Philosophy

Various theories have been proposed regarding the ideal system of governance. In this paper, the focus will be turned to the various philosophical understandings, regarding political governance. This study takes on a very wide scope, which incorporates the various aspects of the discussed philosophers. Some of the theories that will be discussed include the ideas of freedom as understood over the years, the idea of slavery, the idea of property, the issues of unity and diversity, the various ideas on the social contract, the notion of equality, the issue of legitimating of power, as well as the idea of the place of the polis with in relation to the economic situation of the present world.

The Concept of Freedom
The ability to order ones actions according to their own will is the essence of freedom. This concept was very well understood in the Ancient Greece, where slavery was a common practice. The concept of freedom therefore eliminates the possibility of servitude. Freedom was one of the most prominent elements of Platos Republic. He argued that in any society, justice would only be realized where freedom prevailed. In his understanding of the tripartite soul, Plato recognized reason as the most prominent element, whose characteristic feature was free will. Plato emphasized the importance of seeking the guidance of reason, especially in matters of governance, as opposed to the use of passions. Plato was keen to caution against the use of either the spirited or the appetitive elements when making major decisions.

This understanding of Plato was later taken up in the philosophical thought of Augustine of Hippo in his formulation of the concept of original sin. Augustine understood that the original sin came as a result of the first parents slavery to their passion. He argued that reason was the one wing that leads people to God. God placed the first parents in the garden where he left them in freedom, after having instructed them on what to do and what not to do. Because of freedom, people went against God, by disobeying the command. This abuse of freedom caused the original sin, which becomes propagated through all generations. In freedom, God allowed the human beings to experience his grace.

Calvin brought in the idea of conscience into the concept of freedom. This has become a central theme in todays Christian thought. Calvins understanding of conscience was that the will was one of the crucial components of the conscience. His understanding was that the only way to avoid self deception was through the use of conscience. This was a very acceptable concept for Christianity.
Hobbes considered freedom as the predisposition of the will to act as it wishes. For him however, individuals could not exercise freedom and remain in peace. That is why certain freedoms must be of necessity given to the leader with absolute power in order to maintain peace. Freedom in Hobbes is therefore not more important than peaceful co-existence.

In a paradoxical way, Rousseau claims that there is a natural inclination in the human persons, to freedom. In some cases, coercing the human person to freedom may be necessary. This freedom is present in the state of nature, but society tends to destroy it while at the same time affirming its role in the distinction between man and animals. Rousseau also recognized the fact that freedom was the key to the perfectibility of human nature. However, he posits that this does not exclude the possibility of failure.

The Issue of Slavery
One of the conditions within which slavery was justifiable was the fact of superiority. In other words, if the person who was enslaving the other was superior to that person enslaved, it would be morally acceptable. This was according to him the conventional understanding of slavery. For him there is another kind of slavery, namely natural slavery, which ensues from the lack of the capacity for reflective thought. However, Aristotle did not adequately justify this argument for natural slavery. The argument regarding slavery in Aristotle points to the influence of his master Plato, who had earlier discussed the importance of not being slaves to the passions. The claim that persons are slaves if they are not able to use their rational elements was borrowed from earlier reasoning.

The theory advanced by Locke regarding property totally excludes Aristotelian arguments for slavery. Locke saw that due to the fact that individuals own themselves, any work done by them justifies their claim for ownership. This means that slavery would not be admissible, because the slave would also have a claim of what heshe has worked for. At the same time, however, another kind of slavery would become evident. Wage slavery comes in, where individuals become dependent on others, who have already acquired properties for themselves. Smith argues that it is important to match physical and human labor in order to realize greater progress. He was however, opposed to division of labor, which he saw as a form of inequality. This opposition was due to the monotony of doing the same thing all the time (Hampton, 1997).

Rousseau argued that due to the love of property, modern man has placed ownership of property above integrity. Thus individuals seek the opinions of others in order to feel important. For him, importance in the present times is seen in the property owned. In this way, people have become slaves to opinion.

Private Property
The Guardians in Platos Republic were seen as the best placed in the dispensation of societal interests. They were therefore supposed to act in the interest of the republic by effectively managing properties of the republic.

Aquinas claimed that everyone has a right to live in the world, which is given in nature. He distinguishes between natural law and positive law. According to him, natural law comes from nature independently of human intervention. Positive law on the other hand comes as through convention. Private property for Aquinas was acceptable to the extent that everyone had the right to private property. He however supported slavery, and needless to say that slaves were not allowed the acquisition of property.

Hobbes argued that all property should belong to the state. In other words, individuals although individuals have certain properties in their possession, those properties only belong to the state, under the custodianship of the leviathan. Possession in this case therefore does not mean unlimited custodianship (Hampton, 1997).

On his part, Locke considers that private property is a right for every person. This is because as long as the labor that has been employed to the realization of that property is attributable to that person, it can only properly belong to him. Locke struggled to understand how property, which was a creation of God, in the beginning, came to be claimed by certain individuals as rightfully theirs. As already mentioned, the only thing that an individual can claim ownership was their own selves. However, the individual does certain things by using their own strength, and this gives them a right to claim ownership of those properties. Locke argues that money came in as a result of an agreement and became the source of all inequalities. This was because it encouraged accumulation of property (Hampton, 1997).

Smith considers the introduction of money as being crucial in the development of countries. Money in politics had the purpose of creating loyalties. Smith argues that this is why incentives are offered as a reward for loyalty.

The Theme of Unity in Plato, Augustine, Luther and Hobbes
In the Republic, the three parts of the state are all geared towards unity. When every member of the state does what they are best suited to accomplish, the result is a harmoniously functioning state. There would be no conflict because everyone knows what they are supposed to do.

Augustines philosophy has largely been influenced by his religious convictions, which in essence focuses on unity. The Roman Empire fell as a result of unity, and as such the city of God calls for a united world.

From a superficial point of view, Luther might seem as having been against unity, but in reality his school of thought highly reflected a search for unity. The call for reformation was a call to a more unified world (Hampton, 1997).

Hobbes on the other hand saw the need for unity due to the existential conflict that prevailed in the state of nature. For him, uniting together and giving up some of the rights was the only way to achieving peace.

All of these philosophers prevailed at different times in history, and each of their individual contexts determined the way they philosophized.

Hobbes and Locke in the State of Nature
According to Hobbes, the state of nature is characterized by constant violence. Everyone is guided by their desire to preserve themselves. Therefore, selfish tendencies are very common in the state of nature. This state according to Hobbes is in actual fact a state of war.

According to Locke, the state of nature was characterized by a great happiness and use of reason. In this state, everyone tolerated the other, and no one sought to advance themselves at the expense of the others. There was freedom to pursue all self fulfillments in this state. According to Hobbes, there is no justice in the state of nature (Hampton, 1997). Locke differs totally with him on this account. As a matter of fact, Locke and Hobbes are symmetrically opposed. Justice for Locke is a part of the natural condition of man, but in Hobbes, justice can only be achieved where force is used by the leader with absolute authority. The fact that people are in constant fight in the state of nature, can be partly blamed on the desire for self preservation. Property acquisition is one of the things that advance this conflict. For Locke freedom that is characteristic of the state of nature allows for the ownership of property. Hobbes comes up with a social contract theory which places all power on one individual, who should then act enforce the laws in order to preserve peace. Locke on the other hand provides a social contract theory that is based on the need to protect private property. This contract is based consent, and does not impose a final rule on the people like that of Hobbes. In this contract, power essentially resides in the people, and there is a right to private property.

Rousseau argues against Hobbes in that liberty is not possible in the Hobbesian social contract. It is important, according to Rousseau, that the people be in a position to establish the rules for their own governance (Hampton, 1997). The model proposed by Hobbes does not admit of this possibility. The person who determines the rules is only the leviathan.

Rousseau differs with Locke in that whereas Locke saw that common interest was the key to Lockean social contract, there was a possibility of egoistic tendencies in some individuals, thus blocking the collective interests. Rousseau proposes a republican kind of government. He argues that the individuals give up their own wills in order to come up with a general will, which is used to govern society, and any individual will that conflicts with the general will is forced to comply. All of these theories have been apply in some ways in the modern times as forms of governance. However, Lockean theory seems to be the one best one. It is the one that comes close to democracy as understood and practiced today (Hampton, 1997).

Equality as Understood
Plato understood equality quite differently from the current understanding of the word. This is because, equality for him meant that persons would only belong where they were naturally positioned. Justice was the key to an equal society, but that did not mean that everyone could work in any profession.

Values were important in the understanding of equality in Cicero. A republican government was therefore supposed to be guided by values.

For Augustine, equality was understood in the light of the Christian teaching. Everyone was basically equal in the eyes of God. Justice was crucial in governance.

For Hobbes, equality leads to constant war, and therefore should not be accepted in governance. This is because of the selfish nature of individuals in the state of nature (Hampton, 1997).

Rousseau argues that the beginning of inequality was the idea of private property. When people took land for themselves that was when inequalities crept in. This understanding challenges the idea of equality as asserted in the American Declaration of Freedom. People are not equal to the extent of their differences in property ownership.

Legitimating Power
Political philosophy is concerned with what makes power legitimate. It makes an attempt to establish the best form of governance. This is important because only legitimate power holding can be accepted as form of governance. Acceptability is very important in any kind of system.
Plato argues that the systems of governance change with the changes that take place within the society. He argues that the people make changes in the constitution as well as the systems of governance only to revert to the original systems later (Hampton, 1997).

In an attempt to explain the fall of the Roman Empire, Augustine claims that the empire was destined to fall, and as such Christian were not at fault. The fall according to Augustine was due to the sinful nature of the human person, and as such, Rome could not have been saved, unless the sinful nature was eliminated.

According to Aquinas, there is a justification for disobedience of the human law. This justification comes where the human law conflicts with the divine law. The ground for justification is also found in Calvins understanding of conscience. The argument advanced by him is that reason is very important in deciding on whether to follow the law. If the conscience dictates otherwise, then there is sufficient ground for refusal of authority.

On the glorious revolution, Locke argued that excesses in governance lead to a revolution. This for him is justified, because the leader must defend and guard the interests of the people with regard to property (Hampton, 1997). Hobbes would object to this because he rejects the idea of property being held privately.

The Oikos and the Polis
In our present world, the demands of the capitalistic trends have over taken the principles of the state. However, the capitalistic movement has experienced a major set back, with the fall of giants in the economic world. This emerging trend calls for a reinterpretation of the polis because as it is, the realities of contemporary life greatly differ from those of the past. However, even then, the principles which protect the individual must be reaffirmed. In the ancient Greek world, the polis was separated from the economical. The forces that drive the economy in most cases would conflict with the forces that controlled the political life.

This trend has often recurred in the history of Western thought. For instance, in the recent past, there have been calls for the separation between the sacred and the secular. This is informed by the fact that there is often a conflict in the interests of the different groups.

According to Hobbes, the state would be in charge of both the economical and the political dispensation. This is because placing anyone of these on the individuals would lead to self interests (Hampton, 1997). Although Rousseau does not totally reject the idea of private property, he considers it to be the source of all evils.

For Smith there is no distinction between the political and the economical. There is instead a marriage between the two. Thus the economy is largely controlled by the political.

This study has considered a wide scope of matters of political governance. It has moved from the ancient Greek world to the modern world. Platos views on the issue of governance have been part of the considerations of this paper. Views of other philosophers, such as Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Smith, as well as Burke have been given due consideration. The issue of governance continue to linger in the minds of political theorists nonetheless, because all things considered, a lot remains unresolved regarding governance.