THE NATURE AND FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
_The purpose of this chapter is to explain what government is, how
it originated, why people obey it, and what its functions are._
[Sidenote: Various uses of the word “state”.]
=What is the State?=—The word “state” is so short and simple that
everybody is assumed to know just what it means. And in a general way
everyone does know what it means. But it is used in more than one sense
and with a good deal of latitude. When we speak, for example, of the
“newly-created states of Europe” we mean Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and
Jugo-Slavia. The term “state”, so used, designates a country with an
independent political existence. But we also speak of “the states of the
Union”, by which we mean merely the political divisions of a single
country. Then, again, one frequently encounters such expressions as “a
statesman who served the state” or “state control of railroads”, or “the
relations between Church and State”. To what does the term in such cases
refer? Here the expression is used in a generic sense to include
politically organized society, and those who so use it are thinking more
particularly of the political agencies through which organized society
acts.
[Sidenote: A general definition.]
A simple definition will cover all these uses of the term. A state is a
body of people, possessing a definite territory, and politically
organized. Territory is essential. The Jews for many centuries did not
constitute a state because they had no territory of their own. Now they
are once more in the way of obtaining a national homeland. Population is
also essential. The territory around the South Pole does not form a
state because it is uninhabited. And a political organization, a
government, is the third essential. The territory which is now the
United States did not form a state before the first European settlers
reached it, for, although it was inhabited, the savages who roamed over
its vast expanses were not politically organized. They had, for the most
part, neither government nor laws. Persons, territory, and
organization—these are the essential attributes of a state.
=The Government and why we obey it.=—By the government we mean the
various officials and bodies by whom the people are ruled. By the
government the will of the state is carried out. But why should people
obey a government? We obey the rules of voluntary organizations because
we are free to join them or not; but no individual is free to disobey
the laws or to remain aloof from the control of his government. By what
right does the government take money from us in taxes, call upon us for
service in war, compel us to adjust all our controversies in its courts,
and insist that we obey its laws?
[Sidenote: The divine right doctrine.]
Two theories have been offered to justify the government’s right to the
obedience of the people. The first is known as the theory of divine
right. According to this idea all governmental authority was originally
bestowed upon the rulers by the Creator. And having received their
authority from God, the rulers were not responsible to the people. This
theory of governmental authority is very old, as old as the Ten
Commandments and probably older. It was argued that kings ruled and
princes governed by divine right because “the powers that be are
ordained of God”. This doctrine of the divine right of rulers was
maintained throughout the mediaeval period and was put forth by the
Stuart kings of England as a justification of their despotic rule.[17]
[Sidenote: The “consent of the governed”.]
The other theory, which is that government has its foundation in the
“consent of the governed”, appeared in the writings of the English
philosopher, John Locke, during the seventeenth century and was
incorporated into the Declaration of Independence about one hundred
years later. When the Stuart dynasty was finally expelled from the
throne of England, the new sovereigns were declared to be rulers
“according to the desire and resolution of parliament”, in other words
by the consent of the English people through their representatives.
Since the beginning of the nineteenth century the theory that government
rests on the consent of the governed has been accepted in all democratic
countries.
[Sidenote: What the consent of the governed implies.]
Now if we hold this doctrine to be sound, as most men do today, it
follows that when people establish a government by their own consent,
they are under obligation to submit to its authority. Every right
imposes a duty. The right to frame a constitution and to adopt it as the
basis of a new government carries the duty of supporting the
constitution and upholding the hands of those who exercise authority
under it. The people who claim the right to make the laws must be ready
to obey these laws when they are made. When men and women by their own
consent establish a government they do this because they expect to
obtain some advantages such as security, peace, and order. In return for
these advantages they must expect to yield obedience, pay taxes, adjust
their differences in the courts, and do whatever else a government
reasonably requires.
[Sidenote: The social contract theory.]
=How Government Began.=—But admitting that government rests on the
consent of the governed, how was this consent obtained, and how did the
first government come into existence? Here, again, there are two
theories as to what happened. The first is that the state and government
originated in a “social contract”. Primitive men, living in a condition
of political chaos, made a general covenant, by which they created a
sovereign power to rule them. This idea is as old as the days of Plato,
but it did not take strong hold on the minds of men until a few
centuries ago. It was put forward by Thomas Hobbes in England to defend
absolutism, his argument being that to dethrone a king was to break the
contract upon which the state had been founded. On the other hand it was
used by John Locke to prove that the people of England had a right to
dethrone a monarch if the monarch failed to abide by the terms of the
social contract, and those who compare certain passages in Locke’s book
with the Declaration of Independence will see that the framers of that
daring document were much influenced by his assertions. Even in America
the contract theory took a strong hold. The Mayflower pilgrims, lying
off the rock-bound shores of New England, drew up and signed a formal
document wherein they solemnly covenanted and combined themselves into a
“civil body politic”. The doctrine found frequent expression in the
writings of Jefferson and Madison; but while it afforded an excellent
basis for arguments in defence of revolutions against despotism the
theory that the state had its origin in a social contract has long since
been abandoned as unhistorical. It assumes that primitive men were free
and equal individuals subject to no paternal authority, whereas, as a
matter of history, freedom and equality among men arose only after
states had been formed.
[Sidenote: The theory of political evolution.]
The true explanation of how government began is to be found by applying
to the study of political science the methods of biology. We do not know
exactly where or when the first government came into existence, but we
do know that all political institutions are the result of a gradual
evolution or development.
We have already seen that the earliest social unit is the family—a small
group of individuals bound together by intimate ties. But the family was
but one unit in a larger group, the clan, made up of families assumed to
be descended from a common ancestor. The various clans united to form
the tribe which, as an organization, rested upon a common race,
language, and religion. These tribes, although at first roving bodies,
wandering from place to place, at length acquired some definite
territory and settled permanently there. The beginnings of a state were
then at hand and with the state, or even before it, came government. In
all probability that is the process through which the earliest
governments came into being,—a process extending through many
generations. The tribal chiefs became kings and passed on the kingship
to their sons. As time went on the kings gathered greater power until
despotism became the customary form of government in most countries of
the world. It was not until near the end of the eighteenth century that
the world began to shake off the despotic authority of kings and to
establish governments based upon the consent of the people.
[Sidenote: Aristotle’s classification.]
=The Classification of Governments.=—During this long evolution from the
early tribal organizations down to the complex governments of the
present day many forms of rule have been tried in various countries.
Even in ancient Greece the philosopher Aristotle was able to divide
states into six classes, three of which he called _normal_ types and
three _perverted_. Where political power was lodged in the hands of a
single individual, he called the state a monarchy; where it was lodged
with a few men he called it an aristocracy; and where it was vested in
many hands he called it a democracy. Each of these normal types had its
corresponding perversion or travesty. A perverted monarchy he termed
despotism; a perverted aristocracy he termed oligarchy; and a perverted
democracy he called a demagogism or state ruled by mob methods. This
method of classifying states is of little value today and would be in
many ways misleading.
[Sidenote: Monarchies and republics.]
Modern states are more commonly classed as _monarchies_ and _republics_.
The former includes those in which the chief executive officer of the
state—be he king, emperor, or other potentate—holds his position by
hereditary right; the latter includes those in which he is selected in
some other way. But even this classification is not very enlightening.
It does not tell us anything definite about the degree of actual control
which the people of a state exercise over their government. In some
monarchies like Great Britain the power of the people, exercised through
their representatives, is very great; in some republics, in China for
example, this power is very slight. The term republic is nowadays far
from being synonymous with democracy; nor is the term monarchy
incompatible with it. Various so-termed republics of Central and South
America have been in fact little more than military despotisms.
[Sidenote: National and federal states.]
Another classification, much more useful, is that which separates
_national_ from _federal_ states. By the former term we mean a unified
state with a single government which reaches down directly to the
citizen. Great Britain is a _national_ state with a monarchical form of
government; France is also a national state with a republican form of
government. A _federal_ state, on the other hand, is an agglomeration of
smaller states, each of which retains its own government but with a
central government possessing certain powers over them all. The German
empire, a few years ago, was an example of a federal state under a
monarchical form of government, while the United States affords an
illustration of federalism with republican institutions. This
classification is worth while, for it tells us something tangible about
the states so classified. When we say that a state is of the federal
type we imply that it has two spheres of government within it; that is
has a written constitution defining these spheres; that the upper house
of its parliament or legislature in some way represents the component
units of the federation and that it has, in all probability, some
powerful arbiter such as a supreme court to decide conflicts of
authority between the nation and its component parts. Practically all
federal states, at any rate, have these political characteristics. One
cannot imagine a successful federal state without a written
constitution, without division of political powers, without some
existing authority to decide between the respective claims of the whole
and its parts.
[Sidenote: True and false democracies.]
But the most important thing that a student of government ought to know
about any state is whether it merely possesses the forms of democracy or
whether the people in fact control the government. Nearly all
present-day states have the external forms of democracy, that is to say,
they have representative legislatures or parliaments which bulk large in
the general scheme of government. But as to the actualities of
democracy, the extent to which these representative bodies really direct
and control the affairs of state, there is a considerable difference
among the nations. A classification of states from this point of view
can be made only after a careful study of their actual governments. It
is not the form of government which makes a democracy, but the way in
which popular control of public affairs is actually secured and
sustained.
[Sidenote: The spread of democracy.]
=Is Democracy the Best Form of Government?=—During the past few years
democracy has been rapidly gaining ground. The governments of Germany,
Austria, Hungary, Poland, and other countries have been reconstructed in
such way as to give them, outwardly at any rate, the rank of democratic
states. But in spite of this phenomenal progress, which came on the
heels of the World War, it remains a fact that more than half the
population of the world is still living under systems of government
which the people do not control. The world has not yet been made safe
for democracy, nor half of it.
This suggests the question whether democracy is the best form of
government for all races and under all circumstances. Is it best for
backward races, for races only partly civilized? Is it the best system
for people who have had very little political experience, such as the
Egyptians, the Chinese, and the Filipinos? Are we quite certain, in
fact, that it is the best form of government for fully civilized
mankind? Most people have always felt sure that democracy is the nearest
approach to an ideal form of government, but if you ask their reasons
for this belief, you will frequently find that they have never thought
of any reasons. Democracy has been and is being severely criticized by
various writers who declare that it merely places political power in the
hands of the ignorant and unthinking masses, that it leads to
wastefulness, extravagance, and corruption, that it fosters incompetence
in public office, and that it results in woeful misgovernment.[18]
Now it is quite true that democracy does all this in some cases, but
however grave the indictment may be, the friends of democracy can always
answer: “What better alternative do you offer?” The great Italian
statesman, Cavour, once remarked that, whatever faults it might have, a
legislative chamber was better than a king’s antechamber. The
justification of democracy is that it ensures, not necessarily the best
government, or even good government; but the sort of government the
people earn for themselves. A stream does not rise higher than its
source. Nor can a representative government reach any higher level than
that on which the people maintain it. It will reflect the intelligence,
honesty, and patriotism of the governed. That is one reason why we
should not apply to backward races the same principles of government
which we apply to more civilized people. Democracy is the best form of
government for those who are able to govern themselves, but this does
not include all the people of the earth by any means.
[Sidenote: How a government fulfils its purpose.]
=The Purpose of Government.=—Having seen how governments originated,
what forms they have assumed, and why they ought to be obeyed, it may be
well to ask ourselves: What is the purpose of government? What ends does
it serve?
The purpose of government is to promote the interests of each by
promoting the interests of all. This end it seeks to attain in various
ways. It protects the whole body of its people against external
aggression, against foreign invasion. It also in this connection
maintains the rights and liberties of its citizens against wrongful
interference on the part of foreign states or citizens. It is for this
purpose that armies and navies are maintained. The government safeguards
its own citizens from injustice at the hands of one another. This it
does by laws which define the relations of individuals to one another,
and of one group of individuals to other groups. These laws prescribe
the relations of husband and wife, of parent and child, of landlord and
tenant, of employer and employee, of office-holder and citizen—they
define and regulate every person’s rights and duties towards others. In
order that we may exercise our rights and perform our duties we must
first know what they are. The state, through its laws, tells us. Through
its courts, moreover, it applies such pressure upon reluctant
individuals as may be necessary to make these rights and duties real. In
a word, government exists to enforce rights and to secure liberty.
[Sidenote: Relation of government to individual rights.]
Were every individual immune from the jurisdiction of any superior
authority, and free to do as he pleased, he would have to accord every
other individual the same immunity and the same freedom. He would then
have no rights that anyone else would be bound to respect. He would have
no liberty that others could not, by force, take away from him. He would
have no security against violence to his person or property. The
strength of his own strong arm would be his only protection. What a
condition of chaos, injustice, bloodshed, and anarchy that would be!
[Sidenote: The constructive work of government.]
Not all the government’s work, however, takes the form of protection and
regulation. Its functions are constructive as well. Through its various
departments it actively promotes the general interest and thereby the
interests of each citizen. It not only protects the public health by
regulations and restrictions; it fosters and promotes things that help
to raise the general standards of health among the people. It does not
merely make rules to prevent ships from colliding with one another; it
sets out buoys and beacons, builds lighthouses, and maintains
life-saving stations. It does not merely protect agriculture by
regulations to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and pests; it
actively assists the improvement of agriculture by means of experiment
stations and the distribution of educational literature. The government,
indeed, is the greatest of all the agencies through which society
undertakes its tasks of using the resources of nature to the best
advantage, eliminating friction and waste, adjusting the conflicting
claims of individuals, and giving to each and all an equal opportunity.
[Sidenote: The citizen’s obligations to his government.]
From all this it ought to be apparent that the state and its government
are the agencies through which the individual obtains rights,
protection, assistance, and liberty. But neither rights nor liberty can
be achieved without incurring an obligation in return. To the state,
which secures us rights and liberties, we owe the duty of patriotism.
Patriotism is not a mere sentiment. It is a concrete expression, by
thought, word, and act, of the citizen’s respect for the state to which
he belongs. It should be based upon recognition of the fact that without
the security, the justice, and the freedom which the state provides,
life would not be worth living. Patriotism is a mixture of pride,
gratitude, and faith,—pride in the great community to which a man
belongs, gratitude for what it is doing, and faith in what it may do for
posterity.
[Sidenote: The limits of governmental action.]
=How Far should Governments Go?=—One of the live questions of the
present day concerns the extent to which the government ought to go in
trying to fulfil these various purposes. Should it merely make laws,
coin money, establish post offices, maintain an army, or should it
actively engage in such activities as operating the railroads, the coal
mines, and even the factories of the country? On the one hand there are
those who take an individualistic or _laissez-faire_ attitude towards
governmental policy and maintain that the government should interfere as
little as possible with the daily life of the people. It should confine
itself, the individualist claims, to political matters purely, leaving
economic affairs entirely alone. At the other extreme are the
socialists, who believe that the government ought to step in and
directly control all important agencies of production. It should own all
the land, the public utilities such as railroads and telegraph lines,
the mines, and all the agencies of production (pp. 481-488).
Both individualism and socialism represent extremes; most men take a
midway stand as regards the proper functions of government. The greatest
good of the greatest number among the people cannot be secured unless
the government interferes to some extent with the free play of economic
forces. It must prevent gross injustice wherever gross injustice
appears. No government fulfils its highest aim unless it becomes an
ever-active force in making our common life more human and more fruitful
in the good will of class toward class and of man toward man. On the
other hand it must take care not to invade the field of private
enterprise so far as to take upon itself greater burdens than can be
properly carried.
Too much government is as bad as too little. In a democracy, where
public officials are chosen by popular vote, often with little reference
to their personal ability, there are obvious limits to what a government
can do and do well. The individualist starts with the assumption that
governments are always inefficient when they meddle in affairs of
everyday life. The socialist, on the other hand, assumes that
governments can always secure better results than private enterprise in
any field of economic activity. The truth, as usual, lies between the
extremes. To fix a rigid line between the two sets of functions, as one
would draw the boundary of two countries on a map, is impossible. To
attempt this would be to forget that civilization is ever moving on,
bringing new social needs in its train. Every proposal to extend the
functions of government must be determined on its own merits and not
upon the basis of its conformance to any rule.
[Sidenote: Government as a science.]
=The World a Great Laboratory for Experiments in Government.=—Everywhere
throughout the world the process of experiment in forms of government is
going on, twenty-four hours a day, in ceaseless round. And it has been
going on for more than two thousand years. Every experiment in political
organization that the human mind can suggest has had, or is having, its
trial somewhere. During the past few years we have seen earth’s proud
empires pass away and new republics rise in their stead, just as two
thousand years ago the great Roman republic collapsed and an empire took
its place. The astronomer who scans the heavens with his telescope
commands no such laboratory of endless experiment and sees no such
continuous panorama of change as the student who watches with naked eye
the political activities of his fellow-men. That is what makes the study
of government, when carefully pursued, the most interesting and most
instructive of all studies. “On earth”, as the poet Pope has said,
“there is nothing great but man”. And it is in his organized activities
that man shows himself at his best.
General References
JAMES BRYCE, _Modern Democracies_, especially Vol. I, pp. 24-50; II, pp.
335-610;
WOODROW WILSON, _The State_, pp. 1-68;
J. Q. DEALY, _The State and Government_, pp. 119-181;
J. W. GARNER, _Introduction to Political Science_, pp. 86-204;
STEPHEN LEACOCK, _Elements of Political Science_, pp. 3-51; 141-153;
_Cyclopedia of American Government_. (See under State Government, Social
Compact Theory, Separation of Powers, etc.).
Group Problems
1. =To what extent should the government engage in business?= The
original functions of government. Growth of governmental activities.
Extent of governmental enterprises in European countries. Government
enterprises in America. Effects of government enterprises on private
initiative. Effects on the government itself. Relation of government
activities to the maintenance of democracy. Conclusions. =References=:
J. W. GARNER, _Introduction to Political Science_, pp. 273-310; WOODROW
WILSON, _The State_, pp. 41-57; STEPHEN LEACOCK, _Elements of Political
Science_, pp. 386-409; J. G. BROOKS, _The Social Unrest_, pp. 46-67.
2. =The faults of democratic government. References= E. L. GODKIN, _The
Unforeseen Tendencies of Democracy_, pp. 96-144; EMILE FAGUET, _The Cult
of Incompetence_, pp. 12-36; A. M. KALES, _Unpopular Government in the
United States_, pp. 21-90; ALLEYNE IRELAND, _Democracy and the Human
Equation_, pp. 80-118; A. B. CRUIKSHANK, _Popular Misgovernment in the
United States_, pp. 1-27.
3. =The merits of democratic government. References=: C. W. ELIOT,
_American Contributions to Civilization_, pp. 1-102; JAMES BRYCE,
_Modern Democracies_, especially, Vol. II, pp. 527-610; J. Q. DEALEY,
_The State and Government_, pp. 338-353.
Short Studies
1. =What end does the state serve?= WOODROW WILSON, _The State_, pp.
58-68.
2. =The stages in the development of government.= J. Q. DEALEY, _The
State and Government_, pp. 24-45.
3. =The divine right of kings.= R. G. GETTELL, _Readings in Political
Science_, pp. 118-120; _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. I, p.
605.
4. =The Mayflower compact.= WILLIAM MACDONALD, _Documentary Source Book
of American History_, p. 19; EDWARD CHANNING, _History of the United
States_, Vol. I, pp. 308-310.
5. =Does federalism mean weak government?= A. V. DICEY, _The Law of the
Constitution_, pp. 162-172; JAMES BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol.
I, pp. 334-341.
6. =The system of checks and balances.= W. B. MUNRO, _The Government of
the United States_, pp. 47-52; _The Federalist_, No. 47.
7. =The meaning of self-government.= P. L. KAYE, _Readings in Civil
Government_, pp. 15-21.
8. =The relation of government to economic life.= S. P. ORTH, _Readings
in the Relation of Government to Property and Industry_, pp. 25-38.
9. =The first principles of democracy.= F. A. CLEVELAND and JOSEPH
SCHAFER, _Democracy in Reconstruction_, pp. 48-66.
10. =Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy.= A. C. MCLAUGHLIN, _Steps in
the Development of American Democracy_, pp. 78-116.
11. =The outlook for democracy in America.= F. A. CLEVELAND, _Organized
Democracy_, pp. 438-448.
12. =The economic functions of government.= C. J. BULLOCK, _Introduction
to the Study of Economics_, pp. 478-492.
Questions
1. What is the difference between a state and society? Is India a state?
Are the Esquimos a state? Are pirates citizens or subjects of a state?
Did the Mayflower Pilgrims constitute a state before they touched land?
2. Has the doctrine of evolution affected our ideas concerning the
origin of government? Are there any primitive types of government in the
world today?
3. Give some examples of the “constructive work of government” besides
those mentioned in the text.
4. Why are ancient classifications of government practically useless
today? When you say that the United States is a _federal democratic
republic_ what ideas do you intend to convey in each of the three
italicized words?
5. Do you believe that the plan of government now existing in the United
States would be suitable for (_a_) the British Empire; (_b_) China;
(_c_) Switzerland; (_d_) Canada? Tell why or why not in each case.
6. Make up lists of the functions which properly belong to national,
state, and local governments respectively. Give your reasons for placing
such things as “education”, “fire-protection”, “public health”,
“criminal law”, “conservation of natural resources”, and “regulation of
commerce” in one or the other list.
7. James Madison once said that the concentration of legislative,
executive, and judicial powers in the same hands would be “the very
definition of tyranny”. What did he mean? Was he right? Does the same
danger exist today?
8. Arrange the mandatory functions of government in what you believe to
be their order of importance and give reasons for your arrangement.
9. Can you name any characteristics of American government other than
those given in the text? Do the following things distinguish American
government from other governments: woman suffrage, an elective
president, the absence of an hereditary nobility, two-chambered
legislatures, a supreme court?
10. In what ways may direct government be better than representative
government and in what respects not so good? (Consider such general
problems as ensuring responsiveness to the will of the people,
deliberation, the absence of corruption, educational value, and
expense.)
11. What did President Wilson mean when he said that the world must be
made “safe for democracy”? Can the world be safe for democracy while
great and powerful monarchies remain? What changes in addition to the
dethronement of the Kaiser did Americans consider essential in order to
make Germany a democracy?
12. Argue against the proposition that the study of government is the
study of a science.
Topics for Debate
1. Written constitutions have been a hindrance rather than a help to the
development of American democracy.
2. Andrew Jackson was more of a _democrat_ than Thomas Jefferson.
3. It is not right under any circumstances to subject a people to
government without their own consent. #/