Democracy basically is a concept which points fully towards agreeing with political obligation, therefore saying that citizens should abide by the laws, however there some issues which show that a democratic government cannot fully support political obligation. The problem that sometimes is evident with democracy is that it represents the majority and not the minority. Therefore, what happens to the people who have not elected those people in the state who pass laws through? Do they have to live by the laws, which are set even though they didn’t elect for the people who made them in the first place. That is the flaw within the democracy system with regards to political obligation.
The obvious answer to minorities is to bring a device in to protect them. Founding Fathers brought in a defence mechanism in the shape of A Bill Of Rights to protect individuals however this may not be seen as democratic. Therefore if the minorities do not agree with the people in power, should they have to agree to the laws and live by them?
Although Democracy is a viable form of Political obligation there are other aspects, which agree with political obligation such as the theory of security. Thomas Hobbes believed that the key reason to supporting political obligation was because of security, not from external threats but from each other and ourselves. Life is solidatary, poor, brutish and short. Hobbes believed that being in a state where anything other than anarchism was incorrect and that all rational humans would agree to an all-powerful government. The idea of an all powerful government was better known as the Social Contract, which Hobbes believed all people would agree to.
The fact that citizens should “obey” the state due to security reasons is a seemingly valid point, due to the fact that, if some kind of law and order was not evident, it would be easy to portray life as one with no organisation, and a life in which people would fear for their own safety due to no one knowing what the boundaries of causing an offence would be. The purpose of the Social contract argument, however, is to highlight the value of the sovereign state to the individual…and Hobbes wished individuals to behave as if the historical fiction was true, by respecting and obeying government and law, in gratitude for the safety and security that only a sovereign state can provide. The fact that fiction is mentioned in the last sentence suggests that Hobbes maybe realised that in reality this may not work, however it is evident that if the theory was actually in practice then political obligation would be achieved as, each individual would have to give a piece of liberty in order to set up a law to help them live life in a secure manner. Therefore the reason why they would have to obey the laws of the state would be due to the fact that if they didn’t, security would not occur for each individual and also, the liberty which they would have sacrificed would have been for nothing, and the individuals themselves would realise that.
Another reason why political obligation should occur within a state is due to the citizen’s natural rights. Although the whole concept of democracy believes in rights being protected, John Locke (17th Century English Writer) suggests that if a state, such as a democratic one, was to deprive its citizens of certain rights, then those citizens were not obliged to listen to them. John Locke has many issues with regards to political obligation. The 3 main points, which Locke regards as extremely important, are rights to liberty, properties and life. Locke’s theory includes also a kind of double contract (strictly, a contract and a trust), together with the idea that the states purpose is to secure natural rights. Locke believed that if the state looks after its citizens and becomes pro active with regards to citizens problems with liberty, then the citizens should abide by the laws set by the state due to the state dealing with what Locke thinks are the main issues in the citizens lives, their natural rights. However two problems with the theory of Locke’s are, firstly, in order for the citizens to believe that the state will be pro active and will look after them, they need some kind of promise, and this is something which cannot always be guaranteed. Secondly, are natural rights, such as rights to property, life and liberty the most important things in the citizen’s lives? The answer to this maybe yes or no, therefore, although citizens should be politically obliged to live by the laws set by the state, they have no guarantee that the state will promise them to not have a laissez faire attitude towards them and also, if the 3 things which Locke thinks are so important to people is not the case, then maybe people may not believe that they have to obey the laws of the state.
Another theory, which suggests that political obligation is imperative to the state, is Jean-Jacques Rousseau theory of pursuing the general will. Rousseau does not believe that democracy is the way in which a state should be run due to the fact that if the state, pursues a will that benefits some more than others, we have the right to rebel against it. The main focal point to the theory is that if were forced to accept general will, we are forced to be free, and if this concept turned out to be correct then, Rousseau will have solved political obligation. “If we obey the state because we want to an go along with it, we can be free”. What Rousseau is trying to get across is that, if everyone accepts the general will, which is good for everyone in the state, and therefore everyone goes along with political obligation, everyone will be free as the citizens will all be pulling in the same direction and pursuing there own general will. Rousseau realised that there will be some people who do not follow the general will, those people will be doing themselves an injustice, however they will not be classed as a minority. This brings us back to the question of, do people have to follow the rules of the state even if they don’t believe in the idea of general will, or the fact that them, themselves did not vote for the people in power of the state who produce the laws.
Robert Paul Wolff believed that the whole theory, which Rousseau believed in, was flawed. Wolff believed that the only society, which could ever be free, was not one that pursued general, but a society in which only an anarchist society was present and no government occurred. The whole issue about minorities and whether or not they have to abide by the laws set by the state is hard to find a concrete answer to. The existence of permanent minorities, whose aspirations, wishes and even principles are systematically ignored or overridden in the collective decision making process, can easily make a majoritarian democracy unworkable. This is the flaw in the democratic system that was mentioned earlier. If there is a minority in a society, then working in a democratic system can prove to be very difficult. Therefore the problem with minorities is that although they may not believe in something or, don’t agree with something, they will always be classed as the minority, and will generally have to go along with whatever is going on in the general society that they live in.
Overall, to the question of whether or not democracy is a viable form of political obligation, the conclusion, which has been reached, is that, although there is sufficient evidence to suggest that political obligation is the right thing to do in order to have a stable society, the fact that there are flaws in theorists work such as Rousseau’s and Locke’s, shows us that political obligation may be the right thing to do but it still isn’t as organised and as straight forward as the theorists make out.
Political Ideologies; Andrew Heywood 2nd Edition pg 42
Problems of Political Philosophy 2nd Edition; D.D.Raphael
Political Ideologies; Andrew Heywood 2nd Edition pg 329
Political Theory; Andrew Heywood, pg 124
Political Ideologies; Andrew Heywood, pg 39
Problems of Political Philosophy; D.D.Raphael, pg 190
Democracy; Anthony Arblaster, pg 70