Absolutism. Absolutism, political system in which there is no legal, customary, or moral limit on the government s

Transcription

1

2 Absolutism I INTRODUCTION Absolutism, political system in which there is no legal, customary, or moral limit on the government s power. The term is generally applied to political systems ruled by a single dictator, but it can also be applied to seemingly democratic systems that grant sweeping powers to the legislature or executive. II MAJOR ELEMENTS Absolutism was one of the most common forms of government for much of the 20th century, and it is still common today. Absolutism has taken wide-ranging forms such as military dictatorships in Latin America, authoritarian communism in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and Eastern Europe, and dictatorships in Africa. Despite the wide range of forms of absolutism, most 20th-century absolutist regimes have shared a few basic traits. These include centralization of power, close control of social groups, absence of competing political parties, and the outward appearance of popular representation. A Centralization of Power Nearly all absolutist regimes concentrate power in the hands of the president or prime minister. Typically the leader abolishes the courts and the legislature or allows them to survive without any real power. In Germany under Nazi leader Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, for example, the parliament was forced to hand over power to Hitler s cabinet. Because Hitler controlled his cabinet, the transfer of authority meant that Hitler had unlimited power to govern Germany (see National Socialism). The chief executive in absolutist regimes may also eliminate town councils and other local government structures, giving the central government control over even minor local issues. Most absolutist

3 governments closely control the police and military, and establish secret police agencies to squelch dissent. This extreme concentration of power sets absolutism directly at odds with the emphasis on openness and accountability that is at the core of democratic forms of government. Absolutist regimes sometimes claim that centralization makes this form of government more efficient and adaptable than democracy, but there is little evidence to support such claims. B Close Control of Social Groups Absolutist regimes usually take control of social groups such as trade unions, churches, and student organizations. These groups and institutions are either abolished altogether or taken over by the official political party of the government. This gives the absolutist regime deep control throughout society and discourages organized resistance. The government can use the institutions it allows to survive as tools for ideological indoctrination in support of the government. In particular, many absolutist states maintain close ties with churches and youth groups and use these institutions to maintain loyalty within the population. For example, until the early 1990s South Africa was under apartheid (a policy of rigid separation of the races), and the white minority government used a wide range of organizations and institutions to prop up the government. These included the pro-apartheid Dutch Reformed Church, which created a theological justification for the repression of the black majority. C Absence of Competing Political Parties Absolutist regimes do not permit free and fair elections, and they usually restrict all competing political parties. Sometimes the ruling party simply outlaws opposition parties, but many absolutist regimes also use police and party activists to break up opposition meetings and to violently attack opposition leaders. Only the official ruling party is permitted to operate openly, and the official party often takes a direct role in controlling the government and society. In many cases the ruling party is tied so closely to the government that it becomes difficult to clearly distinguish the boundaries between the party and government structures. In the USSR, for example, the Communist Party was

4 closely intertwined with the government and was an important source of political power. Some absolutist regimes hold elections to fill seats in the national legislature but hinder opposition parties by arresting their leaders, implementing restrictive and unfair electoral rules, and limiting public gatherings. D Appearance of Popular Representation Historically many absolutist regimes were openly dictatorial, but in the 20th century most absolutist regimes tried to make it look as though they represented the interests of the country and its citizens. In the USSR, for example, the government claimed that its policies were designed to build a society of equality for the Soviet people. In reality, however, the regime favored a small group of powerful people with ties to the Communist Party. Similarly, when Hitler ruled Germany as a dictator he claimed that his power rested on the will of the German people. Some absolutist regimes go to extremes to create the appearance of democracy, holding sham elections that are not truly democratic. They may conduct a closely controlled plebiscite a direct vote in which voters must accept or reject a decision. But plebiscites rarely offer a genuine choice to the voters. In some cases government leaders have already decided the issue, and the government alters the results of the vote to fit this decision. III INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS Philosophers of ancient Greece such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates wrote about forms of government similar to absolutism, but the concept of absolutism itself was not developed extensively until much later. The modern theory of absolutism developed in the 15th century, when many European countries created unified states. During this period some political thinkers attempted to defend the divine right of kings the assertion that kings and queens represent God s authority and that they are not subject to the laws that govern ordinary people.

5 A Bodin French Renaissance philosopher Jean Bodin was one of the first thinkers to defend absolutism without relying on religious arguments. He asserted that kings should not be under the power of the Holy Roman Empire, which governed much of Europe from the 9th century until early in the 19th century. At the same time, Bodin argued that kings had the right to rule over all of their subjects and their political institutions. In Six livres de la République (1576; Six Books of the Republic, 1606), he claimed that a state has 'supreme power over citizens and subjects unrestrained by laws,' and he defined a state as a group of families governed by a 'supreme and perpetual power.' This notion that governments have broad powers over citizens became a central element in the theory of absolutism. Bodin limited this power, however, by arguing that rulers must be constrained by social customs and natural law. Later theorists of absolutism accepted Bodin s claim that governments had sweeping powers, but they rejected his claim that custom and natural law should limit those powers. B Hobbes Seventeenth-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes was one of the first modern theorists to argue for the absolute power of governments. Hobbes developed his argument partly because of the political turmoil in England during his lifetime. There were many conflicts in which King Charles I asserted his authority, and some members of Parliament responded by claiming that they had the right to make important decisions. Violence erupted on many occasions. These conflicts convinced Hobbes that peace and order could only be guaranteed if each country had a single, all-powerful authority. In The Leviathan (1651), Hobbes justified this conclusion by describing an imaginary state of nature in which people live without government. Hobbes argued that people living in the state of nature would be at constant war with one another. In such a state all people would be free to do whatever they wanted to do, but nobody could enjoy this freedom because all people would have the right to trample the freedoms of others. The only way out of this problem is for all citizens to agree to obey a single power that is strong enough to force everyone to follow rules and live in peace.

6 In Hobbes s view, this means that there is an imaginary social contract between citizens that gives the sovereign, as the ultimate political authority, the right to absolute power over all citizens. The sovereign can be a single person, an elected parliament, or a small group of people. The only critical feature, in Hobbes s view, is that the sovereign have complete power. Unlike Bodin, Hobbes argued that the sovereign s actions did not have to be limited by customs and natural law. Hobbes's sovereign does not recognize such obligations, but the sovereign can create them and impose them on society. C Opposition to Absolutism: Locke and Jefferson By the late 17th century, there was pressure for democracy in England s North American colonies, as well as in many parts of Europe. The advocates of democracy emphasized two main arguments: that human nature was basically good and that the social contract had significant limits. These ideas sharply contrasted with the view offered by Hobbes. He thought that people were motivated only by selfish interest, so that life in a state of nature would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' Because of his pessimistic view of human nature, Hobbes argued that humanity was doomed to conflict and chaos unless controlled by an exterior and overwhelming force. In contrast, democratic theorists such as English philosopher John Locke believed in the essential goodness of people and argued that there was therefore no need for an all-powerful, absolutist government. Humans are rational and capable of comprehending some wider common good. If people are rational, Locke argued, then the only way to justify imposing government over people is through their consent. This meant that there was a limited social contract. Through this implied contract, people consent to certain governmental powers but retain basic rights that the government cannot invade. Based on Locke s reasoning, Thomas Jefferson and other American thinkers wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. D Rousseau's Concept of the Social Contract

7 In the early 18th century, French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that there was a social contract but that it supported an unlimited government subject to democratic control. In this way, Rousseau combined the political traditions of absolutism with those of democracy. Rousseau reasoned that if government is necessary, only consent can make government legitimate. But the government cannot have only limited powers, because that would leave open the question of who defines and enforces the limits. Unlike Hobbes, however, Rousseau thought that government actions should be defined by what he called 'the general will.' Rousseau defined the general will as the will of each individual in the group when he or she considers the general welfare of the group as a whole. On certain questions that must be general in nature, the general will is found by a majority vote. Therefore the majority, since they represent the general will, really represent the minority as well. This is because the minority can see that the best course for the group as a whole is to support the majority. This justifies the majority s forcing the minority to accept the majority decision. There is no force involved because the minority is in effect compelling itself; the minority is 'forced to be free.' In obeying the general will, therefore, each person is actually obeying his or her own will and is therefore free. Some later theorists used Rousseau s reasoning as the basis for justifying virtually unlimited government power. E Rousseau s Influence on Absolutism Some theorists have disputed Rousseau s argument that the government s decisions to act on behalf of the general will always serve the interests of citizens as a whole. Certainly there is no guarantee that a decision viewed by the government as being in the public interest will, in fact, always represent the general will. But some thinkers after Rousseau embraced exactly this position, suggesting that the government could do no wrong. Nineteenth-century French dictator Napoleon I claimed to be carrying out the French will as determined by plebiscites, even using these rigged votes to become emperor with unlimited powers. German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel relied on Rousseau s ideas when he argued that a government run by a hereditary ruler who comprehended the demands of the universal 'world spirit'

8 was the best one for Germany. For Hegel the world spirit took shape in the state, so the state s decisions would always reflect the deepest wills and desires of its citizens. It was therefore impossible to have a real conflict between the state and its citizens. In Hegel s view, people became free when they were compelled to do the state s bidding. Some analysts have argued that the approaches developed by Rousseau and Hegel were adopted and distorted by fascist leaders and communist dictatorships in the 20th century. In Italy under Benito Mussolini, for example, the government abolished labor unions, slashed wages, and stifled political opponents, all in the name of the Italian people. Similarly, in the USSR the government claimed that any sign of dissent was counterrevolutionary and contrary to the interests of the Soviet people.