Baburam’s ignorant daughter recently propagated an article defending Lenin’s lunatic theory.
http://sajha.com/sajha/html/openThread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=44369 I am defending the constitutional monarchy using the western philosophy of freedom.
I was asked to write 60 pages in 4 days giving me about 12 hours per question. Therefore, it will have a lot of grammatical and spelling mistakes. Please look at the substance and ignore my mistakes.
And yeah what’s her credentials?
**********************************************
The notion of right of resistance that was sparked by Aquinas that was to be used for some special provisions against a tyrant. There have been number of philosophers between Aquinas and Locke who have argued on either side. These individuals could be basically divided in two camps, those who favored the right of resistance, and those who did not favored the right of resistance.
In this paper I will first discuss the positions of major philosophers between Aquinas to Locke (in line with Curtis, 1961), second, I will put them in different camps based on whether they favored the right of resistance or not. Lastly, I will argue that right of resistance is valid, but only up to a certain point, as started by Aquinas, and provide evidence from the twentieth century as my argument.
The right of resistance notion was developed by Aquinas (13th century) for a specific reason. He favored monarchy against any other system of governance (oligarchy or democracy), but he also recognized the thin line between a king and a tyrant. To understand the basis of his arguments we first need to know the difference between the god, nature and man, which he differentiates using the concepts of eternal natural and human laws. Almost every philosopher after Aquinas will be using some form of these laws that were first categorized by Aquinas and therefore, it is important to differentiate them before any further commentary. Moreover it is also important to know what and when and how they are used in order to see whether a rule should be called just rule or should it be called a tyranny.
Since God is the ruler of the universe which has its own laws it should be called eternal. Everything subject to divine is ruled by it (198). The participation of natural creatures in eternal law is natural law. Though we have eternal and natural laws to guide us, humans need some more directional help to determine human reasons, therefore we have human laws (199).
Due to capability of this human reasoning that nature has placed in everyman, man is a more social and political animal then others, and therefore it live in a group, which again is clearly his necessity (p.207).
Since it is natural for a man to live in society that consists of many men, there has to be some authority governing them, because there is a conflict of interest as every man is looking after his own interest. In this government of many a distinction can be made regarding right and wrong, by the notions of appropriateness or inappropriateness. A ruler would be right and just if he works towards achieving common good for the many. On the other hand, if the ruler does not works for the common good, but rather works for himself then he can be called unjust or “perverted” (p.208). A government becomes more and more unjust as it parts away from the common good (p.209).
The welfare and safety of many in a society depends upon the preservation of unity, which is called peace, which should be the main concern for the ruler. Peace through unity is something that can be brought about by one person then many, therefore rule of one man is more desirable then, rule by many (p.208).
Since the best rule is a rule my a monarchy and the worst is a rule by a tyrant, a scheme should be made that would prevent the monarchy from falling in the hands of a tyrant (p. 209). A special care should be taken to make sure that a king does not become a tyrant during his upbringing. Second, if he did become a tyrant then the government of the kingdom should have a provision to take him out. At the same time powers of a king should be arranged in such a manner that he cannot fall into tyranny (p.210).
If the excess of the tyrant grows to be unbearable then a strong person should take up arms and “slay the tyrant” and may be take death in the process, to free the many. Private persons should not attempt to take out the tyrant as it could be dangerous for both the people and the ruler. Is a situation does comes where the tyrant needs to be removed then a public authority should take him out, rather then a group of private persons (p.210).
Aquinas was followed by renaissance philosophers. Resistance by now had developed much further. Fortescue and Sir Thomas Smith (15th century) were the major contributors of this period. Fortescue argues that the King cannot change the laws of the land because they (laws) are not only regal, but also political and he is not able to change the laws without the agreement of his subjects. The people in fact enjoy the kings regal ruling provided he doesn’t turns into a tyrant.
The laws of countries that are ruled regally are sometimes favoring the maker only. Sometimes this happens for corruption and sometimes negligence of the price or his council. But the laws of England are no made that way, because they are not dictated by the prince, but are made by consent of the whole realm. Moreover they are not made with the prudence of one counselor, but three hundred chosen men of the parliament.
For crimes inhabitants are not brought to trial before the king, but before the ordinary judge and are treated according to the laws of the land. There are the fruits of a political and regal government. A king’s job is to protect his citizens against foreign invasion. A king who cannot do just that is impotent.
Luther (early 16th century) did not had much to say about resistance. He maintained his position with Luke xxii and wrote, “The worldly princes exercise lordship, and they that are chief exercise authority.” If he is not wiser then his jurists then he will surely rule according to the Proverbs xxviii, and oppress many. To the question what should the prince do if he not wise, he quotes Solomon and writes “Woe to the land whose king is a child?” For Luther, those who were Christians belonged to the Kingdom of God and they needed no secular sword or law of the world, which was meant only for the people of the world. To sum up “a prince must have law in his hand as firmly as the sword, and decide his won mind….” Calvin somewhat reinforces Luther and writhes that the authority possessed by the Kings and the magistrates are not because men wanted it that way, but because of the holy providence and ordinance that regulated it in such a way.
Steaphin Brutus in his book, “a defense of liberty against tyrants” (late 16th century), departs his theory against both Luther and Calvin. Flowing Aquinas on tyranny, he argues for a resistant again a tyrant because a common man who follows the god will never submit to the repressiveness of a tyrant, who wishes to abolish the wishes of the God (p. 266). Again following Aquinas, he maintains that private persons are not supposed to take arms against a prince, because they have no power, no public command or authority. Since god has not put authority in the hands pf private individuals, but as Apostles says, should be done by magistrates, who do not carry on the sword in vain. If they do not use the sword at the just moment then they should be blamed for negligence, and should be guilty like the tyrant himself.
Brutus however adds to Aquinas’s theory that Gods do not choose kings. We choose them. God would have done it this way, because they (kings) know it that after god, they hold their sovereignty from the people (p. 269). Moreover, a king is always less then the people, and the whole body of the people is above the king, because a Kings receives his authority and power from the people, and those who give authority and power cannot be inferiors (271).
Francois Hotman (late 16th century), quotes the Caesar and writes, “the people had no less power and authority over a king then a king had over the people.” He maintains his position with Brutus and argues that the powers of a king are “neither unlimited nor free.” Quoting Aristotle, he writes, lesser number of things the king has authority on, longer the kingdom holds (p. 272). He lays three conditions that would send signals about tyranny. First, if the king rules over his subjects against their will, second, if the king hires foreign body guards, and third, is he judges all matters by his own comfort rather then by the comfort of the commonwealth and his subjects. In the kingdom of Francogallia the formal public council was the head of the administrative body. This three layered public council comprised of the nobles on the first layer, lawyers and merchants on the second and artisans and farmers on the third (p. 273). Thus, we see that Kings of Francogallia did not have ultimate power. They were rather constrained by defined laws and constraints. In fact, it was unlawful for the king to do anything for the commonwealth without the consent of the public council (p.279).
Mariyana (late 16th century), starts his arguments in line with Hotman and Brutus and argues that no commonwealth has transferred its powers to the price in such an extent that it hasn’t reserved any power for itself. In addition, it can be observed throughout history that whoever has killed the tyrant has been held in great honor (p. 281). He believes that both philosophers and theologians agree that a prince who seizes the state with force, and without “legal right, no public, civil approval can be killed by anyone and deprived of his life and position” (p. 280). Here we must note that Mariyana has gone beyond other philosophers, who till now were arguing that a tyrant could be either killed by a string person or could be removed by a council. For Mariyana, “anyone” who can do the job, is a sound candidate to remove the king.
While Steaphin Brutus, Francois Hotman and Mariyana were working for the right of resistant, other writers of the same era were working against the right of resistance. Two such authors are Bodin and James I.
Bodin argues that sovereign cannot be under the command of anyone else, because he is the one who makes, amends and abolishes the laws. No person who is a subject to anyone else or the law has this right. Therefore, it’s always argued that the prince is always above the law. In fact in Latin the meaning of the world law means,” the command of him who is invested in sovereign power…” It however different when it comes to divine or natural laws; if a prince violates them then he world be deceiving or rebelling against the God. Moreover, if a prince made promises before the elections then he must keep them. It is not that a prince is bound by either his own laws or those of his predecessors, but he is bound by the just covenants he made, whether he made them under oath or not. Since a differentiation between a law and a covenant is being made it is important to know the difference between the two. A law is something that a sovereign makes for his subjects to follow, and he is not bound to it. However a covenant is a, “mutual undertaking between a prince and his subjects, equally binding to both parties, and neither can contravene it to the prejudice of the other, without his consent.” When it comes to covenant a prince has no more power then his subject does (p. 304-308).
James I clarifies that the duties of a prince have been written down in many Scriptures, and have been openly carried out by so many princes, with their oath of Coronation. Kings are called Gods because they represent the God on earth and are Gods administrators on earth. By the Law of Nature, a king becomes a natural father of all his subjects at his coronation, and with it his duties, like a father consists of nourishing, educating and regulating his children. Like a father who is supposed to protect his subjects from the harms way, the king has to do the same to his subjects. James I somewhat maintains his position with Bodin and states that a good king frames his actions according to the laws, but he is not bound to follow them (p. 313-315).
Hobbs (17th century) argues that when many person group as one by consent of every one in the group. In this group the unity is represented by one person who is representing and not many, who are being represented, because the group has already given its consent to that one person. The laws of nature like justice, equality, modesty and mercy are useless words without the terror of some higher power, bound by a social contract. These words are contrary to our natural passions of pride, revenge and the like (p.339).
Therefore, a commonwealth is instituted when a group of men agree with each other that a man or an assembly of men should be given the rights to represent them all (p.341). This person that is a sovereign is all powerful because his powers cannot be transferred without his consent; he cannot be accused of causing any injury to others; he cannot be punished; he is the sole legislator; and a supreme judge of all controversies. Weather a commonwealth is being run by a one person or a group of men they have to be kept above the law, but only the sovereign. This is because they are the ones who make the laws and even if we put them obligated by the laws, they will find some mechanism to free themselves from the laws as before (p. 347-349).
In the late 17th century John Locke argues that if a government is overturned frequently then nothing will be left except anarchy and confusion. Therefore he argues that force is to be used against nothing, but unjust and unlawful force A commonwealth itself is a politic society where everyone is in agreement with everyone else and this agreement should not be jeopardized till the commonwealth is under attack. If legislation is broken or dissolved, death follows it, because the essence that holds the society as one achieved through a majoritian rule will be gone (p. 387).
The only other condition dissolve a government would be when the government is neglecting and abandoning its functions and the laws that were made are not being carried out or followed (p. 387).
Thus we see that most philosophers were arguing based on divine, natural, and human law coined by Aquinas. Moreover, Aquinas himself prefers monarchy, therefore we see that Locke, Hotman, Mariyana, Steaphin Brutus and Bodin all making the same argument that the people should be the judge and decide whether there should be a resistance or not. Hobbs and Luther and Calvin defend monarch more then anyone else. Fortescue was the most unique of them all as he argues his position in terms of regal and political, which was different then most others who were arguing the positions that Aquinas had set long before then. Even Luther can be said as following Aquinas as he maintains his position for the monarch which was also Aquinas’s (considering Aquinas was against only tyranny that Luther hand ‘no say’ no).
Based upon the above arguments I would like to conclude that any rule whether it’s a monarch, oligarchy or democracy, as long as it does not ends up in tyranny, could be preferred. However tyranny has to be stopped at any cost. Looking just at the 20th century we find that most holocausts around the world are attributed to tyrants, whether it is Hitler, Lenin or the Governor General of India appointed by the Queen.
One thing was common in all three whether it be Hitler, Lenin or the Governor General; they had too much power in their hands and for them, the laws of nature like justice, equality, modesty and mercy were useless. At the same time they were no Monarchs, who were trained to perform the duties of a king since childhood as Aquinas might argue, and therefore they terrorized the people and became the true terrorists of the 20th century.
If we look at the Bolshevik revolution that Lenin thought was a resistance against the Chars then we find that he was directly responsible for the deaths of 9000000 people between 1917 and 1922. Like Lenin Hitler thought that the Aryan race should be saved and the world would be a better place with just one master race was again responsible for murdering millions more. Similarly, the Governor Generals in India, who were supremacists, killed millions by arguing the theory that the Indian natives were no better then producers of Indigo and cotton to the British being the master race had all power to abuse them in the way they wanted.
Aquinas argues that if there is a tyrant then one person should take him out and save the rest by sacrificing his own. If Lenin had been able to do that then millions of lives in Russia could have been saved. However, he choose a resistant movement what he had no idea about and murdered millions in the process.
Looking at Lenin’s thoughts it appears that it was never a people’s movement. People were tired of being poor. They were tired of the First World War. They wanted to do better with their lives. This is where people like Lenin and Hitler come in. They blame the power holder and blame them for all the miseries of the people. The power holder my or may not be a tyrant, but if people like Lenin and Hitler want power then they have to show the people the atrocities committed.
The next step is propaganda. in Lenin’s opinion the masses should be exposed to politics and trained in political consciousness and revolutionary activities. This cannot happen till workers are trained to respond to all cases of tyranny, oppression, violence and abuse; no matter what class is being affected. The response to such a problem has to be a social democratic response and should not represent any other point of view.
Masses are capable of disposing enormous energy and self sacrifice through strikes, but it requires a special revolutionary to struggle against the political police. The workers organizations must be trade organizations at the first place, second, such workers organizations must be as wide as possible, third, and they must be as public as possible. A small core of reliable and experienced hardcore workers is to be connected with utmost secrecy and masses are to be used to perform the functions as described by social democrats. This way if there is a rebellion, the chances for success will be maximum (v.2, 362-373).
Unlike Aquinas (and many who followed him), who asked for a string person or a council to take out the tyrant. Lenin wants to mobilize people. And he makes sure in his propaganda that the closest people to him are not hurt because they would be in secret, which means no one would know about them. So who is to take the bullet? The masses that he mobilized. What is Lenin to do after the revolution? He is to be the leader and replace the ruler with a tyrant (himself). Lastly, is the situation going to change for the better or the worse for the true revolutionaries, the general public, who took bullets? The answer to this lies in contemporary history. The question can be rephrased as would the people of Russia would have been better off today of the Char’s had been ruling?
Again comparing contemporary democracy with Monarchy we can say that Monarchy has been the system for last thousands of years. However, democracy is young. Unlike democracy that has a set of guidelines to follow, Monarch do not have to go though as rigorous exercise. Take a look at democratic consolidation as explained by contemporary authors Linz and Stepan. They argue that politically, a consolidated democracy means a state has a complex system of institutions, rules and patters and in a phrase democracy has become “the only game in town.” Behaviorally, democracy becomes the “the only game in town” when no political group tries to overthrow the democratically elected regime or tries to promote domestic or international violence. Attitudinally, democracy becomes “the only game in town” when even in crisis situations (such as political and economic) a majority of the people believe that any change in the system has to come democratically (Linz and Stepan, 1996, p. 15).
Even if these guidelines are met, we have no clear evidence that people will keep on holding to their democratic values under uncertainty. The last uncertainty was the Second World War and the only reason that British democracy survived is because Churchill was sitting on more then half the world’s resources claiming to be his, without which the tyrant Hitler would have blown the British democracy in within days.
Therefore, we know why Aquinas favored the monarch to be the best system. He realized that if a king can be trained from the childhood then he can rule without any problems. However, the kinds need not have all the powers, which can be kept with a council.
Therefore, keeping everything in mind, I argue for a constitutional democracy where the King keeps the power over the military whereas the people keep their liberties safe in a constitution. If a king tries to take away the liberty from the people then he is to be removed by the council and replaced by another. However, at any cost a tyrant is to be avoided, because as shown by history and argued by the philosophers, a rule by a tyrant is the worst rule of all.
.png)
