, do not restrict freedom, but ensure an individual’s life to be free from threats. Consequently, one only becomes a full member of society when one possesses the reason to accept and act according to its laws. As long as a person lacks the reason to follow their own will, they cannot have the will to adhere to the laws of the nation. Thus, those who do understand the laws must also act on their behalf. This does not restrict freedom, either, but is the only path to achieving it. If anyone without reason were to act freely in a society of rational beings who have transferred their right to defence to the state, the rational members of a society would find themselves in a worse situation than the state of war. This would delegitimise the very purpose of that society, which cannot be its intent. Therefore, anyone lacking reason must have a guardian to manage their affairs, depending on the degree of reason they possess, until they attain it fully and become a free person in the society. The natural guardians of individuals until they reach reason must be their parents. For those without parents or those who cannot fulfil this role for other reasons, it is the state’s responsibility to care for individuals born into its society.
The situation is different for those who attempt to become part of this society as outsiders. Here again, it is reason and the voluntary commitment to join the society and submit to its legislature that matter. Individuals who position themselves in a state of war against the state cannot be part of the society. It is the state’s duty to protect its own population from such individuals by any means necessary, including those that a person in a state of war might use.
Thus, a society is organised through the coming together of rational individuals, and its inheritance can only belong to those who submit to the established legislature and willingly declare their intent to join this society. Here, we can allow for consideration of how those born into the society can express their commitment, or whether implied action within a society is already sufficient.
Loss of Sovereignty
The government has its sovereignty solely for the pursuit of its responsibilities; it is not an arbitrary power but rather a duty to the people. In this context, the most crucial elements, as analysed above, are the property of the people, laws of reason and legislature. Every action against one of those entities would bring itself into the state of war against its own people. Logically, this leads to the loss of its sovereignty as this would obliterate every fundament the society is based on. Therefore, the legislature does not only prevent and eradicate conflicts within societies, but it constrains the rulers’ power. Nonetheless, two essential aspects must be considered:
- Due to the flaws of mankind, it is obvious that the entity that has the absolute executive power, shall not influence the legislature.
- Rulers who hold sovereignty continuously could face the risk of developing aims outside the interests of society. This concern transcends the specific form of government, as no governing body should undermine the fundamental principles of society.
If a ruler were to pursue his own goals without serving the will of the people, individuals would find themselves in a worse situation than before; namely, in the state of war – not against another individual but a government with a unique authority. Such a condition, remaining in the state of war against the rulers, where exploitation and control over citizen’s property remains unchecked, is what political philosophers define as slavery.
When a ruler loses his sovereignty, because he is acting against the core fundamentals, we describe this form of government as a tyrannical state. It is tyrannical because the government is exercising power against the interest of society despite having a legitimate claim to authority for the interest of society. The individuals living in such a society logically have the right to fight against this tyrannical state, just as they would have in the state of nature. Furthermore, if the tyrannical state manipulates or evades the legislature, the people have the right to constitute a new framework that serves their needs.
Modern-Day Problems
At this point, I would like to delve deeper into further discourses that are particularly relevant in today’s world. In several parts of the world, the danger of a government developing into a tyrannical state by openly violating the people’s property and expressing through force its refusal to comply with the will of the citizens is still omnipresent. On the other hand, especially in the European and Neo-European societies, citizens are facing the danger of governments developing their own distinct goals, corrupting and manipulating the system to its will. This process is insidious and often unfolds incrementally over time, making it difficult to detect until it has already significantly deformed the structure of governance. One could argue that, especially in a democratic system, one of my theses would be invalidated, namely: that no ruler would consciously remain in charge in order to infiltrate the governmental structures. This would be a valid perspective when we discuss it on a personal level, as in democratic systems, the danger does not stem from individual actors but from a corrupt structure. The risk here is high because, once established, governmental structures, at least in today’s practice, are neither constrained by a time horizon nor, perhaps more importantly, evaluated based on their success. As a result, the institutions within them are at greater risk of prioritising their own goals over those of the people they were initially created to serve.
Essentially two institutions preserve the development of such a mentality: positive lawmaking and political parties. These institutions are part of the current reality, making it nearly unimaginable for the majority of people to consider changing or replacing them. However, if they were truly irreplaceable, it would suggest that we have already reached the zenith of democratic potential – a notion that stands in stark contrast to the driving force of genuine knowledge production, which thrives on the principle of continual improvement.
While the law of reason visualises the original framework for societal life, positive lawmaking originated as a tool for rulers to organise these societies. The ruler then takes on the role of a central planner. Of course, I acknowledge that the positive law also has its rightful place, as more complex structures come with additional challenges that can be more easily addressed through legislation. However, this leads to the following:
- Through an overemphasis on positive law, the notion develops that this is the origin of all law and, consequently, the origin of societies.
- This belief, through its practice, becomes the only true reality for the majority of the population.
If positive law is the origin of societies and not the law of reason, the legislative power would have an authority based solely on the creation of laws. This would shift the foundational principles of society, as the very creation of laws would no longer be seen as a tool to serve reason and the citizens but as the defining force of society itself. This would grant the ruling authority a power that is detached from the original principles that formed society, potentially leading to an abuse of power where the rulers prioritise their own interests over the fulfilment of the existential purpose of the people.
The situation is similar when it comes to the issue of political parties. Political parties are, in essence, nothing more than power centres for subgroups within societies. By their very nature, the core idea of a political party is rooted in pursuing goals that are distinct from the needs and interests of the society, and then striving to enforce those goals. This conflict arises precisely because political parties are forced to gain votes from the public in order to stay in power. However, once in power, their focus may shift from serving the public interest to furthering the needs of the subgroup they represent. This dynamic creates a disconnection between the collective society and the agendas of political parties, which are limited to the interests of their specific base. Within a governmental structure, in which the ruler is also in charge of the legislature, the structure allows political parties to define laws based solely on their own agenda and the interests of their subgroups. This creates a system where positive laws are not shaped by collective, rational processes, but by rulers that manipulate the system to serve their own needs. Interested readers can find a detailed examination of this in the state theory “Devlet” by Emre Şentürk.
When we bring these two ideas together, we develop a construct in which a power circle, or an established structure, can pursue its interests. Through dominant positive legislation, this structure can impose its will, and the majority of the population is forced into a tacit acceptance. This happens because the structure gradually becomes the only reality they know. Such a government has clearly lost its sovereignty – but will the citizens even recognise this? Even further, if the heirs of a society are meant to be rational individuals, can they still be considered rational if they fail to recognise a tyrannical state? And if they do not, does the regime, in turn, assume the role of a guardian over them?
