“The latent causes of
faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought
into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of
civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning
government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an
attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and
power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting
to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed
them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and
oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.”
The
problem emphasized in this passage is the pessimistic view of the nature of
diverse ideas converging. It states that
people with the same idea will bond together and shun away those who think
differently. These groups will
eventually harbor ill will toward other groups, and naturally oppose one
another. However, this very pool of
opinions is the very reason why the US government works. While people are still free to join or start
a group focusing on limited ideals, they are not inclined to spar with any
other group. Groups with differing
opinions not only coexist in this society, but separate groups can also come
together and cooperate on the same project.
There are many historical events, minor and major, where two or more different
societies came together and produced a joint product. The finest example is the very beginning of
the forming of the United States. Before
the Revolution, America consisted of 13 colonies, each with a sense of
independence from each other colony.
However, as we have studied, they all eventually came together to fight
against the common enemy Britain and prevailed, founding this mush pot country
we call USA.
“It is in vain to say that
enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and
render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not
always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at
all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will
rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in
disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.”
This argument ties in with no. 51. It can interpreted form this passage that in
a country with only one source of power cannot consistently have a ruler deal
well with his subjects. There will
always be times when an “enlightened statesman” isn’t there to deal with the
current issues. The US government solves
this by enlisting the aid of several greater and lesser powers, a pyramid covered
in the next essay. This assembly of
individuals, more or less considered rulers, increases the chance of an overall
enlightened statesman ready to deal with all the current situations, or at the
very least have available a single man or a group of men specialized to
consider specific matters.
“In a single republic,
all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a
single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the
government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of
America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two
distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among
distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights
of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same
time that each will be controlled by itself.”
As stated in the previous explanation, the government is
not composed of a single body, but rather it is composed of many people, namely
the people categorized in the executive, legislative, and judicial branch. None of these branches are wasting away
minding their own business, oblivious to those around them. This distribution of power has its benefits
for stabilizing and improving the government.
Each branch has methods of stabilizing the other so as not a single
branch will overcome the others. This
checking system is also present within the branches themselves. People
in one branch can agree and disagree with each other despite what rank they
are. The checking system extends way out
to the civilian population, who can also help stabilize or improve the
government through petition. Using all
of these methods helps the country by effectively creating a centralized
government that is up to date and spread out so that each area is affected
equally.
“It
is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little
dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to
their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of
the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be
merely nominal.”
At first glance, it appears that this
passage is supporting the laissez faire movement. However, it can also be interpreted as a
break from the accepted autocracy from that time. It states that institutions should not rely
on one person or one another, otherwise it is safe to assume that if one falls,
the others will as well. It’s easy to see
that this explanation is a flaw of a monarchial society. As a result, the US democratic republic needn’t
have a system a reliability, but nowhere does it say that we need a system of
rivalry either. Institutions shouldn’t
rely on each other, but they shouldn’t compete either.
No comments:
Post a Comment