Lesson 5 Political Obligation
The concept of political obligation is often inferred as the
commitment or duty to act in a particular way. As per, H.L.A Hart (The Concept
of Law,1961), there are two kinds of obligation- ‘being obliged’ to do
something, which includes an element of coercion, and ‘having an obligation’ to
do something, which implies only a moral duty. Thus, political obligation is one
of the most contested issues of political theory and philosophy.
Rousseau and Hegel on different grounds carried forward the
Hobbesian legacy of absolute political obligation. John Rawls advances on the
Kantian notion of 'rational negotiators' to build his theory of justice. While
on the other side, Marx sought to annihilate political obligation by
identifying a man's position in the social class, and projected the working
class as an instrument of revolution. Finally, Neo-Marxists have been looking
for alternative instruments as well as alternative strategies of revolution. In
a nutshell, political philosophy mainly resided on the logic of the grounds and
limits of political obligation.
Duty, Obligation and Conflict
Obligation and duty have a lot in common. There isn’t
anything that distinguishes the two. Between the two, there is a strong
analytical relationship. Obligation and duty are often used interchangeably. To
be obligated means to have a responsibility; to fulfil a responsibility means
to fulfil an obligation. In this context, a duty is the conception of a
behaviour as the subject of legal obligation. When we say that someone is
performing their responsibility, we often mean that they are obligated to do
something.
Because there are so many distinct kinds of obligations,
there is a chance that they will conflict with one another. A moral commitment
may clash with a legal obligation; and political legitimation may clash with a
religious one. Any endeavour to find a solution may elicit or include major
moral dilemmas. A conflict between a legal requirement and a political
commitment may appear to be less likely, but a conflict between a moral
obligation and political obligation can, and typically is a real one.
It is important to remember that obligation is an
obligation. It doesn’t matter if it is political or moral. Attending to one’s
obligation is a sort of performance. The intensity of the event will determine
whether we attend it today or tomorrow. If we are obligated, we are obligated;
similarly, a duty is a duty. Obligation is the acceptance of a task; its
compliance is an expression of our willingness.
Theories of Unlimited Obligation
1.The Doctrine of Force Majuere
Force Majuere is a French word meaning superior strength, an
alluring compulsion or coercion. As per this theory it is the superior strength
of the state that is the source as well as the reason for political obligation.
This view of political obligation identifies the state or government as the
personification of political authority and its infallible power as the source
of its authority. The state is so powerful that the individual has no option
but to abide by its laws, dictates and commands, without any choice of not to
follow them. In this sense, political obligation is based on the fear of
punishment or coercion for disobedience to the political authority.
The theory has been criticised on the grounds that it is not
based on any moral foundations. It simply invokes the unconvinced rule of
'might is right'. It does not allow the individual to inquire fairness of the
law; it does not take into consideration whether the individual wants or does
not want to abide by the command or the law. There is no scope for a resistance
against any law or command which could be wrong in public judgment. It creates
a ground of coerced obedience which is based on a threat of repercussion in the
absence of submission rather than following the advice of a doctor in the
interest of individual's own health.
2.Divine Rights Theory
The divine right theory holds that, the source of power
withheld by the sovereign is directly derived from the god, hence obedience to
the state is as imperative as obedience to God. Therefore, he who resists the
authorities, resists what God has allotted, and those who resist will incur
judgment. In the recent times, this theory was upheld in pre-communist Tibet
and some tribal kingdoms. It is rarely practiced in the modem state. Since
God's will is obligatory on all mortals, this theory also advocates an
unlimited political obligation.
Moreover, charismatic authority is entirely personal which
may wither away with the disappearance of the person holding such qualities.
But divine rights theory admits to 'traditional authority' rather than
charismatic authority. The theory denies the right to resist against the state
or the authority by the people, hence it is anti -thetical to a democracy.
3.Prescriptive Theory
As per this theory, political authority and its respect are
based on the principle of “customary rights”. Authority is legitimate, if it is
endorsed by customs or tradition. For the instance the 7 rounds of hindu
marriage legitimizes a marriage because the authority is derived from
traditions and customary rules. The people follow the commands of their rulers
because the fact of compliance has become like a well-established convention.
The conservatives view the state as a fragile structure built over a long
period of time representing a balance of differing and contrasting interests.
An eminent scholar of this school of thought is, the English
Parliamentarian Edmund Burke, he states that it is unwise for a person to
totally disregard custom and tradition. Political obligation is contained in
paying constant respect to tradition, which is a sacrosanct concern.
The prescriptive theory has its own set of flaws. The basic
foundations of political duty is based on adhering to the existing established
practices and conventions. However, there is scope for its abolition also as
per the demand and need of the society. People seek change, and if their
aspirations are not fulfilled, they turn to revolution. Prof. Oakeshott has
been chastised for seeing even revolutions as historical events, therefore
reducing them to strictly cons derivative matter.
Theories of Limited Obligation
1.Principle of Consent
Some theories advocate man to be master of his will, hence
any sort of obligation can only be inflicted upon him by his consent. There is
no acceptance for a coercive imposition of an obligation by an authority.
Individual's consent is the proper source of political obligation.
Substantiating Hobbes and Locke who claimed that in the state of nature there
were certain inconveniences being faced by man due to the absence of the
existence of clear laws and authority.
Hobbes equates in his Leviathan life in a state of nature as
“solitary, poor, brutish and short, it was absolute anarchy where “might is
right” was the rule of the day. It was a state of war of each against all, and
hence fraught with insecurity. Man decided to thereby surrender all their
natural rights to the newly created political authority—the sovereign
(Leviathan). This surrender was final and unchangeable, because any departure
from this position would result in the return to the state of nature. Although
Hobbes advocates an unlimited political obligation, yet it is solely based on
consent; not imposed from above.
On the other hand, Locke had a more optimistic view
regarding the state of nature. He believed man to be rational by nature, who is
generally inclined to follow the rules of morality. Hence the state of nature
was a state of “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation.” The
acceptance of the social contract led to the establishing of a civil society
through a mutual consent of the people only to deal with the few law breakers
who could not be allowed to be the judge of their own case. Under the social
contract, man surrenders the right to be the judge in his own case in lieu of
an assurance that the state will be responsible for the protection of his
natural right to 'life, liberty and property'.
In his Discourses and Social Contract, the state of nature,
for Rousseau, was a peaceful and morally neutral condition in which
self-contained individuals acted according to their basic urges as well as their
natural desire for self-preservation- when man was close to nature and enjoyed
the beauty and bounty of nature without any restriction. However, as the
population expanded, there also emerged a scarcity of resources which brought a
sense of insecurity when “natural liberty” ceased to be a source of constant
happiness. This led to a conflict between individual’s actual will (guided by
his immediate interests) and real will (motivated by his ultimate interest
which coincided with the interest of the community). In order to overcome this
conflicting situation, men entered into the social contract by placing
themselves under the direction and control of the “general will” which
represented the convergence of the real will of all members of the community,
thereby replacing their natural liberty by civil liberty which provided for an
effective preservation and security of their possessions.
In a nutshell, although all the three established a civil
society with the state or the government given the responsibility and authority
to preserver the life of the people, Locke alone postulates a conditional
consent; hence he clearly creates a limited political obligation. Hobbes and
Rousseau postulate unconditional consent and absolute sovereignty. They seem to
create an unlimited political obligation. But since this obligation is based in
their consent, and it is intended to serve their interest, it cannot be treated
as unlimited in the true sense. The contract theory, as advocated by the
contractualists, especially Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, offers that obligation
of the people to obey the government is guided by the fact that we have entered
into a contract to do so.
Though evolved in the seventeenth and the eighteenth
centuries, the consent theory has its relevance even now. Its significance lies
on the account of constituting the moral basis of a democratic order, however
like every other theory, the consent theory also suffers from certain
weaknesses. The theory contemplates the state as an artificial institution. Furthermore,
the element of consent as postulated in the contract made in a hypothetical
state of nature is nothing more than a fiction, hence, not legally binding on
the existing generation.
The concept of once-for-all consent is not a sound basis of
political obligation. A consent based government must be reliant on the
continuous consent of a vigilant electorate or those who have agreed be
governed by it. In this light Locke's formulation of the social contract may be
considered sound in this light.
2.Idealist Theory
An idealistic view of political authority may involve a
serious deviation from a realistic position. The Idealists believe that the
man’s innate natural rationality is the source of political obligation. Man is
seen as a ‘political and rational creature’ and the state as a ‘self -
sufficient community’ that encompasses the entire society. The idealists school
of thought, whose one of the proponents was Hegel initially created an
unconditional and unlimited obligation, but later it was modified by scholars
like T.H Green. According to Hegel, the state as 'the incarnation of divine
reason' and the 'march of God on earth'.
It was T.H. Green who declared that government cannot claim
an unconditional and absolute obedience of its citizenry. He went on to say
that individual owes his allegiance to the society, and neither to the state
nor to the government. He proposes that only those actions should be made into
obligations, which are made to further a certain moral end. Accordingly, the
organized power of society should be acknowledged as political authority for
the purpose of determining political obligation.
He goes on to conclude that individuals carryout their
responsibilities and duties as members of a society and not for individual
advantages because they realize that their selfinterest truely lies in the
common good. It is the consciousness of the common good which prompts human
beings to embrace their duties. He reduces the state to an instrument of
protecting the common good as conceived and defined by its citizens. By
distinguishing the organized power of the community from the state as the,
Green rules out the claim of any government to demand unconditional allegiance
from its citizens.
5.B.A Political Science Hons. History Lesson 4th Important Notes Part 2
Theories against Political Obligation
1.Marxist View
Marxism postulates state does not represent the organised
power of the community, rather it represents the organised power of the
dominant class- particularly the class owning the major means of production.
Its sole purpose is the welfare of the bourgeoisie class; helping the strong
competitors to increase their wealth and power by exploiting the weak
competitors as well as the dependent class and not general welfare. In such a
class divided society the individuals can not have any obligation towards the
state.
A careful examination of Marxian thought reveals that it
approaches the question of political obligation in a way that is quite far away
from real perspective. What is empathetically prompted in the phase of
capitalism is categorically denied in the latter stage of social development.
People who are encouraged to disobey the bourgeoisie state are instructed not to
disobey the state at all after the establishment of a new social system.
If old order is destroyed arbitrarily without leaving the
foundations for the construction of a new order, the result would be
disastrous, because, to destroy is easy, to reconstruct is difficult. Thus, a
revolution has both pros as well as cons.
2.Anarchist View
The anarchist view argue for a stateless society, simply put
a society without any government. Anarchism is usually placed on the
extreme-left of the political spectrum. They advocate for the removal of all
organised authority and state apparatus in order to create a society in which
all human beings can live freely, peacefully and happily without requiring any
form of external force to regulate their interactions. Anarchists like P.J.
Proudhon (1809- 65) and Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) stated, the state is a
coercive entity and hence all governmental authority is illegitimate and hence
its presence is suited only to a corrupt and unmerited society. The individual
is only obligated to uphold justice, thus he is obliged to resist the state and
devote himself to build a new institution where all members of society will
cooperate with each other.
3.Gandhian Perspective
The Indian National Movement witnessed the tacit use of
principle of civil disobedience indicating the recognition of severe limits of
political obligation by Gandhi. Civil disobedience implies deliberately
disobeying an unjust authority and breaking an unjust law. Civil disobedience
may be resorted to as a protesting a government policy which is unjust or to
raise the government’s attention to a need for political reform. It serves both
a means and an end to an unjust and unfair law.
Mahatma Gandhi collaborated the principle of civil
disobedience with the principle of non-violent struggle and satyagraha
throughout the freedom struggle. Gandhi set a practical example of civil
disobedience first through the Champaran satyagraha and later on the 1930s
famous civil disobedience movement to break the salt law. The ban (ban on
manufacture of salt by Indians) imposed by the British which was thought to be
unjust by Gandhi and his followers.
Gandhi was of the belief by any form of resistance against
injustice must be non-violent, hence the act of civil disobedience should also
be performed non-violently and in full public view; and penalties caused by
such an act should be accepted willingly. It is again important that the true
object of civil obedience is 'change of heart' of the authorities
concerned-moral awakening. Civil disobedience is a weapon only against a
tyrannical regime, autocratic, unjust government or a foreign rule. If a
government wilfully preserves the citizens' rights and can be influenced
through democratic means, resort to civil disobedience will not be compulsory.
lastly, an act of civil disobedience should not be resorted to for demanding
the rights or privileges of any particular section against the general or
public interest.
Important Questions
1.What is the meaning of Political obligation?
2.Do we have political obligation to obey the state?
Discuss the scope of civil disobedience in a liberal democratic republic.
3.Provide an account of the major debates on the
question of ‘why should we obey the state’?
4.Write a short note on idea of political obligation to
state.
5.Examine critically Marxist approach to the notion of
political obligation?
Read More
1.B.A Political Science 1st Lesson Important Notes
2. B.A Political Science 2nd Lesson Important Notes
0 Comments
If you any doubts, Please let me know