Barry Stocker Barry.Stocker@itu.edu.tr https://barrystockerac.wordpress.com Department of Humanities and Social Science Faculty of Science and Letters Chapter 4 POLITICAL THEORY. ITB 227E NOTES WEEK EIGHT JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU (1712-1778) OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT [1761] BOOK IV CHAPTERS 4-9 Rousseau discusses the Roman comitia. Comitia refers to the meetings of the citizen assembly. Though Rousseau sometime seems to take Sparta (sometimes referred to as Lacedaemonia) as his model republic from antiquity, at this point Rome appears to be the favoured model, since Rousseau refers to the Roman people as the freest and most powerful people. Rousseau acknowledges a lack of reliable history about the beginnings of Roman institutions, but suggests that where there is most evidence of a custom, that it probably goes back to the earliest history of the state. Rousseau attributes a lot of the design of the Roman assembly to Servius, that is Servius Tullius, known as the 6th king of Rome, reigning from 577-535 BCE, also thought to be the penultimate king before Tarquinius Superbus whose downfall was also the foundation of the republic strictly speaking. However, as we see in Rousseau and in ancient writers like Cicero (107-43, author of many books including On the Republic), a lot of the political structure of the republic came from the time of kings, so there is not an entirely clear distinction between monarchical and republican periods. The word republic itself comes from the Latin words res publica, meaning public thing, so does not itself exclude the possibility of one person ruling. However, the idea of a king was deeply unpopular and when one person rule returned under the Emperors (starting with Augustus, himself following the model of Julius Caesar who ruled with the title of Dictator ) the word king (Rex in Latin) was avoided and there was some claim to continuity with the republic, when it had existed as a system of power sharing, but all the other offices were inferior, even decorative, compared with the power of the Emperor (the ruler s title of Imperator as head of the armed forces, other titles were used for the ruler).
2 Political Theory Spring 2106 Notes 8 The Greek equivalent of republic/res publica is politeia ( polity in English) did not mean a state with no king, but a community of citizens, which itself included the idea of a state where political power was shared and government institutions were under law, though it did not completely exclude the idea of a state under one all powerful king. In Rousseau s time republic still did not completely exclude the idea of king and it is only during the 19th century that republic came to be understood as a term for state with no king, even a king with a purely symbolic role. For the states of his time, Rousseau does seem to assume that a republic is a state with no monarch, as Machiavelli had before for his time. The main points in all the detail that Rousseau gives about the Roman assembly include the distinction between urban and rural tribes. According to Rousseau the rural tribes were more admired in ancient Rome as containing simple, courageous, patriotic citizens. The problems of the Roman Republic are associated with the Censors (who controlled the citizen lists and electoral roles, as well having a role in supervising public morals) who changed the system of tribes so that citizens could be reassigned between tribes and freed slaves entered the town tribes. The pride of belonging to a particular tribe declined and the freemen were lacking in the virtues of experienced citizenship (that seems to be Rousseau s criticism of their role) so that the urban tribes became totally corrupt, selling support, and they were stronger than the rural tribes who were else able to come to meetings in the city. Rousseau shows in his discussion of the comitia that he was not completely egalitarian in his approach, with regard to the rights and duties of citizens, though he often puts a lot of value on equality. What his discussion of ancient Roman institutions suggests, is that Rousseau thought that though wealth should be very limited, that the richer members of a society should have more say in its assemblies. Rousseau approves of the way that Roman tribes and divisions within the tribes were arranged so that groups to which the richest citizens belonged had the biggest say in assembly votes. He emphasises the military aspect of the Roman political system, in which the comitia meetings were held on the Campus Martius (field of the God of war, Mars). The military system was embedded within the tribes in centuries grouping citizens according their type of military service. Since the poorest citizens were excluded from the
3 Political Theory Spring 2106 Notes 8 army, because soldiers had to buy their own equipment, these poor citizens were effectively denied political rights, since they could not afford to buy military equipment, so could not join a century within a tribe. Equally the rich citizens were over-represented, since they could afford to join the cavalry units which were over-represented as centuries. For Rousseau the political system works best if those with no property are left out of it, and those with the greater wealth have the greatest role. Other passages suggest he expects the richer to over-represented in government and that this is a good thing. Rousseau though the gap between rich and poor should be small, and that the rich should not show off their wealth or obviously desire more wealth, referring to a Roman practice of taking wealth from those who abused it, but within those limits he wanted the rich to have more influence. He condemns society of his time in this chapter for producing: greed, unsettled spirit, reversal of fortunes, conspiracies, movement. For Rousseau an agricultural military society under law and good customs will then be satisfied with little wealth, stability in the minds of citizens, constancy in luck and fortune, only completely open and public political discussion, a strong social stability. This modest wealth Rousseau refers to is primarily that of farming land, with some place for artisans (specialist skilled workers) and traders who make more than most people, but not enough to dominate other people, which Rousseau presumes is the consequence of great differences in wealth. Rousseau may undermine his views on the undesirability of a relationships of dependency-domination between citizens when he praises the Roman system of patrons and clients in which poor men promised loyalty and service to a rich patron in exchange for various kinds of protection, this was a legally recognised institution and Rousseau complains that it has not received similar status in other societies. It is a system which maintained the influence of the patricians (rich aristocrats) which Rousseau says was a good thing, though it was against the spirt of the republic. It seems that Rousseau may believe that the pure equality between citizens he sometimes advocates, at least as part of the general will, is too difficult to maintain over history and compromises have to be made to keep a state functioning which has generally good laws, customs and institutions. We can maybe see these comments about Rome in the context of his view expressed in this chapter, and elsewhere in The Social Contract that the
4 Political Theory Spring 2106 Notes 8 Roman system confused the law making function of the general will with the government functions in the comitia. In his time, there were also those who thought growing commercial society and growing wealth for the rich was compatible with liberty and equality under law, presuming the laws are strong and wealth comes from market competition, not monopolies and seizure of wealth. We can find this view in various Enlightenment thinkers including the historical, social and political French thinker Montesquieu (Sprit of the Laws, Persian Letters) in France, whose life and work overlaps with that of Rousseau, though he was from an earlier generation, along with the Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, Theory of Moral Sentiments), whose life and work overlaps with that of Rousseau, though he was from a later generation. Montesquieu, Smith and others can be close to Rousseau though in agreeing that when Rome became a large and wealthy republic that is political institutions were found to be not suitable. We have seen that in this chapter Rousseau favours aspects of the Roman republic and its comitia system which favoured the rich (who could be common people or aristocracy) or the patricians (hereditary aristocracy). He also favours a counterbalance to the privilege of the patricians, because he thinks the privilege became excessive. The counter balance is the system of tribunes, elected by the plebeians (common people, non-aristocrats), who had powers of veto over court decisions and political decisions. This was not however to the advantage of the poor in Rousseau s account. The tribunes were mostly rich plebeians and many of the plebeians were rich, balancing the power of the patricians whose status came from how far back they had been rich and influential families in Rome. The power of inherited privilege was balanced by the power of new wealth, though Rousseau says he is against chasing wealth and too much social change. Again Rousseau seems to refer to the need to adapt to the inevitable historical decline of societies rather than the ideal beginning of societies. Rousseau addresses the question of the move from public voting in the Roman republic to secret ballots. He refers to Cicero s criticisms of this as a decayed form of politics in which citizens hide their decisions. Rousseau agrees that there is a decay behind the move
5 Political Theory Spring 2106 Notes 8 towards secret ballots, but the secret ballot is a necessary adaptation to inevitable degeneration in the republic, which keeps the republic alive longer. He compares the late Roman republic with the Republic of Venice of his time (which had existed since about 800). Its laws are bad but necessary because the society has become bad, and preserving what is left of a republic, even a degenerate one, is a good thing. Chapter 5 Rousseau discusses the Roman tribunate. He regards it as an example of a political body which is not a constituent part of the city. Here he is using city as synonym for constitutional order, since the states he is concerned with here (Rome, Sparta and Venice) were centred round a dominant city. So the tribunate is not part of the constitution in his account, but it plays a beneficial role in balancing the power of the sovereign people and the government so that neither sides takes roles that belong to the other side. The Roman tribunes essentially protected the people from the government and became weaker over time as they increased in number reducing the likelihood that they could maintain a unified position. They served for short terms as did the five ephors of Sparta, who largely balanced the people and the government. The Council of 10 in the Republic of Venice (a republic still existing in Rousseau s time and until 1797, from medieval foundations) largely protected the government from the people (it was specifically set up to counter rebellion) and was elected for short terms. The tribunate becomes dangerous over time if it accumulates power (and things always go wrong over time according to Rousseau) and the most dramatic example is the execution of the Spartan King Agis (Agis IV in the third century BCE) by the ephors. The Council of Ten in Venice is also over mighty. The ideal situation for Rousseau would be for the tribunate to come into existence when the constitution becomes corrupted, correct that corruption, disappear before it can be corrupted, and return when corruption has grown again. Chapter 6 Rousseau discusses the Roman dictatorship. The idea of a dictator as an autocrat who seizes power or undermines a constitutional system was not the original meaning of dictator which Rousseau discusses. The word dictator is Latin in origin and comes from the early years of the Roman Republic. It refers to an award of total power, overriding all
6 Political Theory Spring 2106 Notes 8 other institutions during wartime, and for six months only. The most famous example is Cincinnatus who held this office in the 5th century BCE, retiring to his farm afterwards, and and who has been taken as a model of incorruptibility ever since. For Rousseau this early form of dictator was a beneficial institution, protecting the republic against destruction by external enemies. Rousseau suggests it should have been used more in the later period the Republic against internal enemies, that is to act against those who seized power longterm, before they could attain dominance. Rousseau refers here to how the army general Sulla seized power in the early 1st century BCE and another general Caesar seized power later in the century. The latter event led to the death of the republic, as a pure republic. Rousseau suggests that Marius, a popular general and politician should have used dictatorial powers against Sulla and that another popular general and politician, Pompey, should have done the same against Caesar. The institution of dictatorship is necessary in Rousseau s view, because the laws cannot be changed quickly enough to suit circumstances in cases of war and emergency. It is better then that the laws are suspended during a short period, so that the system of laws can be preserved longterm. Rousseau looks at how Cicero attempted to solve the Catiline crisis (when the aristocrat and general Catiline, who promoted radical measures favoured by the poor, tried to seize power) without a dictatorship, because he did not believe the Senate would make him dictator and he wanted the glory of ending the crisis himself. Cicero pushed the Senate to agree to an illegal trial and execution of four of the conspirators. Rousseau suggests this was necessary to the survival of the Republic, but in such a case it is better to appoint a dictator and formalise the suspension of laws. Cicero was sent into exile and then recalled by the Senate, as Rousseau points out, in response to a situation in which Cicero was both criminal and hero. Chapter 7 Rousseau discusses Censorship (as in the Roman institution). The Censors were officers of the Roman state who judged actions against public morality (as well as arranging the electoral lists), on the basis of public morality rather than law. It is an institution that can
7 Political Theory Spring 2106 Notes 8 only work so long as it remains in line with public opinion. It is a product of the inevitable decline of republics, where laws are no longer adequate to maintain virtue. The censorship works more through shame than ordering punishment. The Ephors, who Rousseau also identifies with Roman tribunes, were the equivalent of Roman censors. Rather than punish bad behaviour they permitted it to communities where some people had behaved badly in order to create shame. Chapter 8 Rousseau discusses civil religion, meaning the kind of religion that serves the laws and the state. His argument, summarising this long chapter heavily, is that a religion is dangerous to a society and its political institutions if it does not allow for the supremacy of properly formed laws. Christianity has tended to divided humans between civil law and religious law, because it refers to a higher kingdom. Rousseau says that he is criticising Christianity as practised by the churches since Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. He says that he agrees with the Gospels (the four lives of Christ in the New Testament of the Bible), but that is a religion of inner conscience, of the heart. Citizens can have any religious opinions so long as they do form part of a system that rivals state laws. The best situation is one in which the laws create a civil religion, suitable for public life, which is the official religion of state serving the state. The next best situation is a theocracy in which the state laws are religious laws, because religion and state are unified, with religion taking the leading role. The worst situation is one in which state laws and church laws conflict, as has happened in Christianity. The division of loyalties promoted by Christianity makes soldiers less willing to fight their homeland and contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire. Chapter 9 Conclusion. Rousseau says that he has left out various issues (to do with the external relations of the state and with commerce which Rousseau may see as tied to external relations), but that he will finish. Some of these issues are dealt with in Discourse on Political Economy, A Project for a Perpetual Peace and Principles of the Right of War