Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
|
See also:GOVERNMENT (0. Fr. governement, mod. gouvernement, O. Fr. governer, mod. gouverner, from See also:Lat. gubernare, to See also:steer a See also:ship, See also:guide, See also:rule; cf. Gr. xv(3epvav) , in its widest sense, the ruling See also:power in a See also:political society . In every society of men there is a determinate See also:body (whether consisting of one individual or a few or many individuals) whose commands the See also:rest of the community are See also:bound to obey . This See also:sovereign body is what in more popular phrase is termed the See also:government of the See also:country, and the varieties which may exist in its constitution are known as forms of government . For the opposite theory of a community with " n0 government," see See also:ANARCHISM . How did government come into existence ? Various answers to this question have at times been given, which may be distinguished broadly into three classes . The first class would comprehend the legendary accounts which nations have given in See also:primitive times of their own forms of government . These are always attributed to the mind of a single lawgiver . The government of See also:Sparta was the invention of See also:Lycurgus . See also:Solon, See also:Moses, Numa and See also:Alfred in like manner shaped the government of their respective nations . There was no curiosity about the institutions of other nations—about the origin of governments in See also:general; and each nation was perfectly ready to accept the traditional vop00h-cu of any other . The second May be called the logical or metaphysical See also:account of the origin of government . It contained no overt reference to any particular See also:form of government, whatever its covert references may have been . It answered the question, how government in general came into existence; and it answered it by a logical See also:analysis of the elements of society . The phenomenon to be accounted for being government and See also:laws, it abstracted government and laws, and contemplated mankind as existing without them . The characteristic feature of this See also:kind of See also:speculation is that it reflects how contemporary men would behave if all government were removed, and infers that men must have behaved so before government came into existence . Society without government resolves itself into a number of individuals each following his own aims, and therefore, in the days before government, each See also:man followed his own aims . It is easy to see how this kind of reasoning should See also:lead to very different views of the nature of the supposed See also:original See also:state . With See also:Hobbes, it is a state of See also:war, and government is the result of an agreement among men to keep the See also:peace . With See also:Locke, it is a state of See also:liberty and equality,—it is not a state of war; it is governed by its own See also:law,—the law of nature, which is the same thing as the law of See also:reason . The state of nature is brought to an end by the voluntary agreement of individuals to surrender their natural liberty and submit themselves to one supreme government . In the words of Locke, " Men being by nature all See also:free, equal and See also:independent, no one can be put out of this See also:estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent . The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of See also:civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community " (On Civil Government, c. viii.) . Locke boldly defends his theory as founded on See also:historical fact, and it is amusing to compare his demonstration of the baselessness of See also:Sir R .
See also:Filmer's speculations with the scanty and doubtful examples which he accepts as the See also:foundation of his own
.
But in general the various forms of the See also:hypothesis eliminate the question of See also:time altogether
.
The original See also:contract from which government sprang is likewise the subsisting contract on which civil society continues to be based
.
The historical weakness of the theory was probably always recognized
.
Its logical inadequacy was conclusively demonstrated by See also:
The application of the historical method to the phenomena of society has changed the aspect of the question and robbed it of its political See also:interest
.
The student of the history of society has no See also:formula to See also:express the law by which government is See also:born
.
All that he can do is to trace governmental forms through various stages of social development
.
The more complex and the larger the society, the more distinct is the separation between the governing See also:part and the rest, and the more elaborate is the subdivision of functions in the government
.
The primitive type of ruler is See also: But we cannot affirm that political government has its origin in family government, or that there may not have been states of society in which government of some sort existed while the family did not . I . FORMS OF GOVERNMENT Three See also:Standard Forms.—Political writers from the time of See also:Aristotle have been singularly unanimous in their See also:classification of the forms of government . There are three ways in which states may be governed . They may be governed by one man, or by a number of men, small in proportion to the whole number of men in the state, or by a number large in proportion to the whole number of men in the state . The government may be a See also:monarchy, an See also:aristocracy or a See also:democracy . The same terms are used by John Austin as were used by Aristotle, and in very nearly the same sense . The determining quality in governments in both writers, and it may safely be said in all intermediate writers, is the numerical relation between the constituent members of the government and the See also:population of the state . There were, of course, enormous See also:differences between the state-systems See also:present to the mind of the See also:Greek philosopher and the See also:English jurist . Aristotle was thinking of the small independent states of See also:Greece, Austin of the great peoples of modern See also:Europe . The unit of government in the one See also:case was a See also:city, in the other a nation . This difference is of itself enough to invalidate all generalization founded on the common terminology . But on one point there is a complete parallel between the politics of Aristotle and the politics of Austin . The Greek cities were to the rest of the See also:world very much what See also:European nations and European colonies are to the rest of the world now . They were the only communities in which the governed visibly took some See also:share in the See also:work of government . Outside the European See also:system, as outside the Greek system, we have only the stereotyped uniformity of despotism, whether See also:savage or civilized . The question of forms of government, therefore, belongs characteristically to the European races . The virtues and defects of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy are the virtues and defects manifested by the historical governments of Europe . The generality of the See also:language used by political writers must not See also:blind us to the fact that they are thinking only of a comparatively small portion of mankind . Greek Politics . Aristotle divides governments according to two principles . In all states the governing power seeks either its own See also:advantage or the advantage of the whole state, and the government is See also:bad or See also:good accordingly . In all states the governing power is one man, or a few men or many men . Hence six varieties of government, three of which are bad and three good . Each excellent form has a corresponding depraved form; thus: The good government of one (Monarchy) corresponds to the depraved form (Tyranny) . The good government of few (Aristocracy) corresponds to the depraved form (See also:Oligarchy) . The good government of many (See also:Commonwealth) corresponds to the depraved form (Democracy) . The See also:fault of the depraved forms is that the See also:governors See also:act unjustly where their own interests are concerned . The worst of the depraved forms is tyranny, the next oligarchy and the least bad democracy ?. Each of the three leading types exhibits a number of varieties . Thus in monarchy we have the heroic, the barbaric, the elective dictatorship, the Lacedemonian (hereditary generalship, arpargyia), and See also:absolute monarchy . So democracy and oligarchy exhibit four corresponding varieties . The best type of democracy is that of a community mainly agricultural, whose citizens, therefore, have not leisure for political affairs, and allow the law to See also:rule . The best oligarchy is that in which a considerable number of small proprietors have the power; here, too, the laws prevail . The worst democracy consists of a larger See also:citizen class having leisure for politics; and the worst oligarchy is that of a small number of very See also:rich and influential men . In both the See also:sphere of law is reduced to a minimum . A good government is one in which as much as possible is See also:left to the laws, and as little as possible to the will of the See also:governor . Aristotle elsewhere speaks of the See also:error of those who think that any one of the depraved forms is better than any other . The Politics of Aristotle, from which these principles are taken, presents a striking picture of the variety and activity of political life in the free communities of Greece . The king and See also:council of heroic times had disappeared, and self-government in some form or other was the general rule . It is to be noticed, however, that the governments of Greece were essentially unstable . The political philosophers could See also:lay down the law of development by which one form of government gives See also:birth to another . Aristotle devotes a large portion of his work to the See also:consideration of the causes of revolutions . The dread of tyranny was kept alive by the facility with which an over-powerful and unscrupulous citizen could seize the whole machinery of government . Communities oscillated between some form of oligarchy and some form of democracy . The See also:security of each was constantly imperilled by the conspiracies of the opposing factions . Hence, although political life exhibits that exuberant variety of form and expression which characterizes all the intellectual products of Greece, it lacks the quality of persistent progress . Then there was no approximation to a See also:national government, even of the federal type . The varying confederacies and hegemonies are the nearest approach to anything of the kind . What kind of national government would ultimately have arisen if Greece had not been crushed it is needless to conjecture; the true interest of Greek politics lies in the fact that the free citizens were, in the strictest sense of the word, self-governed . Each citizen took his turn at the common business of the state . He spoke his own views in the See also:agora, and from time to time in his own See also:person acted as See also:magistrate or judge . Citizenship in See also:Athens was a liberal See also:education, such as it never can be made under any representative system . The Government of See also:Rome.—During the whole See also:period of freedom the government of Rome was, in theory at least, municipal self-government . Each citizen had a right to See also:vote laws in his own person in the See also:comitia of the centuries or the tribes . The administrative See also:powers of government were, however, in the hands of a bureaucratic See also:assembly, recruited from the holders of high public See also:office . The See also:senate represented capacity and experience rather than See also:rank and See also:wealth . Without some such See also:instrument the city government of Rome could never have made the See also:conquest of the world . The See also:gradual See also:extension of the citizenship to other Italians changed the See also:character of See also:Roman government . The distant citizens could not come to the voting booths; the See also:device of See also:representation was not discovered; and the comitia See also:fell into the power of the See also:town voters . In the last See also:stage of the Roman See also:republic, the inhabitants of one town wielded the resources of a world-wide See also:empire . We can imagine what would be the effect of leaving to the See also:people of See also:London or See also:Paris the supreme See also:control of the See also:British empire or of See also:France,—irresistible temptation, inevitable corruption . The See also:rabble of the See also:capital learn to live on the rest of the empire.' The favour of the effeminate masters of the world is See also:purchased by panem et circenses . That capable See also:officers and victorious armies should See also:long be content to serve such masters was impossible . A See also:conspiracy of generals placed itself at the head of affairs, and the most capable of them made himself See also:sole See also:master . Under See also:Caesar, See also:Augustus and Tiberius, the Roman people became habituated to a new form of government, which is best described by the name of Caesarism . The outward forms of republican government remained, but one man See also:united in his own person all the leading offices, and used them to give a seemingly legal See also:title to what was essentially military despotism . There is no more interesting constitutional study than the chapters in which See also:Tacitus traces the growth of the new system under the subtle and dissimulating See also:intellect of Tiberius . The new Roman empire was as full of See also:fictions as the English constitution of the present See also:day . The master of the world posed as the humble servant of a See also:menial senate . Depre- ' None of the free states of Greece ever made extensive or permanent conquests; but the See also:tribute sometimes paid by one state to another (as by the Aeginetans to the Athenians) was a See also:manifest source, of corruption . Compare the remarks of See also:Hume (Essays, part i . 3, That Politics may be reduced to a See also:Science), " free governments are the most ruinous and oppressive for their provinces."eating the outward symbols of See also:sovereignty, he was satisfied with the modest powers of a See also:consul or a tribunus plebis . The reign of Tiberius, little capable as he was by See also:personal character of captivating the favour of the multitude, did more for imperialism than was done by his more famous predecessors . Henceforward free government all over the world lay crushed beneath the military despotism of Rome . Caesarism remained true to the character imposed upon it by its origin . The Caesar was an elective not an hereditary king . The real foundation of his power was the See also:army, and the army in course of time openly assumed the right of nominating the sovereign . The characteristic weakness of the Roman empire was the uncertainty of the See also:succession . The nomination of a Caesar in the lifetime of the See also:emperor was an ineffective remedy . See also:Rival emperors were elected by different armies; and nothing less than the force of arms could decide the question between them . Modern Governments.—See also:Feudalism.—The Roman empire bequeathed to modern Europe the theory of universal dominion . The nationalities which See also:grew up after its fall arranged themselves on the basis of territorial sovereignty . Leaving out of account the free municipalities of the See also:middle ages, the problem of government had now to be solved, not for small See also:urban communities, but for large territorial nations . The See also:medieval form of government was feudal . One common type pervaded all the relations of life . The relation of king and See also:lord was like the relation between lord and See also:vassal (see FEUDALISM) . The See also:bond between them was the See also:tenure of See also:land . In See also:England there had been, before the See also:Norman Conquest, an approximation to a feudal system . In the earlier English constitution, the most striking features were the power of the See also:witan, and the common See also:property of the nation in a large portion of the See also:soil . The steady development of the power of the king kept See also:pace with the See also:aggregation of the English tribes under one king . The conception that the land belonged primarily to the people gave way to the conception that everything belonged primarily to the, king ? The Norman Conquest imposed on England the already highly See also:developed feudalism of France, and out of this feudalism the free governments of modern Europe have grown . One or two of the leading steps in this See also:process may be indicated here . The first, and perhaps the most important, was the device of representation . For an account of its origin, and for instances of its use in England before its application to politics, we must be content to refer to See also:Stubbs's Constitutional History, vol. ii .
The problem of combining a large See also:area of sovereignty with some degree of self-government, which had proved fatal to See also:ancient commonwealths, was henceforward solved
.
From that time some form of representation has been deemed essential to every constitution professing, however remotely, to be free
.
The connexion between representation and the feudal system of estates must be shortly noticed
.
The feudal theory gave the king a limited right to military service and to certain See also:aids, both of which were utterly inadequate to meet the expenses of the government, especially in time of war
.
The king therefore had to get contributions from his people, and he consulted them in their respective orders
.
The three estates were simply the three natural divisions of the people, and Stubbs has pointed out that, in the occasional See also:treaties between a necessitous king and the See also:order of merchants or lawyers, we have examples of inchoate estates or sub-estates of the See also:realm
.
The right of representation was thus in its origin a right to consent to See also:taxation
.
The pure theory of feudalism had from the beginning been broken by See also: government from the purely feudal type in which the See also:mesne lord Leading Features of See also:Parliamentary Government.—The parliamentary government developed by England out of feudal materials has been deliberately accepted as the type of constitutional government all over the world . Its leading features are popular representation more or less extensive, a bicameral legislature, and a See also:cabinet or consolidated See also:ministry . In connexion with all of these, numberless questions of the highest See also:practical importance have arisen, the See also:bare enumeration of which would surpass the limits of our space . We shall confine ourselves to a few very general considerations . The Two See also:Chambers.—First, as to the See also:double chamber . This, which is perhaps more accidental than any other portion of the British system, has been the most widely imitated . In most European countries, in the British colonies, in the United States See also:Congress, and in the See also:separate states of the See also:Union,2 there are two houses of legislature . This result has been brought about partly by natural incitation of the accepted type of free government, partly from a conviction that the second chamber will moderate the democratic tendencies of the first . But the elements of the British original cannot be reproduced to order under different conditions . There have, indeed, been a few attempts to imitate the See also:special character of hereditary See also:nobility attaching to the British See also:House of Lords . In some countries, where the feudal tradition is still strong (e.g . See also:Prussia, See also:Austria, See also:Hungary), the hereditary See also:element in the upper chambers has survived as truly representative of actual social and economic relations .
But where these social conditions do not obtain (e.g. in France after the Revolution) the See also:attempt to establish an hereditary See also:peerage on the British See also:model has always failed
.
For the See also:peculiar solidarity between the British nobility and the general See also:mass of the people, the outcome of special conditions and tendencies, is a result beyond the power of constitution-makers to attain
.
The British system too, after its own way, has for a long period worked without any serious collision between the Houses,—the See also:standing and obvious danger of the bicameral system
.
The actual ministers of the day must possess the confidence of the House of See also:Commons; they need not—in fact they often do not—possess the confidence of the House of Lords
.
It is only in legislation that the See also:Lower House really shares its powers with the Upper; and (apart from any such See also:change in the constitution as was suggested in 1907 by Sir H
.
See also:
See also:Foreign imitators, it may be observed, have been more ready to accept a wide basis of representation than to confer real power on the representative body
.
In all the monarchical countries of' Europe, however unrestricted the right of suffrage may be, the real victory of constitutional government has yet to be won
.
Where the suffrage means little or nothing, there is little or no reason for guarding it against abuse
.
The See also:independence of the executive in the United States brings that country, from one
2 For an account of the double chamber system in the state legislatures see UNITED STATES: Constitution and Government, and also S
.
G
.
See also:Fisher, The See also:Evolution of the Constitution (See also:Philadelphia, 1897)
.
stands between the inferior vassal and the king
.
Parliamentary Government.—The English System.—The right of the commons to share the power of the king and lords in legislation, the exclusive right of the commons to impose taxes, the disappearance of the See also:clergy as a separate order, were all important steps in the See also:movement towards popular government
.
The extinction of the old feudal nobility in the dynastic See also:wars of the 15th See also:century simplified the question by leaving the crown See also:face to face with See also:parliament
.
The immediate result was no doubt an increase in the power of the crown, which probably never stood higher than it did in the reigns of See also: The silent changes have, however, been enormous . The most striking of these, and that which has produced the most salient features of the English system, is the growth of cabinet government . Intimately connected with this is the rise of the two great historical parties of English politics . The normal state of government in England is that the cabinet of the day shall represent that which is, for the time, the stronger of the two . Before the Revolution the king's ministers had begun to act as a united body; but even after the Revolution the union was still feeble and fluctuating, and,,each individual See also:minister was bound to the others only by the tie of common service to the king . Under the Hanoverian sovereigns the ministry became consolidated, the position of the cabinet became definite, and its dependence on parliament, and more particularly on the House of Commons, was established . Ministers were chosen exclusively from one house or the other, and they assumed complete responsibility for every act done in the name of the crown . The simplicity of English politics has divided parliament into the representatives of two parties, and the party in opposition has been steadied by the consciousness that it, too, has constitutional functions of high importance, because at any moment it may be called to provide a ministry . See also:Criticism is sobered by being made responsible . Along with this movement went the withdrawal of the personal See also:action of the sovereign in politics . No king has attempted to See also:veto a See also:bill since the Scottish See also:Militia Bill was vetoed by See also:Queen See also:Anne . No ministry has been dismissed by the sovereign since 1834 . Whatever the power of the sovereign may be, it is unquestionably limited to his personal influence over his ministers . And it must be remembered that since the Reform Act of 1832 ministers have become, in practice, responsible ultimately, not to parliament, but to the House of Commons . Apart, therefore, from democratic changes due to a wider suffrage, we find that the House of Commons, as a body, gradually made itself the centre of the government . Since the area of the constitution has been enlarged, it may be doubted whether the orthodox descriptions of the government any longer apply . The earlier constitutional writers, such as See also:Blackstone and J . L . See also:Delolme, regard it as a wonderful See also:compound of the three standard forms,—monarchy, aristocracy and democracy . Each has its See also:place, and each acts as a check upon the others . Hume, discussing the question " Whether the British government inclines more to absolute monarchy or to a republic," decides in favour of the former alternative . " The See also:tide has run long and with .some rapidity to the See also:side of popular government, and is just beginning to turn toward monarchy." And he gives it as his own See also:opinion that absolute monarchy would be the easiest See also:death, the true euthanasia of the British constitution . These views of the English government in the 18th century may be contrasted with See also:Bagehot's See also:sketch of the modern government as a working instrument' ' See Bagehot's English Constitution; or, for a more See also:recent analysis, See also:Sidney Low's Governance of England . point of view, more near to the state system of the See also:continent of Europe than to that of the United Kingdom . The people make a more complete surrender of power to the government (State or Federal) than is done in England . Cabinet Government.—The peculiar functions of the English cabinet are not easily matched in any foreign system . They are a See also:mystery even to most educated Englishmen . The cabinet (q.v.) is much more than a body consisting of chiefs of departments . It is the inner council of the empire, the arbiter of national policy, foreign or domestic, the sovereign in See also:commission . The whole power of the House of Commons is concentrated in its hands . At the same time, it has no place whatever in the legal constitution . Its See also:numbers and its constitution are not fixed even by any rule of practice . It keeps no See also:record of its proceedings . The relations of an individual minister to the cabinet, and of the cabinet to its head and creator, the premier, are things known only to the initiated . With the doubtful exception of France, no other system of government presents us with anything like its See also:equivalent . In the United States, as in the European monarchies, we have a council of ministers surrounding the See also:chief of the state . Change of Power in the English System.—One of the most difficult problems of government is how to provide for the See also:devolution of political power, and perhaps no other question is so generally and justly applied as the test of a working constitution . If the transmission See also:works smoothly, the constitution, whatever may be its other defects, may at least be pronounced See also:stable . It would be tedious to enumerate all the contrivances which this problem has suggested to political societies . Here, as usual, See also:oriental despotism stands at the bottom of the See also:scale . When sovereign power is imputed to one family, and the law of succession fails to designate exclusively the individual entitled to succeed, assassination becomes almost a necessary measure of precaution . The See also:prince whom See also: |