Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

political animal."1 He is born into a government as he is born into a family. He has no more to do with the choice of the one than with the choice of the other. He is a subject of parents whom he did not choose; he is similarly a subject of a government which he did not choose. As his hand or his foot is a part of his body, so he in turn is a part of the political organism, and he cannot dissociate himself therefrom. He is born, not isolated, but to be sharer in obligations and responsibilities from which he is powerless to escape. They belong to him by reason of his manhood. He does not form them, though he may participate in changing their form. Government is a growth, not a manufacture. Even if it seems to be newly created, as in the case of the American and French Republics, it is not really the government, it is only the form of the government, which is newly created. The American Republic grew out of previous English and colonial governments; the French Republic grew out of previous imperial and revolutionary governments. But, as we have seen, government is founded on and grows out of the instinct of self-preservation. Its primary function is to protect the rights of men; its authority is derived from the right of the strong to protect the weak. If the government into which any man is born violates this fundamental principle upon which all government is based, if it uses its strength, not to protect the weak, but to oppress the weak, it no longer has authority. It may still have power, but it has by its own act destroyed its authority. It may still be able to rule, but it has no right to rule. The same principle of self-preservation, which is the foundation of government, then becomes the justification of revolution. Man has an inherent right to protect himself; if the government founded on this right of mutual protection does not protect, especially if, instead of protecting, it oppresses its subjects, the same right of self-protection justifies them in overturning the government, if they have power to do so. In other words, when injustice in any government becomes so great, so radical, so habitual, that the government ceases to be a mutually protective organization, then the people have a right to overturn 'Aristotle's" Politics," Book I., Chapter II.

it and substitute a new government in its place, because they have an absolute, inherent, and indefeasible right to be protected in their persons, property, reputation, family, and liberty.

The mere fact that the form of government does not suit the protestants is no just ground for revolution. The justice of a government does not depend upon its form-although some forms are more apt to do equal justice than other forms; it depends upon the fidelity with which it fulfills the function of government—that is, with which it safeguards the rights of man and promotes his prosperity. The resort to force is justified only by the extremest exigency. A mere distaste for one form of government or desire for another form of government is not such an exigency as justifies resort to force to overthrow the government.

The mere fact that the government declines to permit the protestants to share in the administration of government is not an adequate reason for revolution. No man has a natural right to share in the administration of the government under which he lives. He has a right to be protected in his person, property, repu tation, family, and liberties; but if the government of which he is a subject affords him such protection, adequately and effectively, he has no ground on which to demand of the government, as his right, permission to participate in it. That he has no such natural right is evident from a consideration of the nature of government. Government is, as we have seen, the control of one man's will by another man's will. No man has any ground for claiming that it is his natural right to control the will, or dominate the personality, or direct the life-action of another man. This right, wherever it exists, is not natural and inherent; it is acquired, and rests upon some other fundamental and essential right. We have seen what that fundamental right is; it is the right of self-protection. The only reason why one man may claim the right to control another man against his will, if he be of full age and mentally and morally of sane character,' is in order to secure

The right of a parent, or one standing in loco parentis, to control the child, and the right of the sane to control the insane, need not here be considered. We are considering the control of sane men of adult age by other sane men of adult age.

the protection of himself and others from

injury and wrong-doing. If that protection is sufficiently afforded by government, he has no ground for insisting on his right to participate in the government that is, to share in that control over the wills and lives of other men. The only ground on which such a claim can be based is that such participation of all in the government is necessary in order to make the government an adequate protection of all. Suffrage, or participation in the government, is not an end, it is only a means to an end; it is not a right, it is only one means to the preservation of rights.

That we do not believe in this country that suffrage is a natural right is evident from our practice. The people who live in the District of Columbia cannot vote, but they are not denied their natural rights. The newly arrived immigrants not yet naturalized cannot vote, but they are not denied their natural rights. The young man of nineteen or twenty, whose education makes him much more competent to vote than many men who do vote, is not denied his natural rights. The man whose business interests are in New York City, but whose residence is in Westchester County, and who pays large taxes in New York City but is not allowed to vote there, is not denied his natural rights. So in those States in which women are not allowed to vote they are not denied any natural right. Those whose persons, property, reputation, family, and liberties are adequately secured under the government as it is now organized have no right to claim anything more. A claim by any persons, whether men or women, to the suffrage as a right must be founded on the assumption that their natural rights cannot be protected in any other way; a claim to the suffrage as politic must be founded on the assumption that the rights of the individual and the welfare of the community will be best promoted by the extension of the suffrage. A man has no more a natural right to vote in a general election than he has to vote in the legislature. In both cases the conditions of the vote are determined by the existing government, whatever it may be. Properly speaking, suffrage is not a right at all; it is a prerogative and a responsibility; and who shall exercise that prerogative

and who shall share that responsibility are to be determined by the existing government, whatever that government may be. This is, in point of fact, the practice of all governments, including our own; and it is a practice abundantly justified both by philosophy and history. How extensive the suffrage ought to be in any given community is dependent wholly upon the question what conditions of suffrage, first, will secure the best protection of person, property, reputation, family, and liberty, and, second, will best promote the general life of the community, material and spiritual.

The fact that a particular government is dependent upon another government does not of itself justify a revolution. Independence is not synonymous with liberty. The two are often confounded, but they are quite distinct. A government is independent when it has no organic relation of subjection to another government; it is free when the members of the community subject to the government are protected in their persons, property, reputation, family, and liberties. It is clear that a government may be independent and not furnish such protection, and, on the other hand, that it may be dependent and furnish such protection all the better because of its dependence. Spain in the sixteenth century was independent; but her people were not free. Canada in the nineteenth century is not independent, but her people are free. No State in the Union is independent, but the freedom of the citizens of the various States is better secured because they are dependent on each other and on the Federal Government. This fact, that dependence may be a means of securing liberty, is distinctly affirmed in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States: 66 We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." These, not independence, are the ends of government. When they are secured, the mere fact that the government under which they are secured is dependent for them in part on another government is no reason for a

revolution. Our own history affords a striking illustration of the fact that independence and liberty are not only not synonymous, but may be antagonistic. The Civil War was a war between inde

pendence and liberty. The South fought that the Confederate States might be independent, and if they had won their independence they would unquestionably have established slavery for a large proportion of their people. The North fought to prevent their independence, and, winning the battle, gave freedom to the slaves. Liberty was won by the overthrow of independence. There are two questions in the Philippines to-day. Ought they to be independent? ought they to be free? These are not different forms of the same question. Those who believe that the Philippines ought not to be independent believe that if they become independent they will not be free, and if they become dependent on the United States their freedom will be assured.

The principle here laid down, that only injustice in the existing government justifies a revolution for the purpose of overthrowing it, finds expression in our own Declaration of Independence. The war of 1776 is called not inaptly the War of Independence. It was; our fathers fought for independence; but they fought for independence only because they became convinced by long experience that they could not secure justice in any other way. Independence was not an end, but a means to an end. This is very explicitly declared by them in the document by which they justify to the world their action. Let the reader reflect upon both the preamble and the conclusion of this Declaration:

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them

from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They, too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We, therefore, the Reprein General Congress assembled, appealing to sentatives of the United States of America, the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States.

Why ought they to be independent States? Not because they are denied participation in the government and representation in the Parliament; nor because they prefer a republic to a monarchy, or independence to dependency. These are not the reasons assigned. They affirm that they ought to be free and independ ent because the government to which they are subject "evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism "—that is, to set at naught that protection of human. rights which is the fundamental function of government, and all appeals to the conscience of the governor for justice have been made in vain.

But, although man does not make government, but is born a subject of government, and although he is justified in resorting to violence to overthrow the government of which he is a subject only in case it abdicates its rightful authority by failing to fulfill its fundamental function-that is, the protection of human rights-yet he may and does modify the form of government, and, in fact, there are many forms existing in the world. Which is the best form?

Aristotle's division of governments into four forms may be accepted as adequate, subject to a modification to be hereafter suggested. These forms are: government by one, i.e., monarchy; government by a few, i.c., oligarchy; government by the best, ie., aristocracy; and government by the many, i.e., democracy. The Napoleonic Empire may be taken as a type of the first; Venice as a type of the second; England, in the eighteenth century, as a type of the third; America as a type of the fourth. There is, however, a fifth form of government which Aristotle does not mention, perhaps because it did not exist in his time, perhaps because it is a bastard which does not deserve

classification with legitimate governments. This bastard is bureaucracy-a government by the office-holders. The most complete form of bureaucracy on a large scale is that furnished by Russia; but all modern governments, not excluding America, are more or less corrupted by it. It is the only form of government for which a philosopher can find no defense.

In considering these four forms of government it must be remembered that the distinction between them is marked more sharply in philosophy than in fact. Thus monarchy in its modern forms is rarely government by one. The power of the one is generally limited, as in Turkey, by a hierarchy, or, as in Russia, by a bureaucracy, or, as in France in the eighteenth century, by the nobles, or, as in England in the nineteenth century, by the common people. So, again, the power of the oligarchy, which, as Aristotle has also shown, is necessarily a plutocracy or rule of the rich, is limited by the necessity of promoting the commercial interests of the community in order to promote the interests of the rich. So, again, the aristocrats are by no possible method of selection yet devised wholly composed of the best; from them are excluded some of the best; into them creep some of the worst. Finally, democracy is not a government of all the people, but only of a large minority of the people. In the recent Presidential election, out of a population of over seventy millions, only about fourteen million votes were cast-that is, one in five of the population determined the questions at issue. And of this fourteen millions Mr. McKinley's majority was only seven hundred thousand, so that in fact those questions were determined by only about one one-hundredth of the population. The value of this fact as a protection against the perils of democracy I shall consider in a future paper.

Recognizing these qualifications in the actually existing governments, the question presents itself as a practical and important one, Which of these four forms of government government by the one, by the few, by the best, or by the many-constitutes the best form of government; that is, which of these forms of government gives the best promise of, first, securing protection to the rights of man, and, second, of promoting the general welfare of man?

Whatever government does these two things in the best manner is the best government. For, as we have seen, no man has a right to participate in the government, or has any ground of complaint because he is not allowed to participate in it, provided it fulfills these two functions of government adequately the first a definite and fundamental function, the second an indefinite and subsidiary, though perhaps not less important, function.

We have already seen that there is no one form of government which is absolutely right, making all others absolutely wrong. There is no divine right of either kings, oligarchs, aristocrats, or majorities; the only divine right which government must recognize is the right to be protected in person, property, reputation, family, and liberty. It is also true that there is no one form of government which is absolutely best, making all other forms inferior. That is the best government which, at the time, under the circumstances, and in consideration of the intellectual and moral development of the people, is best adapted to protect their rights and promote their welfare; and the same form of government does not best accomplish these ends under all circumstances, in all epochs, and with all peoples. This is not, perhaps, a very popular opinion in America, but it may be true nevertheless.

It is interesting to note that of the forms of government mentioned by Aristotle we have at least three in successful operation in the United States in the present time, and it is doubtful whether any considerable number of persons would wish to change radically either one of the three. The family is autocratic. The father is not, indeed, an absolute despot, but a constitutional monarch; and in case of extreme violation of the rights or disregard of the interests of his children an appeal lies to the government of which he is a subject. But in all the ordinary matters of the household his power is little less than absolute. So also the organization of the secondary school is largely autocratic. In some instances the principal is very strictly limited in his powers by a school board, in which case the government approximates the oligarchic, but whether with any real benefit to the pupils is very doubtful. But in the best private schools the government is very nearly

absolutely autocratic, the remedy for any real or fancied injustice being the remedy of emigration already referred to; that is, the pupil may go to another school. But as long as he remains in the school he has no participation in its government; or, if he does, it is only by sufferance of the principal. Political rights as such he has none. In the college the government is oligarchic. It is administered. almost exclusively by the faculty, who are under no political responsibility whatever to the pupils, and under none directly to the parents of the pupils. This oligarchy might be described as a limited or constitutional oligarchy; that is, its powers are limited generally by a written constitution, and in many cases an appeal lies to the board of trustees, and in all cases to that public opinion on which the college depends for its prosperous life. But the students rarely have any political power in the administration of the college, or, if they do, it is a power conferred by the favor of the faculty, and liable to be taken away from them again. As a political organism the college is oligarchic, and probably few would wish to see it made more democratic than it is. The government of the country, the State, and the Nation is that of a Representative Republic-that is, of a government administered, not by the people directly, but by representatives elected by the people, and really by a minority, though a large minority, of the entire population. Finally, we have in the Town Meeting in some States, and in the District School meeting in others, an illustration of a pure democracy, in which the people assemble to debate questions and determine policies as well as to elect officials to carry those policies out. The same divergences in form of government are to be seen in other organizations: thus, the chorus choir and the orchestra are necessarily autocratic; the great corporation is generally in reality oligarchic, though it may be and generally is in form representative; and the trades-union is a curious combination of the oligarchic and the democratic. Similar differences are to be seen in our ecclesiastical organizations: the Roman Catholic Church being at least in form autocratic; the Episcopal, semi-aristocratic; the Presbyterian, representative; and the Congregational, democratic. These facts make it evident that the

form of government necessarily depends in large measure upon the nature of the organism, the function it has to perform, the capacity of the people who constitute it, and the circumstances of its existence. It is true that in most of the organizations mentioned above the government is not an end, but only a means to an enc. That is, the organism does not exist merely to govern, but also to perform other functions-as to teach, to perform music, to conduct trade, and the like. But it is clear that it would be possible in some of these organizations to differentiate these functions. Thus, it would be conceivable that the boys in a school or college should make all the rules, elect all governing officers, and administer all discipline, leaving the faculty simply to teach. But it is not conceivable that any considerable number of either teachers, parents, or pupils would desire such a change.

My readers may now, perhaps, be prepared to consider, if not to accept, the next proposition-namely, that one controlling element in determining the question. what is the best form of government is the mental and moral development of the people who constitute the governed community. In other words, government, as one of the products of social evolution, necessarily depends on the degree of social evolution attained by the governed community. The political history of the world indicates the true order of political development.

The family is the first and oldest government. It is and ought to be autocratic. The tribe comes next. The head of the tribe is, like the father of the family, an autocrat, though his autocratic powers are somewhat limited by the power of resistance possessed by members of the tribe, if the autocracy becomes oppressive, and by customs which have grown up in the tribe and have all the binding force of constitutional law. In other words, he is a constitutional monarch. It is exceedingly doubtful whether any form of government could be devised better adapted to the Indian tribe, so long as it remains a nomadic tribe, than that which it possesses. We have given our indorsement to this autocratic method of government for the Indian by appointing over the tribe on the Reservation a white autocrat whom we call Agent. In many cases the Agency

« AnteriorContinuar »