Legitimacy of Government

Plato’s ideal government is given its legitimacy by having leaders who are “better” than the rest of the citizens. These Guardians are said to be fundamentally superior to the other citizens both because of their innate characteristics and because of their specialized training for being a ruler. They will be chosen to rule if they “in their whole life show the greatest eagerness to do what is for the good of their country, and the greatest repugnance to do what is against her interests” (Plato 412 a). They have the right and obligation to rule justly over the other citizens. None of the other citizens should have any reason to complain because these Guardian Kings, or Philosopher Kings, should be much better rulers than any of the other citizens would be.

In Locke and Rousseau’s versions of political theory, however, the state has power because it is made by and for the people, and therefore the people want to keep it in power. They enter into a contract with the government to support it and obey its laws in return for protection and security. Without government or society, people live in what Locke calls the “state of Nature.” Although they have more freedom in the state of Nature, they do not have any security and there is no all-encompassing law that is the same for everyone. There is no power greater than individuals, so there is no protection from unjust individuals or actions. If any individual wants to steal or murder, there is nothing stopping him from doing so.

Out of this situation, people form communities with more defined laws to “preserve his [the individual’s] property - that is, his life, liberty, and estate - against the injuries and attempts of other men” (87). The Social Contract is the agreement by the citizens to obey the rules of the state as long as they are just. Since these laws are made for the good of the citizens, the citizens support it and the government is given legitimacy.

Alexis De Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville found that America’s most dominant traits were the longing for individuality and our fixation on equality. From our idea of equality Tocqueville was concerned that we as a nation would become too individual of one another, opening the door for the tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the majority removes the voice from minorities. Revoking that voice ruins the main goal that the fathers of our country strived for. That is exactly what has happened this week. De Tocqueville would say that the bill is proof of the beginning of the reality and harshness of the majority as a tyrant. “As the majority is the only power whom it is important to please, all its projects are taken up with great ardor; but as soon as its attention is turned elsewhere, all these efforts cease…” Though the decision to remove basic rights of a group are in the beginning stages of being taken away, in the blink of an eye, that could all change.

The back and forth of the democracy in America is what keeps the nation flowing as it does. The politicians are voted for based on the issues that they address, if elected, they will most likely be replaced because the majority changed its mind. The majority is consistently changing its mind; therefore it changes its leaders. Majority is free to travel down the road as it wishes, while minority (often much more stable) is unheard and unable to get out of the driveway. Alexis though that the ruling of popular will would not last in America for very long, that we as a nation would not exist in a perfect, or near perfect form of democracy far into the future. Though it has been longer than he expected, his prediction seems quite accurate. “I believe that freedom is in danger when that power finds no obstacle that can restrain its course and give it time to moderate itself.” The passing of this bill would mark the lack of an obstacle in the path of tyranny for America. De Tocqueville would mark this day as the day that our government has fallen from its roots.