The Removal of the Causes of Faction as Opposed to Controlling Its Effects - Research Paper Example

Both John Locke and John Winthrop were influential thinkers on ideas such as the place of man within society. They shaped modern thinking on concepts such as the self, identity and social theory. The following sections compare and contrast their views on human equality. That is followed by a discussion on what those ideas imply about the structure and purpose of government. Differences in the Ideas on Human Equality Being one of the leading thinkers during the Enlightenment period, John Locke’s views on human equality are enlightened and republican. In essence, he believes that all human beings are equal regardless of any other claim to superiority held by others. Locke also believes that in a state ruled by a king, it is erroneous to suppose that the king or monarch holds some qualities that make him better or superior to those he governed. Locke and Winthrop on Human Equality and Equal Rights. Locke believes that there were no differences in equality between the governor and those governed. He states that the ruler and the ruled were equal as human beings and the fact that one of them has been given the power to govern is actually the result of a social contract between them. John Locke is also one of the first thinkers who articulate the importance of equal rights that are inalienable. He believes that all human beings have the right to life, the right to freedom and the right to hold property. He considers these rights to be inalienable and incapable of being defeated by any other law made to the contrary. In many ways, these ideas have been incorporated into the concept of the Bill of Rights in the American Constitution. John Winthrop was a leading intellectual and preacher of the Puritan movement. He was also against the tyrannical rule of the monarch and the control of the Church of England over its members. He migrated to Massachusetts on board the Arabella where he became governor of the Massachusetts Bay Company and an influential estate owner. Unlike Locke, however, Winthrop does not subscribe to the idea that all human beings were equal. He believes that there are innate differences in the capacities of all human beings and hence they cannot be termed as equal. Winthrop believes that nature creates certain individuals in ways that destines them to take up more authoritative roles in society (Bremer 176). Similarly, others who are not endowed with those capacities have to perform subjugating roles in society. This kind of inequality is unavoidable in the view of Winthrop. He believes that the best way of arriving at public good is for people to recognize their place in society and perform their roles accordingly. Locke’s Idea of Social Contract Theory. Locke believes in the social contract theory. He holds that the relationship of ruler and ruled comes about when the people in the state of nature agree to transfer certain rights originally held by them to the government so that their rights of life, liberty and property can be enjoyed without any danger or obstruction (Mattern 153). In other words, Locke believes that the government does not grant any rights. Those rights are held by the people already. The government simply ensures that nothing gets in the way of people’s exercise of those rights and their freedom to invoke those rights when they are needed. It has been noted that Locke believes the difference in the roles between ruler and ruled is a result of consensual social contract rather than a divine action. According to Locke, the public good can be achieved by drafting and enforcing laws that are in the interest of the rights of the majority (Mattern 153). Locke believes in the republican ideas where the government has to respond to the wishes of the people and rule accordingly. The ruler is not empowered to govern in a way that benefits certain people. On the contrary, he is responsible to work for the public good (Powell & Clemens 9). If the government fails to rule accordingly, Locke believes that the people have a right to change the government through revolt. This is an important idea presented by Locke that clearly indicates that he holds no difference between the equality of the human beings who rule and those who are ruled. Locke’s Idea of Public Good. Locke’s views are democratic in nature and he believes that the public good can be achieved through pursuing the rule of the majority. He also believes in the concept of separation of powers. Locke believes that the legislative and executive functions of the state should be separate. This reflects the importance Locke places on the impartiality of the government. As he lived during the Enlightenment and was influenced by the changes taking place in the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England, Locke believes that the ruler does not have the right to coerce the people to adopt his ideas on religion. In a similar vein, he also believes that the churches also do not have any such controlling power over the people who are their members. Locke and Winthrop on Separation of Powers. Locke is of the idea that a legitimate government is not possible without a separation of powers. He believes that governments are created by the consent of the people as opposed to any divine right to superiority, and hence they can be dissolved. Lock believes that legislative and executive powers should be separate so that the government does not use coercion or allow bias to creep in when it drafts laws for the public good. He states that the legislative power is important and instrumental in determining how the public good will be attained by the government. Although the legislature gets the power to make laws, this does not exclude it from being subject to the natural laws. Secondly, Locke believes that the enforcement of law is to be carried out by the executive function of the country. Locke does not reject the importance of the judicial function in interpreting law. However, he believes that it is part of the executive and legislative responsibilities. He also believes that in some cases the ruler can act without legislative sanction. This is necessary in extreme situations where the ruler can exercise the right of prerogative to make decisions for the public good. Unlike Locke, who believes in a separation of powers and is against the use of coercion in religious matters, Winthrop believes that a government has “civil” as well as “ecclesiastical” responsibilities. While this does not imply that the clergy have a role to play in the government, it does see the creation of a new system where the parallel systems of civil and ecclesiastical legislation are to be assumed by a single authority. In some ways, Winthrop also believes that the role of the government is to protect the rights of the people by acting against those who interfere with the rights of the people (Bremer 176). In addition, Winthrop also believes that the government should also take steps to preserve the social order and keep every person in their place. The government should take steps to maintain the established relationships of authority among the people. In pursuit of the public good, Winthrop also argues that private interest should give way to the public good. He believes that it is legitimate for the government to seek control over private property in case it becomes necessary to protect the public good. This conception is similar to the idea of government prerogative given by Locke. Both Locke and Winthrop agree that the government can make decisions that interfere with the rights of some people to the benefit of the public. Anti-Federalists and Federalists on Diversity and Republican Government The difference of opinion between the anti-federalists and federalists emerged in 1787 when the proposed new Constitution of the United States of America was presented for ratification at the Philadelphia Convention. The proposed new constitution included the idea to create a national government among the thirteen states. It was further stated that the national government would be elected by the people rather than the states and that the people would be represented equally in the legislature. These moves would have the effect of creating America into a nation state rather than a confederation. The proposed changes were welcomed by the federalists who advocated a strong national government. On the other hand, certain people though that a national government would be detrimental to the interests of the diverse American peoples. Hence, the changes should not be accepted. These people are known as the anti-federalists. The group of anti-federalists included the Federal Farmer and Brutus while the federalists were represented by leaders such as James Madison. The Arguments of the Anti-Federalists The anti-federalists were against the creation of a strong national government where the state governments would have little control in determining their own solutions to their problems. The anti-federalists believed that a national government would gradually absorb the powers of the state governments, leaving little for them to protect their interests. They believed that the United States was a diverse country where people had difference cultural, political and economic needs. There were cultural and religious differences among the people that a national government would not be able to consider in making decisions for the whole country (Storing 34). The anti-federalists mainly sought to protect the freedom and power of the state governments. They believed that the state governments would be more efficient in understanding the needs of their people and in finding ways to solve their problems. Hence, it was essential for there to be freedom and autonomy of state governments. This is not to say that the anti-federalists were against the creation of a federal government. However, the proposed changes to the constitution where the federal government would be elected by the people directly undermined the authority of the state government and its role in defending the interests of the people (Storing 34). The anti-federalists were in favour of a federal government that would provide direction and would control certain matters of national interest. However, they believed that the state governments should be responsible for all other legislative and executive matters pertaining to the individual states. The anti-federalists were against a federal national government as opposed to a federal government (Storing 34). The anti-federalists were concerned about territorial diversity of the United States. They believed that a national government would not be capable of managing the affairs of an expansive country as the United States. It would be difficult for it to coordinate among the thirteen states and deal with all the state governments to create effective legislation that was acceptable to all. The only way the national government could exercise any effective control, the anti-federalists argued, was if the national government would usurp the powers of the state governments, giving itself absolute control over what would in effect become an American empire (Storing 34). The anti-federalists also projected that such exercise of power over such an expansive territory and diverse peoples would eventually lead the government to use coercion to enforce compliance with the law, since little moral authority could make so many diverse peoples adhere to a single law. Ultimately, the anti-federalists predicted, the national federal government would become a despotic government that would rule by tyranny and could deprive the people of their freedoms. Hence, according to the anti-federalists, the national federal government would result in defeating the freedoms and rights of the people it governed. The anti-federalists believed that self-government was essential to protect the rights and freedoms of the people. A national government would be free of any checks and would resort to despotism in ruling the people. This would become necessary as the national government tried to impose its rules on the people. The anti-federalists believed that the people of the United States were too diverse to make a national government meaningful. They argued that the kind of diversities in the United States—cultural, regional, economic—would make it difficult to forge any kind of unity among them. As a result, they could only be coerced with force to follow the rules of the national government. The Counter-Arguments of the Federalists Among the federalists who supported the creation of a strong national government, James Madison was foremost. He countered the arguments and criticisms of the anti-federalists by arguing that a large national government would be able to balance the competing interests of the individual groups more effectively. Madison argued that a national government would be able to avoid the tyrannical rule of the majority over the minority. He believed that the anti-federalists were only looking at one aspect of the national federal government while ignoring the fact that the national government would be based on the principle of separation of powers. Such a structure would make it impossible for the federal government to impose tyrannical rule and despotism over the people (Storing 38). Furthermore, Madison argued, the national government would prevent any single large group from imposing its interests over the other smaller groups. This, in his opinion, would help to offset the likelihood of conflicting interests and would create decisions that would reflect the public good as opposed to the good of a majority group. Madison was very concerned about the influence of majority factions in representative form of government. He wrote an essay in the Federalist No. 10 where he argued that a federal government would prevent the abuse of majority power against minority interests. This would help to respect the integrity and freedom of diverse interests in the country (Storing 38). The question of factions was addressed by Madison in his essay Federalist No. 10. In that he tried to allay the fears of the anti-federalists by first describing the threat posed by factions to the integrity of the republic. He then attempted to explain how the abusive influence of factions can threaten unity. Unlike the anti-federalists who were concerned with diversity of culture and economics in the United States, Madison and other federalists were trying to address the challenges to the diversity of opinion in the country. In particular, he was concerned with diversity in political opinions that often led to conflict over issues of governance. In addition, Madison also discussed the role played by unequal distribution of property among the people in creating vested interests. He explained that factions tend to form around vested interests based on unequal distribution of property (Storing 39). In one of his chief arguments, Madison discussed the removal of the causes of faction as opposed to controlling its effects. He states that liberties need to be curtailed to reduce the likelihood of creating factions. However, he recognized the value Americans attached to liberty and did not consider this a practicable idea. Ultimately, he concluded that the best way to control the damaging effects of factions was to control its effects. Ultimately, Madison concluded that a large republic as opposed to a small republic was the best way to ensure that the most competent person would be elected to the representatives. Works Cited Bremer, Francis J. John Winthrop: America’s Forgotten Founding Father. Oxford University Press, 2005. Print. Mattern, M. Putting Ideas to Work: A Practical Introduction to Political Thought. Rowman & Littlefield. 2006. Print. Powell, Walter W., and Clemens, Elisabeth S. Private Action and Public Good. Yale University Press. 1998. Storing, Herbert J. What the Anti-Federalists Were For: The Political Thought of the Opponents of the Constitution. University of Chicago Press, 2008. Web. Read More