Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

are both combining to demonstrate how completely the life of the individual is a reflex of the groups to which he belongs.

Though the consideration of the influences that mold individual life in the major part of these groups belongs to sociology and psychology, in so far as these groups participate in and influence political action, they become of interest to the student of government. In the growth of democratic government and in the increasing influence of public opinion in politics such groups take a larger part in the determination of political action. It becomes imperative, therefore, to give consideration to the activities of social, political, and other groups as participants in the formation of public opinion and in the direction of the affairs of government. Society, then, as organized groups which assist in the direction of public affairs, becomes an integral part of the study of government.

Nation. Nation has two rather distinct meanings. According to one, it refers to a collection of individuals who speak the same language, have similar customs, and are bound together by ties sentimental and psychological which go to distinguish one race from another. Thus, all who speak the German language, live in accordance with German customs, accept and follow German culture and traditions, no matter whether they live in Germany, Switzerland, the United States, or Brazil, are thus regarded as a part of the German nation. The criterion of nation in this sense is racial, and the ties which bind such groups are conceived as ethnic in character. To those who believe that government should be made to accord with racial customs and traditions, this view becomes of prime importance. And for countries inhabited by many races it creates a very difficult situation. As the perpetuation of nationality in this sense has become one of the chief aims of modern political and social groups, the difficulties involved in the territorial idea of government have increased. In England and in America, nation is used rather in a

political sense to comprise all of the people who live within a given territory and are subject to a common political control. The American nation thus comprises all of the people who live under the political jurisdiction of the government of the United States. From this standpoint the criterion of nation is political and not racial. Nation in the latter sense designates a people under a single political jurisdiction and is practically synonymous with the more common and specific term state.

State. The terms most common in the description and discussion of political affairs are state and government. Since they are often vaguely and loosely understood, it is necessary to define them in a specific manner. State is sometimes used in an abstract sense to denote the universal phenomenon which appears in all types of political life.

We recognize, however [says Mr. Willoughby], that no matter how organized, or in what manner their power be exercised, there is in all states a substantial identity of purpose; and that underneath all these concrete appearances there is to be found a substantial likeness in nature. If now we disregard all non-essential elements, and overlook inconsequential modifications, we shall be able to obtain those elements that appear in all types of state life, whether organized in monarchical or republican, the despotic or limited, the federal or unitary form.1

It is in this abstract sense that the state is conceived as the political activities of mankind wherever manifested. To some, the state is regarded as beginning only when a supreme power is created, such as that exercised by the patriarch in Judea, Greece, and Rome. To others, the state begins with the social and political life of man, and its origins are lost in the long recesses of the past when men first began to live in groups.

The more general use of the term state is to denote the permanent political organization of a particular portion of mankind. It designates, then, in a concrete sense, the organization through which the political life of a community

W. W. Willoughby, The Nature of the State (The Macmillan Company, 1896), pp. 14-15.

functions. Though the manifestations of public power vary greatly, four essentials have come to be associated with the concept state, namely:

(a) A group of persons with common interests and common aims. (b) A determinate portion of the earth's surface-a territorial basis. (c) Independence of foreign control.

(d) A common supreme authority.

Political control in primitive communities does not, of course, exhibit all of these essentials. In fact, all four are distinctly manifested only in the modern nationalized state. In the pastoral tribes of the Orient and among the American Indians, the territorial basis of political authority was not well defined. In neutralized states, semi-sovereign states and protectorates complete independence of foreign control is lacking, and with the growth of international comity and international law complete independence of foreign influence and control is possible only for an international outlaw. With the establishment of a court of arbitration and an international court of justice, independence of foreign control will be even further curtailed. Moreover, while the organs of the state may possess authority to render final legal decisions, it is well known that the supremacy of the state is not absolute and not without limitations. Recognizing such limitations and restrictions, we may define the state roughly as a permanent political organization, supreme within a given territory, and at the present time, for most purposes, independent of legal control from without.

Government.-The organization and agencies through which the functions of the state are performed are known as the government. When we use the term government, we think of the organs through which the public functions, the machinery for carrying out the public will. All of the departments-legislative, executive, and judicial, the boards, bureaus, and divisions, officers and employees -go to make up the government. It is more specific than

state, and comprehends more definitely those who may be conceived and visualized as comprising public authority.

Sovereignty. Sovereignty, or as it is often called supreme power, is considered the essence of the state. It is indeed the factor without which there can be no state. About this term, the political theorists have waged a long controversy. According to one school of theorists, sovereignty is unlimited, inalienable, indivisible, and absolute. To another school, such an unlimited, absolute power is inconceivable, it is contended that all public powers are limited, and, in so far as public authorities rule by law, they are of necessity restricted in authority and action.

[ocr errors]

Part of the difficulty in defining the word comes from a failure to distinguish various meanings. At one time, political sovereignty is thought of as the vague force at work through public opinion and the electorate, which are regarded as the ultimate power in democratic societies. At another time, the concrete expression of public power in constitutional conventions or constituent assemblies is considered as the exercise of sovereignty. The supreme power acting in this constituent manner, in the process of constitution making, is that alone to which some would apply the term sovereignty. What is ordinarily meant when the word is used in a governmental sense is more accurately called legal sovereignty. Legal sovereignty is the aggregate of powers possessed by the ruling bodies of a political society. It is made up of two features:

(a) Internal sovereignty-legally paramount authority over all individuals and authorities within the state.

(b) External sovereignty-independence from legal control from without. In a general sense the sovereign is regarded as incapable of legal limitations, but public power is, as a rule, exercised through public organs which are required to keep within certain spheres of action and are almost invariably limited in authority.

The Pluralistic and Monistic Theories of Sovereignty.-A controversy in which many political thinkers are now interested is involved in the nature of sovereign power and

its significance in society. The two views which are defended by opposing groups are the monistic theory and the pluralist theory of the state. According to the monistic theory, which has been for a long time the accepted theory of political science, the state is defined as a political organization which can enforce its will, if need be, by the use of physical force. To the major physical force which is the basis of this organization is given the name of sovereignty. Among the essential characteristics of such political organizations according to the monistic school are:

1. A territorial basis over which the sovereign power may be exercised. 2. Unity-there can be only one such sovereign in a territory.

3. The sovereign is absolute, unlimited, unalienable, and indivisible. 4. Individual liberty depends upon the protection and guaranty of the state.

By the advocates of the monistic theory attention has been directed chiefly to "direct and absolute power over each individual subject as well as over all groups of subjects.":

To the pluralists the underlying facts of political organization deny the unity and absolutism of the state which is characterized in the monistic concept of sovereignty. They do not regard the state as a social group as distinct from all other groups and paramount to them, but the state is merely one among many groups or associations into which mankind is divided and to which allegiance is accorded. Thus it is contended men

form themselves into groups and societies and communities of various kinds, religious, cultural, social, economic. They have churches, the bank clearing house, the medical association, the trade-union, and wheresoever there is an interest strong enough to form a nucleus you will find men gathering around it in an association.2

To certain of these associations, it is maintained, the individual gives allegiance and loyalty not differing either in

1 See "The Pluralistic State" by Ellen Deborah Ellis, American Political Science Review, vol. xiv (August, 1920), p. 393, for a brief summary of the views of the opposing schools.

2 The Nation, July 5, 1919, p. 21.

« PředchozíPokračovat »