The Power of Sovereignty - Research Paper Example

?Insert of Introduction Man is an irrational being who will always fight to advancehis sovereignty in all spheres of life. Indeed until one achieves what he wants in life, man will never relax. Failure is the most annoying thing in the lives of many people in the world today. Many people will not want to be associated with failure no matter what the cost. One may ask himself what certain personalities always associate failure with. While some people have maintained that the inability to achieve what one wants in life is termed as a failure, others have argued that this definition is relative thus inadequate in defining the term to full capacity. Inequalities in the exercise of power and disregard to justice are even more evidenced in the political scene in various regions around the world today. Such always stem from the need to advance once own course by ignoring and disregarding other people who they consider rather inadequate. Stigall, Blacksley and Jenks argue that an interesting scene is always created where people especially the government authorities always insist on maintaining their rights while at the same time violating and stepping on the rights of their own subjects. (Stigall, Blacksley and Jenks, 2009). This is a common occurrence experienced with most of the sovereignties around the globe today. The aspect of exercising single handed rule on the subject population is mostly experienced in dictatorial countries such as Syria, Egypt, Iraq, alongside other Arab countries famous for dictatorial cases. This is contrary to what Hobbes refers to in his social contract theory, leaving the state of nature and looking at the advancement of one’s own course at the expense of the others in the territory (subjects). According to the social contract theory, it is those in higher social ranks who seem to deserve their rights while those of the lower social ranking are often considered incapable of demanding for any form of rights. As a result of this, their rights are always abused in a bid to preserve those of the power in the society. This paper will look at the effects of electing a sovereign with regard to the protection of state rights and the protection of the people under this rule with reference to the Arab countries and democracy in these regions. Hobbes proposes in his theory that the election of a sovereign in any state always results in the creation of the state of nature in the regions under the control of the sovereign (Saul, 2008). This theory, I think does not hold enough water in as much as I know and believe given the many atrocities which have been experienced in many of the Arab countries such as Syria and Egypt in the recent past. Having the sovereigns in these states has done nothing much other than inflicting a lot of troubles and augmenting the rise in cases of inequalities in these states. These happen as the sovereigns strive to uphold their own rights at the expense of the other citizens. Many people have succumbed to death in these countries as they try to protest to regain their rights. The question in this case therefore is whether this is what Hobbes refers to as the creation of a state of nature. The state of nature according to my understanding with regard to the social and political contexts is when the ruling authority strikes a balance with the citizens under her rule to allow the participation and full regard of the subjects in state affairs. It is far from having the central government designing and deciding on every aspect of leadership. The contrary is however the truth in most of the sovereign ruling systems as in the cases of Syria and Egypt we have mentioned above. Brown and Hamzawy note that “The tragic developments in Lebanon and Palestine- all with weak or failed state institutions- have enable Arab democracy pessimists dismiss easily any talk about positive political reforms as the fantasy of the western well- intentioned humanists- or misguided ideologues- who do not understand the real Arab world and its unsuitability for democracy” (Brown & Hamzawy, 2007). What these two observers refer to here confirm my fears of what democracy really means if the people who are subject to the protection and security of the government which they actually elect to reign over them changes to be a menace to them. Turning against the people who actually elected them into those positions and exercising the unjust and dictatorial rule on the innocent and poor citizens. In this kind of practice thwarts the hopes of these countries ever achieving the democracy that they have dreamt of for a long period of time. In as much as one might argue that the exercise of full and complete authority over the people by the sovereign government will bring in the aspect of the state of nature, these cases can be graded among the grave violation of human rights and the abuse of the ethics of humanity (SassoliM, 2008). The decision and the rights of the people have to be upheld by the ruling authority in order to assure them that their democratic rights have been protected by the rule of law. This is actually the fundamental for justice and democracy. Even as Saul argues that recognizable democratic achievements have been seen in some of the Arab countries, these changes are not feasible enough to qualify the dawn of the longed for freedom in these countries (Saul B, 2008). Peace is a matter of the past and democracy has been kept at bay by the many atrocities and crimes against humanity witnessed in these regions. Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the International Human Rights document state: “Article 1: all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in the spirit of brotherhood. Article 2: everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it is independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security.” (Human Rights Watch, 2011b). Several questions remain unanswered if the dictatorial rule in Syria is really subject to this declaration, if the respect and regard expected to be endowed on every human being given the fact that they are humans by nature is really a matter to the Syrian government. Brown & Hamzawy argue that the dictatorial governments, what Hobbes calls sovereignty, actually has regard for human life. He also notes that these sovereignties care about the right to life that every human being has as the greatest possession in life (Brown & Hamzawy, 2007). I tend to reason that the dictatorial governments have much regard to power and the maintenance of the status quo in such societies than the protection of human rights and the exercise of democracy. The document on human rights noted that all persons are equal in dignity and rights regardless of race, religion, color, creed. That all deserve respect and security to ensure full protection of rights and the preservation of the lives of all individuals in the world. The rights and the democracy of a person cannot be reserved and protected by people from outside but rather by the ruling government in these regions. Some governments such as those in the Arab countries have totally neglected their responsibilities and have ventured into the abuse of human rights. This disqualifies the argument that the election of sovereigns would be expected to bring any kind of positive change in the lives of the citizens who actually planted them into such places. Morsink lists the types of human rights violations experienced in Syria under the leadership of Bashar al Asaad from the year 2011. Among these violations are the following: Extra-judicial killings and increasingly systematic use of violence by governmental forces, most often within the context of anti-government demonstrations; Mass arrests, abductions, enforced disappearances and detention of civilians, most often of arbitrary nature; Acts of torture, degrading or inhumane treatment; Repression of free assembly and violations of the freedom of information, notably targeting media and human rights defenders; Military operations and besieged cities: practices amounting to collective punishments committed against the civilian population; Restriction and denial of access to hospitals (Morsink, 1999). These are some of the proofs that the establishment of a sovereign power in the leadership position in the world is actually a big mistake. It is true therefore that any country which finds election a sovereign will end up with more regrets than the enjoyments of the purported fruits aimed at upon establishment. It is true that people will always demonstrate in a case where the ruling government will not adhere to their demands. These demonstrations should always act as correction points to the leadership so that they actually adjust to accommodate the demands of the people who established them into leadership positions. When these demands are thwarted like in the case of Syria, then we can actually conclude that the ruling government is one which is uncaring. It may also show that these governments’ main aim and goals are to chart out the course for the establishment of the ruling power. They actually do not who look into the demands and the need for well being of the people under her rule. It is one that will do all things including extra judicial killings and lynching to maintain the status quo at the expense of peace and democracy. In most of these cases, war has been used by sovereigns to maintain their dominion over the poor citizens. These as opposed to the powerful persons have very little to do in their to protect themselves. One may argue that economic development is not in most cases hindered by the many cases of war and violence. Mead argues otherwise and maintains that wherever the power structure of a country contradicts economic development, it is the political power with its means of violence that will suffer defeat (Mead, 2010; MorsinkJ, 1999). It is very difficult to detach warfare and economic underdevelopment. People who reside under the dictatorship and war some rule often have reduced rigor to venture fully into the intensive economic development. Separating the mind from the tortures of the war and the remembrance of the perished friends and relatives as a result of the wars keeps on tormenting the surviving majority. Time that would be devoted to economic development is wasted on non- income generating activities leading to underdevelopment in the long run. It is good to note here that the aspect of war always takes a person back to the state of nature which Hobbes describes in his theory of contraction, the pre- political stage, a stage where people live independently under conditions of suspicion, insecurity and conflicts. This condition does not qualify the equality aspect that Hobbes and the document on human rights describe. Hobbes states: All humans are basically equal in terms of their desires and abilities, yet our natural egoism combined with the competition for limited resources leads to a state of perpetual war of all against all, in which, life is all solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (Mead, 2010). This is exactly what happens in most of the sovereigns political affiliations where life in itself is unreal and unpredictable. No one knows when he or she can be drawn away from his family members and friends to damnation. People live in absolute fear and abject poverty of the mind making life so frightening and boring. Hannah Arendt adds that the main reason behind the war in most of these sovereign countries is the fight for the total control over resources and the fear of death among most of these sovereign powers. Most of these sovereigns fear that when they eventually go out of power, they would actually be killed or would just lack the total control over their resources they have been controlling before. Why would one fear being killed if he or she has been leading people in the right way? It is true that if one has been straight in the way he is dealing with the majority of the population which he rules, he has nothing to fear completely. He therefore has nothing to protect as the power of his good leadership would protect all that one has toiled for during his tenure. The fear that when one becomes less powerful at the end of his or her leadership period is the prime source of fear in most of these leaders who have been leading taintly during their tenure. The fear that the rule of law would catch up with them when they actually go out of power is a haunting phenomenon which keeps tormenting most of the sovereign leaders hem\nce their continued suspicion of a purported trouble. Take for example the rule in most of these democratic nations across the earth and the way their leaders carry out their activities and even their relationship with the citizens. Most of the sovereigns fear coming out of power for the fear of the unknown. Most of them have not succeeded in creating a good rapport with the citizens of their own nation. They have persecuted them instead of caring and fetching for their needs. They have been unjust to their demands as well as aggressive on their rights. They therefore fear that when they eventually becomes less powerful and insignificant in their own societies, that when they are finally toppled out of sovereignty, their subjects would want to retaliate on them. It is for this reason that most of the sovereigns would not accept stepping out of power. They would prefer to rule till their death or not mind what happens to them after that. Talk of sovereignty powers like Muamar Gadafi of Libya, Bashar al Asaad of Syria, Sadam Hussein of Iraq among other known sovereigns. These could not move out of power until some of them were forcefully removed with the help of the international community, mainly in America. Asaad is accused of mass violation of human rights such as extrajudicial killings, lynchings and unaccounted for assassinations of those who oppose his tainted rule on the Syrians. It if for this reason that Asaad does not want to distance himself from the throne of power, the fear of the unknown, the fear of becoming less powerful and facing more violence and justice against himself. This complies with Hannah’s theory of ‘less power, more violence’ and a justification for Hobbes’ ‘social contract theory.’ More democratic rules have for this reason succeeded in overcoming the world and growing their economies to that of the leading world economies. There is no time in life when the war will be reciprocated to economic development. The stronger the wars and tensions created as a result of these, the poorer the economic development of the people and the country as a whole. Democracy promotes economic development by ensuring that the needs of each and every citizen is catered for irrespective of their political influence and material power. This is contrary to the case in sovereign communities where the more influential one becomes in close allegiance to the ruling power, the more protected he becomes (Mead, 2010; Morsink, 1999; Saul, 2008). This is what Hobbes refers to as advancing ones own course at the expense of the poor populace and who forms the majority of the population in these regions. Here, the need to advance one's own course is the driving force behind the advancement of popularity and power among the poor population. This often leads to rampant cases of inequality and biasednes in the administration of justice and democracy to all. As a result, every man turns to the other man for fear of being attacked. One becomes a prospective enemy of the other, hence the resulting society is that where all men are set against the other for protection and survival in a war torn society. Moreover, the possible use of force to liberate the weak voices with regard to the need or self determination is justified in the 1970 declaration of the principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co- operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The declaration states: ‘Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples (…) of their right to self –determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and receive support in accordance with the purpose and principles of the Charter.’ (Stigall, 2009) The international community as well as this charter does not prohibit the use of force, especially where the rights of these forces are denied. The opposition to this legality of this has always been associated with dictatorship and the domination of unequal powers promoting inequalities among the people and not justice as is expected. Conclusion In conclusion, I would want to reiterate here that the election of a sovereign to the positions of power does not bring any good to the people under her rule as may be expected. Instead, a lot of negativity in concern with the exercise of power and democratic rule of the people is a common occurrence. As a result of this, notable disparities have been noted proving the anomaly which dominates such situations. A case study of some of the Arab countries such as Syria and Egypt, with the recent uprisings against the sovereign powers is a perfect example of this. These powers aim more at advancing their courses at the expense of the poor and weaker majority under their rules. References Brown, N., & Hamzawy, A. (2007, Sep/Oct). Arab Spring Fever. The National Interest , 33. Mead, D. (2010). The new law o peaceful protest: rights and regulation in the Human Rights Act Era. Portland: Hart Publishing, . MorsinkJ. (1999). The universal declaration of human rights: origins, drafting, and intent. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. SassoliM, O. (2008). The relationship between international humanitarian and human rights law where it matters: admissible killings and internment of fighters in non- international armed conflicts. IntRevRedCross , 90, 599. Saul B. (2008). Defending terrorism’: justifications and excuses for terrorism in International Criminal Law. N08/122 Legal Studies Research Paper. StigallD, B. (2009). Human rights and military decisions counterinsurgency and trends in the law of international armed conflict. WilliamSBoydSchoolofLaw . Watch, H. R. (2011b). We live as in war. Crackdown on protesters in the Governorate o Thomas, in Syria . Read More