COURSE

GUIDE

PHL 253
SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Course Team
Oyekunle O. Adegboyega, PhD (Course
Developer/Writer) - NOUN
Emmanuel A. Akintona (Course Editor) - FUNAAB

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

PHL 253 COURSE GUIDE

© 2020 by NOUN Press

National Open University of Nigeria
Headquarters
University Village
Plot 91, Cadastral Zone
Nnamdi Azikiwe Expressway
Jabi, Abuja

Lagos Office
14/16 Ahmadu Bello Way
Victoria Island, Lagos

e-mail: centralinfo@[Link]
URL: [Link]

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any

form or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Printed: 2020

ISBN: 978-978-058-020-9

ii
PHL 253 COURSE GUIDE

CONTENT PAGE

Introduction ………………………………………………... iv
Course Objectives …………………………………………. iv
Working through the Course ………………………………. iv
Study Units ………………………………………………… v
References and Further Reading …………………………… vi
Presentation Schedule ……………………………………… ix
Assessment ………………………………………………… ix
How to Get the Most from the Course ……………………... x
Facilitation …………………………………………………. x
For the Synchronous ……………………………………….. x

iii
PHL 253 COURSE GUIDE

INTRODUCTION

Welcome to PHL 253: Political and Social Philosophy. PHL 253 is a

three-credit unit course with a minimum duration of one semester. It is a
compulsory course for Philosophy Major (degree) students in the
university. The course is expected to provide instruction on the basic
concepts of political and social philosophy. It is also expected to
espouse its method and relevancies to human society. The course, which
has evolved over time as distinguished from political science, domiciled
in the arts; pay particular attention to the study of the major themes and
figures in the history of social and political thought such as Justice
(Plato, Aristotle, Rawls, Iris Young), Power and Authority (Machiavelli
and Hobbes), State of Nature and Social Contract (Hobbes and Locke),
General Will (Rousseau) Majority Rule (Locke), Liberty (Mill),
Revolution and Alienation (Marx), Democracy, etc. The aim is to equip
you with the skill to identify, explain and express the basic concepts and
a broad understanding of political and social philosophy. It also enables
you to relate these themes to contemporary concerns in African thought
and situation, etc.

COURSE OBJECTIVES

By the end of the course you will be able to:

 identify the basic questions in political and social philosophy

 discuss the methodology and the relevance of political and social
philosophy to human society
 distinguish between political philosophy and political science
 explain the socio-political philosophies of major philosophers in
the West
 clarify the major concepts in political and social philosophy
 examine the development and history of social and political
thought
 clarify the concept of power and authority
 discuss the concept of justice
 identify and explain the various political ideologies, such as
democracy, capitalism, socialism etc.
 define the meaning and nature of political power.

WORKING THROUGH THE COURSE

To complete this course of study successfully, please read the study

units, listen to the audios and videos, do all the assignments, open the
links and read, participate in discussion fora, read the recommended

iv
PHL 253 COURSE GUIDE

books and other materials provided, prepare your portfolios, and

participate in the online facilitation.

Each study unit has an introduction, intended learning outcomes, the

main content, conclusion, summary and references/further readings. The
introductory part will tell you the expectations in the study unit. You
must read and understand the intended learning outcomes (ILOs). In the
intended learning outcomes, you will come across what you should be
able to do at the end of each study unit. So, you can evaluate your
learning at the end of each unit to ensure you have achieved the intended
learning outcomes. For you to achieve this goal, that is, to meet the
intended learning outcomes, there are texts, videos and links arranged
into modules and units in the study material. Do not ignore any of these,
rather, you should click on the links as may be directed, but where you
are reading the text offline, you will have to copy and paste the link
address into a browser. You can download the audios and videos to view
offline. You can also print or download the text and save in your
computer, android or any other external drive.

The conclusion tells you the subject matter of the unit, which indicates
the knowledge that you are taking away from the unit. Unit summaries
are recaps of what you have studied in the unit. It is presented in
downloadable audios and videos. The references/further readings are
other study materials like journals, encyclopedia, books etc. that were
either used in the cause of preparing this study material, or not used but
could be of help in enhancing further what you have studied in this
material.

There are two main forms of assessment—the formative and the

summative. The formative assessment will help you monitor your
learning. This is presented as in-text questions, discussion fora and self-
Assessment Exercises. The summative assessments would be used by
the university to evaluate your academic performance. This will be
given as a Computer Based Test (CBT) which serves as continuous
assessment and final examinations. A minimum of two or a maximum of
three computer-based tests will be given with only one final examination
at the end of the semester. You are required to take all the computer-
based tests and the final examination.

STUDY UNITS

There are 25 study units in this course divided into five modules. The
modules and units are presented as follows:-

Module 1 The Idea of Political Philosophy

Unit 1 Nature and Origin of political philosophy

v
PHL 253 COURSE GUIDE

Unit 2 Meaning of Political Philosophy

Unit 3 Social Contract Theory
Unit 4 Political Science and Political Philosophy

Module 2 Western Political Thoughts

Unit 1 Plato and Aristotle
Unit 2 St Thomas Aquinas
Unit 3 Thomas Hobbes
Unit 4 John Locke
Unit 5 J.J Rousseau.
Unit 6 Niccolo Machiavelli
Unit 7 Karl Marx

Module 3 The Idea of Justice

Unit 1 John Rawls’ Idea of Justice
Unit 2 Iris Young’s Idea of Justice
Unit 3 Robert Nozick

Module 4 Political Concepts

Unit 1 Communalism
Unit 2 Socialism
Unit 3 Capitalism
Unit 4 Democracy
Unit 5 Anarchism

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

Adeigbo, F.A. (Ed) (1991). Readings in Social Political Philosophy

Ibadan: Claverian Press.

David, A. (2004). “John Locke, Carolina, and the Two Treatises of

Government.” In Political Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bamikole, L.O. (2012). “Nkrumah and the Triple Heritage Thesis and
Development in African Societies.” International Journal of
Business, Humanities and Technology. Vol. 2 No. 2.

Berki, R. N. (1977). The History Of Political Thought. London: Dent.

Gewirth, A. (1956). Political Philosophy. Canada: Collier-Macmillan.

Bell, D. (2012). “Communitarianism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Retrieved from [Link]. edu/entry/
communitarianism on 17/08 2014.

Berry, G. (2007). “Political Theory in a Nut Shell.”

vi
PHL 253 COURSE GUIDE

[Link]
olitics/[Link]

Chan, S.-Y. (2007) ‘Gender and Relationship Roles in the Analects and
the Mencius.’ In D. Bell (Ed.). Confucian Political Ethics.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Dale, M. (n.d.). Robert Nozick: Political Philosophy. Internet

Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[Link]
Accessed June 20, 2014.

Goldman, E. (2014). Marriage and Love,

[Link] Accessed on14/06/2014.

Hobbes, T. (1963). “Leviathan.” In: W. Molesworth (Ed.). English

Works of Hobbes vol. II. Aalen: Scientia, III

Ibhawoh, B. & Dibua, J.I. (2003). “Deconstructing Ujamaa: The Legacy

of Julius Nyerere in the Quest for Social and Economic
Development in Africa.” African Journal of Political Science.
Vol. 8 no 1. 59-83.

Irele, D. (1998). Introduction to Political Philosophy, Ibadan: University

Press.

King C. & Mc Gilvary (1973). Political and Social Philosophy:

Traditional and Contemporary Readings, New York: Mc Gaw
Hill Books.

Locke, J. (1988). Two Treatises of Government, P. Laslett (ed.),

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lasswell, H. (1958). Politics: Who Gets What, When and How

Cleveland: The World Publishing Company

McLean, L. (Ed.) (1996). Oxford Concise Dictionary. N.Y: Oxford

University Press.

Masolo, D.A. (2004). “Western and African Communitarianism.” In

KwasiWiredu (Ed.). A Companion to African Philosophy.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1995). "Manifesto of the Communist Party." In

FloyaAnthias & Michael Kelly, Sociological Debates: Thinking
about the Social. United Kingdom: Greenwich University Press.

vii
PHL 253 COURSE GUIDE

Morrow, J. (1998). History of Political Thought: A Thematic

Introduction. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Miller, D. (1998). “Political Philosophy.” In E. Craig (Ed.). Routledge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge.

Morrow, J. (1998). History of Political Thought: A Thematic

Introduction. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Newall, P. “Conception of Political Philosophy” http:/[Link]

[Link]/article/so99, Accessed

Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.

Nwabuzor, E. & Mueller H. (1985). An Introduction to Political Science

for African student. London: Macmillan Pub.

Nyerere, J, K. (1977). Ujamaa: Essays on Socialism. Dar-es

Salaam: Oxford University Press

Ogunmodede F. I. (1986), Chief Obafemi Awolowo's Socio-Political

Philosophy: A Critical Interpretation: Tipo-lito-grafia.

Onigbinde, A. (2010). What is philosophy? A Reader’s Digest in

Philosophical Inquiry. Ibadan: Frontline Resources.

Oji O. R (1997), An Introduction to Political Science, Enugu: Mary Dan

Pub.
Payne, R. & Nassar J. R. (2004). Politics and Culture in the Developing
World: The Impact of Globalization. U.S.A.: Pearson Education,
Inc.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

________(1985). “Justice as Fairness: Political, not Metaphysical:
Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 14, No 3.

Rosen, M. (2000). Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

London: Routledge.

Russell, B. (1948). History of Western Philosophy. London: Routledge,

Taylor and Francis Group.

Senghor, L. S. (1968). On African Socialism. Trans. with an introduction

by Mercer Cook (New York: Frederick A. Praeger).

viii
PHL 253 COURSE GUIDE

Stoger-Eising, V. (2000). "Ujamaa Revisited: Indigenous and European

Influences in Nyerere's Social and Political Thought," Africa,
Vol. 17, No. 1.

Subrata, M. & Sushila, R. (2007). A History of Political Thought: Plato to

Marx. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited.

Ujo, A. A. (2004). Understanding Democracy and politics: A Guide for

Students, politicians and Election managers. Kaduna, Nigeria:
Anyaotu Enterprises and publishers Nigeria Limited.

Ryner, H. (2014). “Anarchism and State in Individual Liberty.”

Accessed from [Link] on 15/06/2014.

PRESENTATION SCHEDULE

The presentation schedule gives you the important dates for the
completion of your computer-based tests, participation in forum
discussions and participation at facilitation. Remember, you are to
submit all your assignments at the appropriate time. You should guide
against delays and plagiarisms in your work. Plagiarism is a criminal
offence and is highly penalised.

ASSESSMENT

There are two main forms of assessments in this course that will be
scored: The Continuous Assessments and the Final examination. The
continuous assessment shall be in three-fold. There will be two
Computer-Based Assessments. The computer-based assessments will be
given under the university academic calendar. The timing must be
strictly adhered to. The Computer-Based Assessments shall be scored a
maximum of 10% each, while your participation in discussion fora and
your portfolio presentation shall be scored a maximum of 10% if you
meet 75% participation. Therefore, the maximum score for continuous
assessment shall be 30% which shall form part of the final grade.

The final examination for PHL 253 will be a maximum of two hours and
it takes 70% of the total course grade. The examination, which is
computer-based test items (CBT) will consist of 70 questions, divided
into two parts:35 Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) and 35 Fill in the
Blank space Questions (FBQ).

Note: You will earn a 10% score if you meet a minimum of 75%
participation in the course forum discussions and in your portfolios
otherwise you will lose the 10% in your total score. You will be required
to upload your portfolio using google Doc. What are you expected to do

ix
PHL 253 COURSE GUIDE

in your portfolio? Your portfolio should be note or jottings you made on

each study unit and activities. This will include the time you spent on
each unit or activity.

HOW TO GET THE MOST FROM THE COURSE

To get the most in this course, you need to make use of the Intended
Learning Outcomes (ILOs) to guide your self-study in the course. You
also, at the end of every unit, need to examine yourself with the ILOs
and see if you have achieved what you need to achieve.

Carefully work through each unit and make your notes. Join the online
real-time facilitation session as scheduled. Where you miss the
scheduled online real-time facilitation, go through the recorded
facilitation session at your own free time. Each real-time facilitation
session will be video recorded and posted on the platform.

In addition to the real-time facilitation, watch the video and audio

recorded summary in each unit. The video/audio summaries are directed
to the salient part in each unit. You can access the audio and videos by
clicking on the links in the text or through the course page.
Work through all self-assessment exercises. Finally, obey the rules in
the class.

FACILITATION

You will receive online facilitation. The facilitation is learner-centred.

The mode of facilitation shall be asynchronous and synchronous. For the
asynchronous facilitation, your facilitator will:

 present the theme for the week

 direct and summarise forum discussions
 coordinate activities on the platform
 score and grade activities when need be
 upload scores into the university recommended platform
 support you to learn. in this regard, personal mails may be sent
 send you videos and audio lectures and podcast.

FOR THE SYNCHRONOUS

There will be a minimum of eight hours and a maximum of 12 online

real-time contacts in the course. This will be through video conferencing
in the Learning Management System. The sessions are going to be run at
an hour per session. At the end of each one-hour video conferencing, the
video will be uploaded for view at your pace.

x
PHL 253 COURSE GUIDE

The facilitator will concentrate on main themes that must be known in

the course. The facilitator is to present the online real-time video
facilitation time table at the beginning of the course.

The facilitator will take you through the course guide in the first lecture
at the start date of facilitation.

Do not hesitate to contact your facilitator if you:

 Do not understand any part of the study units or the assignment.

 Have difficulty with the self-assessment exercises.
 Have a question or problem with an assignment or your tutor’s
comments on an assignment.

Also, use the contact provided for technical support.

Read assignments, participate in the fora and discussions. This allows

you to socialise with others on the programme. You can raise any
problem encountered during your study. To gain the maximum benefit
from course facilitation, prepare a list of questions before the discussion
session. You will learn a lot from participating actively in the
discussions.

Finally, respond to the questionnaire. This will help the university to

know your areas of challenges and how to improve on them for a review
of the course materials and lectures.

xi
 MAIN
COURSE

CONTENTS PAGE

Module 1 The Idea of Political Philosophy ……………. 1

Unit 1 Nature and Origin of Political Philosophy ……. 1

Unit 2 Meaning of Political Philosophy …………….. 9
Unit 3 Social Contract Theory ……………………… 17
Unit 4 Political Science and Political Philosophy …… 32

Module 2 Western Political Thoughts …………………. 37

Unit 1 Plato and Aristotle ……………………………. 37

Unit 2 St Thomas Aquinas …………………………… 53
Unit 3 Thomas Hobbes ………………………………. 67
Unit 4 John Locke ……………………………………. 76
Unit 5 J.J Rousseau. ………………………………….. 81
Unit 6 Niccolo Machiavelli …………………………... 88
Unit 7 Karl Marx……………………………………...

Module 3 The Idea of Justice ………………………….. 94

Unit 1 John Rawls’ Idea of Justice …………………... 94

Unit 2 Iris Young’s Idea of Justice …………………... 100
Unit 3 Robert Nozick ………………………………… 106

Module 4 Political Concepts …………………………… 113

Unit 1 Communalism ………………………………… 113

Unit 2 Socialism ……………………………………… 121
Unit 3 Capitalism …………………………………….. 128
Unit 4 Democracy ……………………………………. 139
Unit 5 Anarchism ……………………………………..
PHL 253 MODULE 1

MODULE 1 THE IDEA OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Unit 1 Meaning, Nature and Origin of Politics

Unit 2 Meaning of Political Philosophy
Unit 3 Social Contract Theory
Unit 4 Political Science and Political Philosophy

UNIT 1 MEANING, NATURE AND ORIGIN OF

POLITICS

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 On the Meaning of Politics
3.2 Origin and Purpose of Politics
3.3 Functions and Scope of Politics
3.4 Nature of Politics
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

I wish to welcome you to the course PHL 256 – Socio-Political

Philosophy. The purpose of this course is to get you acquainted with the
meaning of the most common concepts in human society. It aimed at
preparing you for a better understanding of the content of the entire
course, which is Political Philosophy. The course is a specialised one; it
presumes that you already know what politics means and builds on this
presumption to introduce you to critical analysis of political ideas,
concepts and other fundamental issues that politics entails. Furthermore,
the course would enable you to understand the idea of politics and know
the distinction(s) between Political Science and Political Philosophy. This
is important, as many people are unable, or unaware, that the two, i.e.,
Political Science and Political Philosophy are not the same. Following
this, you will learn what politics means. In this unit, therefore, you will
be introduced to some definitions of politics, the origin of politics and the
nature of politics. This is the prerequisite to your learning what Socio-
Political Philosophy is all about.

1
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit you will be able to:

 attempt a definition of politics

 grasp the etymological meaning of the concept of ‘politics’
 know why we may not have a single definition for the term
‘politics’
 trace the origin of politics
 understand the nature of politics.

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 On the Meaning of Politics

You need to know from the outset that there is no univocal definition for
politics. Different scholars have tried to define politics in their own ways
but they have been faced with difficulties as each scholars definition only
reveals the advancement of a different view of politics as well as the
individual understanding of the term.

Many attempts at defining politics include, “the art of the possible”, “A

game of wits”, “all that begin and end with the government”, “the study
of government” (Oji 1997). This last view, present politics as, the study
of the control, distribution and use of power over human activities.

What you should understand from the above is that there could be, and,
of course, there are many definitions from as many scholars that we have,
or that are yet to venture into its study (politics). Every definition,
however, will reveal the individual view of what they conceive to be the
subject matter of the concept. But, then, you need to know that the word
“politics” has its origin. The word “Politics” is derived from the Greek
word, Polis, which means ‘city-state’. According to Aristotle (348-322
BC), the most sovereign and inclusive association is the polis, as it is
called, and the reason for its creation is the establishment of an
administrative system or a government, law-making, enforcement and
evoking obedience from the citizens or inhabitants of the society.

Aristotle in his political treatise Politics observed that human being is by

nature a political animal. This implies that human being, either
consciously or unconsciously, practices politics. In other words, politics
comes naturally to men. Politics, therefore, can be seen in the daily
activities or living of human being. No one person can live alone in a
community, he or she cannot but live with other people, interact with one
another to have a meaningful existence. Through this, relationships are
created and the practice of politics evolve. This is because, as each person
2
PHL 253 MODULE 1

seeks to define their position and share the available resources in the
society, the questions of how to share, who takes what and many other
questions will arise. Aside, the individual member of the society exhibits
individual nature when he/she tries to convince or get other members to
accept his/her position. As a result, divergent views and crises arise and
have to be resolved. To resolve the possible crises, therefore, some
elements of politics play out.

From the above explanation, you will agree with me then, that politics can
be seen in every form of our lives, that is, in all we do and everywhere.
Politics can be seen among members of a family, at the workplace, among
students, at clubs, social or religious organisations, between states and
countries. In fact, politics exist wherever you can see human beings. The
egoistic nature of human beings makes humans to always attempt gaining
an advantage over others, this often degenerates to a crisis, which must be
resolved.

Some definitions of the term politics

Let us now consider some definitions of the concept politics, you should
try to distinguish each of the definition from one another, as they do not
give the same understanding of the concept, though, the overall analysis
of the definitions will show that they attempt to point to the same goal.

According to David Easton, politics can be defined as “the authoritative

allocation of values in a social system” (Oji 1997). Easton’s definition
shows that a political system is concerned with a system of interaction in
a society through which authoritative allocations are made. Thus, by his
definition, politics is concerned with making or obtaining binding
decisions, which could be on how the resources or values of a given
society are shared out.

To Almond and Powel, politics includes not only government institutions

such as legislative, courts and administrative agencies, but also all social
structures as they relate to the organisation of human beings into
collectivities (Lasswell, 1958). Politics, in this regard, is a wide field of
activities outside a mere study of government. It also borders on the entire
life of citizens in relation to the state or community. This view
corroborates the initial claim that there are elements of politics in
whatever we do in social life. It also lends credence to Aristotle’s
assertion, that ‘every human being is a political animal’.

In Harold Lasswell, (1958) view, politics is concerned with who gets

what, when and how? This definition, although, short and simple,
however, it can be described as a more useful one as it expounds the
horizon of politics to include all other social settings, which means
politics is not restricted to the body that is concerned with the

3
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

administration of the society only. It also includes the idea of the social
distribution of society’s resources. You can also infer from Lasswell’s
conception of politics, the idea that politics entails implication of some
sorts of struggle in the making of decision as to who in a society attains
these objectives when and how they do so. His definition is similar to
Nwabuzor and Mueller, (1985: 32). These two scholars see politics as
a set of social interactions and dispositions which directly or indirectly
aim at or actually succeed in obtaining binding decision about who have
desired resources (or who do not) and when and how these are obtained
in any enduring social system.

Nwabuzor and Mueller’s definition of politics extends the frontiers of

politics to all enduring social systems. Their definition also points out that
what is being sought in politics is a binding authoritative decision on all
parties involved (Nwabuzor and Mueller, 1985). According to Obafemi
Awolowo, politics is “the science or the art of the management of public
affairs” (Ogunmodede, 1986: 37). To him, what is germane in politics is
the struggle for the control of power.

Generally, politics is considered as the practice, the art or the science of

directing and administrating states or other political units. However, this
definition is highly contestable. This is because; there are considerable
disagreements on which aspect of the social life that is to be considered
‘political’. Some had argued that the essential characteristics of political
life can be found in any relationship among human beings. Common to
this group are the feminists (McLean, 1996).

Two senses can be made from the various definitions of politics. First, is
the narrower sense, here; it is often assumed that politics only occurs at
the level of government and the state. The second sense is the idea that
politics must involve party competition. Though the phenomenon of
politics could be understood in any of the two senses, it is in the second
sense that our world, especially Nigeria, tends to understand and practice
the idea of politics.

From our understanding of the various definitions of politics by scholars

and their submissions, the meaning of politics can be classified as follows:

i. Politics as the pursuit of public interest.

ii. Politics as the implementation and execution of policy.
iii. Politics as the authoritative allocation of values.
iv. Politics as the operation of statecrafts.

It should be stated here that analyses of the various definitions of politics

can be subsumed under any of these classifications. This is because the
classifications seem to sum up the various activities that politics revolves

4
PHL 253 MODULE 1

around. Besides, these classifications also describe what could be

considered as the nature or characteristics of politics. You can also infer
from the classifications that politics is a common phenomenon to every
human society, and it is sometimes difficult to make a clear-cut difference
between politics and governance in society. In a broad sense, politics can
be described as an essential ingredient of governance.

Two key points you need to note about politics, especially in what we can
call practical politics are:

1. Politics occurs where people disagree about the distribution of

resources and have at least some procedures for the resolution of
such disagreements.
2. Politics is not present in other cases where there is a monolithic
and complete agreement on the rights and duties in a society.

3.2 The Origin and Purpose of Politics

The origin of politics can be traced back to the ancient time when people
realised the need for social order. According to Thomas Hobbes, human
being naturally is egoistic. He has a fundamental drive for his self-
preservation and also a ‘natural right to do whatever he deems necessary
for his self-preservation. Any effort to exercise power over others limits
their natural right and this consequently brought about perpetual conflict
among people. This situation was characterised by Hobbes (1962: 116) as
‘state of nature’, where might is right. The ‘state of nature’ is a state of
war of all against all, and life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

Since the state of nature cannot be continually tolerated by human beings,

and given the fact that human beings are rational beings, they reasonably
thought out certain principles to caution and restrict individual actions so
as to avoid the hazards of such a state and to encourage social order. These
principles were equated by Thomas Hobbes with the natural or divine
laws among which is that “peace is to be sought after, where it may be
found. When not there, to provide ourselves for the help of war” (Payne
and Nassar, 2004: 31). To control the egoistic tendencies of human beings
for their self-preservation in the society, and to maintain a reasonable
amount of peace; to escape from the hazards of the “state of nature”, both
J.J. Rousseau’s and Thomas Hobbes’ proposed the social contract theory.
Although the two theories employ different directions to achieve the same
goal, they are able to show that the individual members of a society
voluntarily relinquished and transferred some of their natural rights to be
coordinated or administered by a single person, which Hobbes refers to
as Leviathan. The Leviathan, therefore, became responsible for social
security, order and peace. It is this that led to the formation of the

5
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

government and subsequently civil society. We shall discuss in detail, the

social contract theory in Unit 3.

Plato’s in his political philosophy as explicated in his work The Prince

placed emphasis on (i) the need for the good life of the people and, (ii)
social order in a given society. His idea of justice in the state and human
soul, trifurcated state and philosopher-king becoming rulers are efforts
that have provided the basic background for Aristotle, Hobbes and
Rousseau’s discussion of the need for the establishment of politics and
government in their various theories. Therefore, we can infer from his
idea, that politics began, when human being opted for an organised way
of administration of their society, with the power and right of all citizens
being centralised in one man. This one-man performs the fundamental
role of bringing the values of the society into actualisation. The above
position is corroborated by Richard Payne and Jamar Nassar’s (2004: 3)
argument:

Every society, group or organisation allows certain people to be in charge

of the maintenance of peace, order and or the formulation and
implementation of policy that are meant to achieve such values. Such
individuals are given certain powers over others in the group. It is this
idea of power, that is central to politics. The need for a coercive regulatory
agency, to repress behaviour that threatens the stability of society and
jeopardises the benefits of human interaction, gave rise to political order.

3.3 Functions and Scope of Politics

From all the above discussions, we can identify some fundamental roles
or functions that politics is expected to perform. The historical functions
of politics are the provision of a system of order through the
administration of a given society. Politics is to function as an instrument
to maintain peace. Though, sometimes this is not the case. Politics
provides the ground for people to compete for control or the
instrumentalities of power and favour.

The justification for politics and the institutions in which it is embodied

rests on the objectives and the supreme moral and practical significance.
These objectives might be seen as constituting the ‘end’ of politics. They
are fundamental goals that can only be achieved or approached through
political means. This include among others: order, virtue, freedom,
happiness all of which are moral virtues. It can then be argued that the
fundamental role of politics is to ensure that moral virtue is enhanced in
society. To corroborate this view, John Morrow (1998:18) contends that
politics is “an activity that was centrally concerned with the promotion of
human goodness”. An attempt to deviate from this will amount to politics
failing in achieving its end. Politics exist for the pursuit of human welfare

6
PHL 253 MODULE 1

values and the most vital issue that surround politics and the organization
of political institution is the practice of virtue, which plays a strong role
in the pursuit of human happiness.

4.0 CONCLUSION

From our discussion so far in this unit, it is obvious that human society
consists of different people. The needs of the individual people that
constitute the society differs. The pursuit of the individual needs and
interest degenerates to crises and it is the need to prevent or settle the
crises that led to the idea of politics. Although, there may not be a single
definition for politics, however, the fundamental role of politics in the
restoration of social order and promotion of virtue in human society as
well as its effects on human life cannot be undermined.

5.0 SUMMARY

In this unit, you have been introduced to the various definitions or

conceptions of politics. Also, the origin of politics have been discussed
and you have been told that idea of politics was developed when from the
concept of the state of nature, which has its root in the philosophies of J.J,
Rousseau, John Locke and Plato. The unit also introduced to you the
various roles of politics in human society.

6.0 SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

1. How would you define politics?

2. Carefully trace the origin of politics.
3. Explain the nature of politics.

7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Lasswell, H. (1958). Politics: Who Gets What, When and How Cleveland:
The world publishing Company.

Locke, J. (1988). Two Treatises of Government, P. Laslett (ed.),

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McLean, L. (Ed.) (1996). Oxford Concise Dictionary. N.Y: Oxford

University Press.

Hobbes, T. (1963). “Leviathan.” In: W. Molesworth (Ed). English Works

of Hobbes vol II. Aalen: Scientia, III.

Nwabuzor, E. & Mueller H. (1985). An Introduction to Political Science

for African student. London: Macmillan Pub.

7
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Miller, D (1998). “Political Philosophy” In Craig, E. (Ed.), Routledge

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge, 1998

Morrow, J. (1998). History of Political Thought: A Thematic

Introduction. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Newall, P. (n.d.). “Conception of Political Philosophy”

http:/[Link]/article/so99.

Ogunmodede, F. I (1986). Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s Socio-Political

Philosophy: A Critical Interpretation: Tipo-lito-grafia.

Oji, O. R. (1997). An Introduction to Political Science, Enugu: Mary Da

n Pub.

Payne R. & Nassar J. R. (2004). Politics and Culture in the Developing

World: The Impact of Globalisation. U.S.A.: Pearson Education,
Inc.

8
PHL 253 MODULE 1

UNIT 2 MEANING OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 On the Meaning of Political Philosophy
3.2 History of Political Philosophy
3.3 Basic Questions in Political Philosophy
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This unit is a follow-up to the first unit. You must remember that in the
last unit, you were introduced to the meaning of politics, but this unit, i.e.
Unit 2, will be taking you beyond the level of mere consideration of the
meaning of politics to acquaint you with the place of philosophy and more
importantly, the task of philosophers in the study of politics and political
practice. Now that you know what politics is, the purpose of the unit is to
‘introduce’ you to the idea of socio-political philosophy. It will introduce
you to basic questions that are often considered in political philosophy
and the nature of political philosophy in general.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit you will be able to:

 attempt a definition of political philosophy

 discuss the meaning of socio-political philosophy
 examine the origin of political philosophy
 explain the scope of political philosopher
 highlight some of the basic questions being asked in political
philosophy.

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 The Meaning of Political Philosophy

Let me first tell you from the outset certain facts that you must know
before we go into what we want to study in this unit. First, socio-political
philosophers are concerned with defining and interpreting concepts like
justice, freedom, authority and democracy in a modern context as well as

9
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

in the past. This branch of philosophy, which is sometimes considered as

two branches of philosophy is often referred to as political philosophy.
This is because you may not be able to distinguish absolutely in the
content or subject of concern if they are considered separately. Their
subject matter overlap so much, hence, they are usually treated as one area
of philosophy. Second, if anyone attempts to draw any difference
between social philosophy and political philosophy, the actual difference
would not be more than saying that political philosophers are interested
in the ideal society while social philosophers are interested in the effect
on the people of various social and political organisations. Three, socio-
political philosophers tend to overlap their studies with many other fields
including Ethics, History, Anthropology, Economics and particularly
Law.

The Meaning of Political Philosophy

Just as we have rightly noticed, in our attempt at examining the meaning
of politics in unit one, you must also know that political philosophy has
varied definitions given by scholars. It can be defined as “philosophical
reflection on how best to arrange our collective lives, our political
institutions and our social practices, such as our economic system and our
pattern of family life” (Craig, 1998: 99). This definition, suggests that
political philosophers seek to establish basic principles that will justify a
particular form of state, show that individuals have certain inalienable
rights, tell how the material resources of a society should be distributed
among its members. This activity involves analysing and interpreting
various ideas like freedom, justice, authority and democracy and then
applying them in a critical way to the social and political institutions that
may be in existence at a particular point in time. This is done in other to
justify every process of governance or administration of a state and
guarantee order, peace and tranquillity in the state. In doing this, the
following questions are raised among others. How are we to live? How
best do we govern our interaction? All these questions arise due to the
need for possible human co-existence. It is the need for human co-
existence that led to the formation of political society. The need for human
co-existence, which led to the above questions explains political
philosophy as the study of various questions that may arise as a result of
the establishment of political society.

You need to know here, that the subject matter of political philosophy
differs from one historical epoch to the other. This is due to; the methods
and approaches employed by philosophers, which reflects the general
philosophical tendencies of their era. Also, the political philosopher’s
agenda is largely set by the pressing political issues of the day. For
instance, in the medieval age, the central issue in political philosophy was
the relationship between the church and the state. In the early modern
period, it was the arguments between defenders of absolutism and those

10
PHL 253 MODULE 1

who sought to justify a limited constitutional state. And, the 19th century
revealed social questions relating to how an industrial society should
organise its economy and its welfare systems. What about colonised
states? Thus, in all, the activity of political philosophy centres on the lives
and behaviours of the people in a given society.

To Akinyemi Onigbinde (1999: 183), socio-political philosophy can be

described as, “the focus on human conduct within an organised
community.” For Robert Paul Wolff (1985: 152), political philosophy is
the philosophical study of the state and the attitude of the citizens toward
the state. These two meanings, present political philosophy as an activity
that does not undermine the relevance of social and ethical values in the
political lives of the citizens. This, therefore, made Alan Gewirth (1956:
1) assert, “the central concern of political philosophy is the moral
evaluation of political power.” This is because the idea of political power
is central to politics. The concepts i.e. politics and power, are directed
towards man and they can have either a positive or negative influence on
the lives of the members of society. While good politics will be
characterised by moral operation of political power, bad politics is devoid
of any morality. In good politics, the activities of politics are geared
towards the common good but in bad politics, political power is
characterised by injustice selfishness, dictatorship and the manifestation
of various forms of vices.

What you must note here is that beyond politics, some other social-
political concepts such as political power, rule of law, obligation and
many others arise and are very vital in determining what happens in
human society and her citizens. The task of political philosophy, we can
say, is to regulate political power and institutions by subjecting them to
moral requirements concerning their sources, limits and ends. When
viewed this way, we can deduce that political philosophy concerns itself
with the application of moral philosophy to political theories to critically
examine the various fundamental questions of public life.

The role of moral philosophy as it relates to politics is to ensure an ethical

justification for the acceptance of political issues, concepts and policies,
in terms of what is good or obligating not only for the individuals but,
also for the public. It also ensures the promotion of political virtue against
vices, which may possibly characterise society without political
arrangement. This is because political concepts and actions have
enormous consequences for human weal or woe.

The subjection of political concept to moral criticisms is to facilitate the

opportunity to explain and clarify ambiguities and settle political and
other disputes that may ensue in connection with political practices. This
also helps in the proper placement of the application of the various moral

11
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

criteria as they affect politics. From this point, it can be argued that
political philosophy has, as its fundamental task, the presentation,
development and analysis (in a more rational form) of the general
normative principles for answering moral questions of governmental and
public policy. Thus, the central concern of political philosophy is to
present and defend rationally grounded answers to moral questions about
political power and other related issues. It develops and presents general
normative moral criteria or principles for answering basic questions of
political morality.

3.2 Basic Questions in Political Philosophy

Many questions are often raised in political philosophy but which are
hardly noticed as to engender philosophical consideration. Different
political philosophers frame these questions in various ways. The
differences in the ways the questions are framed have little or no impact
on the meanings of each of the questions. However, a serious study of the
questions will reveal to you, that the questions set out to address the same
issues. Another point you must note is that the prominent questions in
political philosophy borders on the relationship of individuals to the
dictates or needs of community existence.

According to Paul Newall (1999: 21), Political philosophers ask the

following questions:
What should be the relationship between individuals and society? What
are the limits of freedom? Is freedom of speech a good idea or freedom of
action between consenting adults? When may government act against the
will of a citizen and when should a citizen act against his or her
government? What is the purpose of government? What characterises a
good government? And so on.

The above questions cover most, if not all aspects, of the practice of
politics in the society apart from the question on how power can or should
be acquired and retained, which is paramount to politics. David Muller is
considered to have taken care of the missing but vital question in practical
politics. Muller, as noted by Craig (1998) divided the question into three
segments:

1. Questions on the meaning of authority, and the criteria by which

we can judge forms of political rule legitimately.
2 Question about the form that the state should take.
3 Question of whether any general limits can be set to the authority
of the state.

12
 PHL 253 MODULE 1

This important aspect of politics, that is, the idea of how power can be
acquired and retained, formed the major discussion of Niccolo
Machiavelli in his political treatise, The Prince. The main thrust of the
book is the analysis of political power. He examines how power can be
acquired, retained, exercised and expanded with or without moral
consideration in a political society.

Allan Gewirth (1956) opined that questions asked by political

philosophers are questions about what human being ought to do in relation
to society and government, and about the right ordering and functioning
of political power. These kinds of questions can be raised at different
levels, from the most concrete and particular to the most abstract and
general.

The main interests of political philosophy rest on the most general moral
questions of society and government. Answers to this lean, in the long
run, on deciding answers to all other question of political morality. From
Gewirth’s idea (which is in line with Miller’s classification), the various
questions that political philosophers raise can be grouped into two. They
are:

i. General questions about government, such as: why should human being
obey any government at all? Why should some men have political power
over others?

ii. Specific questions about the government which examines the following:

a. Source and locus of political power. What criteria are to be used in

determining who should have political power?
b. Limits of political power, i.e. by what criteria are political power
to be determined? What should be the extent of political power and
what rights or freedom should be exempted from political or legal
control?
c. Ends of political power. It raises questions such as to the
attainment of what affirmative ends should political power be
directed. And what are the criteria for determining this?

All the above questions arose from the moment human being came
together to form a society. They are questions, that though, relate to
politics, have always been explained as the science of administration of
society, they have a direct consequence on the values of human being and
society. They have a direct link with issues such as justice, equality,
freedom and liberty, needs and interest, public interest, rights, welfare and
some other virtues that determine the quality of life of the individual in
the society, the social status of the society and the achievement of the
goals or aims for establishing the society.

13
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

3.3 History of Political Philosophy

Let us first assert here, that the history of political philosophy is a

developing process. Thus, the history spans over the Ancient age of
philosophy, the Medieval Age, the Modern Age and the Contemporary
Age. It is still developing, as scholars discover and develop new political
theories and ideologies. You need to know that this is made possible,
given the nature of human beings that constitutes the inhabitants of the
society, and the fact that change is constant in human society.

In the ancient age, the Chinese political philosophy was prominent and it
dates back to the Spring and Autumn period, specifically with Confucius
in the 6th century BC. The major political philosophies during this period
were those found in the philosophies of Confucianism, Legalism, Monism,
Agrarianism and Taoism.

Aside from the Chinese political philosophy, the Western political

philosophy also originates in the philosophy of ancient Greece, where
political philosophy begins with Plato’s Republic in the 4th century BC.
Plato’s political philosophy was followed by Aristotle’s Nichomachean
Ethics and Politics (Sahakian, 1993).

The political ideas of Medieval age were religious oriented. They were
not circular ideas but firmly revolved around religious doctrines. This is
because philosophical discourse during this period was dominated by
religious beliefs. The most prominent philosophers who discuss politics
in their philosophical teachings were religious fathers, both in Islamic and
Christian traditions. Some of the religious fathers include; St Augustine
and Thomas Aquinas, who are Christians. Their political teachings were
greatly influenced by Christian tenets, which is Catholicism. In the
Islamic religion, are Al-farabi and Avicenna, whose teachings about the
administration of the state was greatly influenced by the Islamic doctrines
and teachings.

Political philosophy in the modern period can be dated back to the time
of the Italian philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli. His political concepts
mark off the age which opens up a new agenda for political philosophy.
In the modern age, the religionist way of viewing politics was jettisoned
and political thinking centres on the state as expressed by Berki (1977:
117). Attention was directed towards the political or civic vision. Man is
seen as a citizen, subject and member of the state, and an overview of the
state and its components were major concerns of the political
philosophers. Aside from Machiavelli, other prominent philosophers
whose political discourses were influential are Thomas Hobbes, John
Locke and JJ Rousseau. This age was wrapped up by the late modern era,
which, of course, cannot be separated from the modern era. The political

14
PHL 253 MODULE 1

philosophies of Burke, Hegel, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Friedrich

Engels and the anarchists like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Peter Kropotkin
and many others that constitute the late modern era have a direct link with
some of the conceptual works of the modern era.

The contemporary age has John Rawls with his work A Theory of Justice,
Robert Nozick’s work, Anarchy State and Utopia, Jean-Paul Sartre,
Jurgen Habermas, Herbert Marcuse, Michel Foucault and many others.
Generally speaking, communism, colonialism and racism were important
issues in the period. There was a marked trend towards a pragmatic
approach to political discourses or issues rather than a philosophical one.

4.0 CONCLUSION

Like the nature of philosophy, political philosophy has no univocal

definition, however, it is obvious that it is concerned with the analysis of
political concepts to unveil the meaning underlying the concepts and how
they are applied in political practice. It is also important to know that
social environments inform philosopher’s reactions and responses to the
various questions and issues that are raised in political philosophy. This
we can see in the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas,
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Niccolo Machiavelli and other political
philosophers. This also informs the changes in developments of new
political ideologies and the various issues that are of concern to political
philosophers, from the ancient age to the contemporary as outlined in the
history and development of political philosophy above. However, every
subject of discourse in political philosophy revolves around human being
and environment. In a clear term, the concern of political philosopher
centres on critical examinations of how a state is administered or
governed.

5.0 SUMMARY

In this unit, you have learnt the various conceptions or meanings of

political philosophy. As discussed in the unit, although, political
philosophers conceived its meaning differently, however, the subject
matter of political philosophy is the same. The unit also introduced you
to the historical ages of political philosophy. You were also made to
understand the various basic questions that are always asked in political
philosophy.

15
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

6.0 SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

1. Explain the term political philosophy.

2. What are the concerns of political philosophers in the various
stages of its development?
3. Discuss the basic questions in political philosophy.

7.0 REFERENCES/ FURTHER READING

Berki, R. N. (1977). The History Of Political Thought. London: Dent.

Gewirth, A. (1956). Political Philosophy. Canada: Collier-Macmillan.

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1995). "Manifesto of the Communist Party." In Floya

Anthias & Michael Kelly, Sociological Debates: Thinking about the
Social. United Kingdom: Greenwich University Press.

Newall, P. (n.d.). “Conception of Political Philosophy”

http:/[Link]/article/so99

Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.

Onigbinde, A. (2010). What is philosophy? A Reader’s Digest in

Philosophical Inquiry. Ibadan: Frontline Resources.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

________ (1985). “Justice as Fairness: Political, not Metaphysical:

Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 14, No 3.

16
PHL 253 MODULE 1

UNIT 3 SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main Content
3.1 The Idea of Social Contract
3.2 Origin and Purpose of Politics
3.3 Nature of Politics
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In this unit, we shall be discussing the idea of the social contract. The
social contract, which is sometimes referred to as a political contract is
a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment. It was
an attempt made to address the questions of the origin of society and the
legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. The purpose
of this unit, therefore, is to get you acquainted with political philosophers’
idea on how political society began. You will learn about the three
important aspects of the theory: human nature, the origin of the state and
the ends of government The unit will also make you understand how the
state derived its authority over the individual members of the society. In
the unit, you will learn why the citizens should obey the authority of the
state.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit you will be able to:

 examine the meaning of a social contract

 discuss how the idea of the social contract was arrived at
 explain the principles that are involved in the social contract, i.e
authority and obedience
 trace the emergence of a political society
 explain the three central kernels of the social contract, which are,
human nature, the origin of the state and the ends of government.

17
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 Understanding the Idea of Social Contract

You need to know that the idea of Social Contract was first commonly
found in the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean
Jacques Rousseau. However, philosophers that came after these three,
have also, in their attempt at evaluating the ideas from these three
discussed social contract in their own way. Their discussion could in a
way be seen as either corroborating the already existing ideas of Hobbes,
Locke and Rousseau, or opposing it. In this unit, we shall focus on the
social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Their
positions on human nature, the origin of the state and forms of
government shall be explained. First, you must understand that the central
argument of the contractarians is that the state or political society emerges
as a result of an agreement entered into by men who initially lacked
government.

Social contract theory is associated with modern-day moral and political

theory. Its origin could be traced to the ancient Greek philosophy, Roman
and Canon Law, and the Biblical idea of the covenant has been equated
to be a form of the social contract. The idea of social contract gained
prominence in the philosophical discourses in the mid-17th to early 19th
centuries, when it emerged as the leading doctrine of political legitimacy
(Harrison 2003). Its prominence began with the first full exposition and
defense given by Thomas Hobbes, after which, John Locke and Jean-
Jacques Rousseau became proponents of this enormously influential
socio-political theory. It was since then seen as one of the most important
and noticeable theories within moral and political theory throughout the
history of the modern West.

The term ‘social contract’ is made up of two words ‘social’ and ‘contract’.
On the one hand, the term ‘social’ entails “living in communities,
gregarious, not solitary, tending to associate with others, fitted for
existence in an organised, cooperate system of society” (The Cassell
Concise Dictionary, 1997: 1400). Thus, the term ‘social’ could be seen as
aggregate, collective, shared, common or societal. On the other hand,
‘contract’ is an agreement reached to be binding on a person or persons
who entered into it. When one enters into a contract, it is supposed that it
entails no imposition, force or coercion. The consent of all parties is
sought and the interest of all parties are taken into consideration. Thus, it
may not be out of context to say that contract involves consent (tacit and
express), agreement or mutual understanding.

With the above little explanation, therefore, and what you have read under
the introduction of this unit, the social contract is a version of the theories

18
PHL 253 MODULE 1

on the origin of the state and political organisation that emphasises that
political society emerges due to agreement among people in society to
establish a government for certain reasons. In this case, the social contract
theory presupposed that the establishment of the state is contingent on the
reasons for its existence. That is, a state emergence as a means to an end,
rather than as an end in itself.

The Cassell Concise Dictionary (1997: 1400), defines a social contract as

“a collective agreement between members of a society and a government
that secures the rights and liberties of each individual to the extent of not
interfering with another’s rights and liberties.” Thus Lucas (1985: 284)
opines that in the social contract: “The State is seen, so far as possible, as
a voluntary association of individuals, banded together for mutual
protection and the maintenance of law and order, and where all questions
of political obligation can be answered by the two rejoinders, ‘You
promised to’ or ‘It is what you really want.” While the contracts are
believed to be entered for certain purposes to be fulfilled, the social
contract is aimed at what can be called ‘common interest’ of individuals
in the state since its proponents believe that no man can rule over others
without their consent.

To be able to explain why there was a transition from one society to

another, the proponents of the social contract theory divide the history of
human society into two parts: Pre-political society, which is known as ‘the
state of nature’ and Political society. In other words, they attempt to show
a society looks like when it is apolitical from when it is political.
Appadorai (1942: 3) asserts: “When a body of people is clearly organised
as a unit for purposes of government, then it is said to be politically
organised and may be called a body politic or State--a society politically
organized”. In this respect, a state exists, according to Appadorai (1942:
16), “where there are territory, a people, a government and
sovereignty…” This is different from the state of nature which has only
territory and people but without a government or an organised
administrative system. Although the state of nature is hypothetical, it
lacks the machinery that carries out the will of the state such as the
executive, legislature and judiciary. All social contract theorists believed
like all the theory however, they differ on the conditions that necessitate
the transition from pre-political society to the state. But then, they were
able to identify what was responsible for the collapse of the state of nature,
which they were able to anchor on human nature.

Almost all political doctrines and beliefs are based upon some kind of
theory of human nature, sometimes explicitly formulated but in some
cases simply implied. To do otherwise would be to take the complex and
perhaps unpredictable human element out of politics.” However, you
must note that “different views about human nature lead naturally to

19
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

different conclusions about what we ought to do and how we can do it”

(Stevenson, 1974: 3). The belief is that if one can understand the nature
of man, then it will be easier to control individuals’ behaviour to achieve
social order or the common good.

We shall now discuss the various conceptions of human nature that

necessitate the social contract as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and J.J
Rousseau explicated in their theories.

3.1.2 Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In his Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes tells us that in the state of nature, when
there was neither politics nor morality, men lived in a state of chaos,
conflict, strife, war, and insecurity. There was no politics, nor law, no
morality, no sense of justice or injustice, good or evil. Only might was
right. The major concern of men was how to satisfy their appetites, and
the only means of doing so was by brute force.

20
PHL 253 MODULE 1

Frontispiece of Leviathan (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

In the state of nature, there was no permanent ownership of anything. Men

lived in a state of perpetual hostility. Men were enemies of one another,
there was no peace. Men lived in a state of fear and danger of violent
death. Hobbes described the life of man in the state of nature as “solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish and short” (Hobbes 1946).

The realisation of the danger in leaving perpetually in this state of affairs

made men decide to come together and form a political society based on
a social contract. They made a social contract (an agreement) among
themselves to voluntarily surrender their right to do whatever they could,
and also restrict their freedom. They, therefore, empower a sovereign to
enforce morality, law and order. The sovereign has the sole authority to
determine right and wrong, good and bad, justice and injustice, in the
society and to enforce them in order to ensure peace and unity. To
Hobbes, this is the beginning of political society and morality.

There are three main points that you need to know from Hobbes
discussion. One, from his social contract theory, you could see that he
describes the nature of man. For him, “man is essentially selfish; he is
moved to action not by his intellect or reason, but by his appetites, desires
and passions” (Appadorai, 1942: 22). Hobbes also contends that man is
by nature equals to one another, hence no man has the right to lord over
others who he is equal to. The equality that Hobbes presupposes, here, is
physical/mental kind. Hobbes (1651:183) writes:
Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of body, and mind; as
that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in
body, or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together,
21
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one
man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit, to which another may
not pretend, as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has
strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by
confederacy with others, that are in the same danger with himself.

It is as a result of his description, that men are naturally selfish (egoistic)

and equal, that he holds social disorderliness as unavoidable in the state.
Thus, his characterisation of human life as “solitary, poor, brutish, nasty
and short” (Amosu, 2006: 43) because it is human nature to be violent.
He establishes that since all men are naturally selfish:

…there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and
consequently no cultivating of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the
comfortable buildings; no instruments of moving, and removing, such
things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no
account of time; no arts; no literature; no society; and which is worst of
all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short (Pojman and Fieser, 2012: 81).

Two, men were tired of the insecurity of lives in the state of nature and
they wanted peace. To achieve this, there is a need for observance or
enforcement of morality. Thus, the agreement they had, gave the
sovereign absolute power to enforce law and order to have peace in the
society. Although, the theory about the state of nature is hypothetical, i.e.,
a philosophical fiction, but then it clearly points to the view that political
society and morality came into existence at the same time. It came at a
time when individual rights and freedom were willingly surrendered (for
peace and security), using an agreement between them and the sovereign
who is to control and checkmate possible excesses of some strong ones
over the weaklings in the state. The sovereign he called Leviathan.

Three, Hobbes identifies one critical challenge in a society that has no law
and government, this is, that neither the weak nor the strong could boast
of strength without limitation of it. Another mistake is that there will be
nothing that is objectively good or bad. As Hobbes (2002: 2) puts it
“…Whatever is the object of any man’s appetite, that is it which he for
his part calleth good: and the object of his hate and aversion, evil: and of
his contempt, vile and inconsiderable. For these words of good, evil, and
contemptible, are ever used with relation to the person that useth them:
there being nothing simply and absolutely so.” In the state of nature,
therefore, there is strife and conflict. Baumgold (2009:195) clearly
articulates the intent of the state of nature construct in Hobbes’ view as
follows:
One of the classic problems of social contract theory is explaining why a
state of nature would be a state of conflict. According to the elements,

22
PHL 253 MODULE 1

there are three reasons for war in the state of nature. The first is structural
rather than psychological: in the absence of coercive authority; so long as
some are naturally aggressive, all must behave aggressively to defend
themselves. Another cause of conflict, also circumstantial, is competition
for the same goods. Thirdly, however, war is directly traced to ubiquitous
egoism: every man thinking of himself and hating to see the same in
others.

The need to resolve this conflict, Hobbes thinks, is only by having a

political society (state). Only the state can address the social crisis and
disorderliness.

3.1.3 John Locke (1632- 1704)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It suffices to let you know before we discuss Locke’s conception of the

social contract that his idea was greatly influenced by Hobbes’ view,
especially his idea of human nature and the social contract. However, he
disagrees with Hobbes position that the state of nature was chaotic and
lawless. Locke (1995: 5) writes concerning the state of nature:
But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license; though
man in that state has uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or
possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any
creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare
preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern
it, which obliges everyone; and reason, which is that law, teaches all
mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no
one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions; for
men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise
maker (Locke, 1997:5).

So people did not necessarily engage in war as Hobbes had opined, rather
crisis emerges only when one man steals from others or makes others his

23
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

slaves. It is this, which make human nature that was naturally good to
become tyrannical as well as evil, especially when one man tries to use
brute force on others. Thus, the state of nature becomes the state of war
because:
And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute
power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him, it being to be
understood as a declaration of a design upon his life; for I have reason to
conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent
would use me as he pleased when he got me there, and destroy me, too,
when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute
power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right
of my freedom, i.e., make me a slave (Locke, 1997: 11-12).

He identifies that the state of nature becomes volatile and war ensues
because it lacks a political force (government). It is a state where dialogue
does not usually resolve the crisis. Locke believes that nature has
provided no other means to resolve dispute other than for each man to be
the judge in his own case, the state of nature is therefore apolitical and
cannot fulfil the condition for existence. This condition is what Locke
called ‘property’. As he explains it:
Man being born, as has been proved with a title to perfect freedom and
uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of
nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath
by nature a power not only to preserve his property – that is life, liberty
and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men, but to judge of
and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the
offence deserves, even with death itself; in crimes where the heinousness
of the fact, in his opinion, requires it (Locke, 1952: 44)

Unlike Hobbes, Locke holds that although, there was no government in

the state of nature, however, the principle of law was in existence in the
state of nature. This law according to him exists as the ‘natural law’. Thus,
the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it and this law obliges
everyone. The natural law teaches all men that being all equal and
independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health and liberty
of possessions” (Locke 2009; Krab-Karpowicz and Julian 2010). But
what is this natural law that Locke is referring to in his theory? This law
was not another law but moral law. Locke’s opinion is that the law was
not observed in the state of nature due to the absence of a government that
could have enforced it and ensure its strict adherence. It is the
unsatisfactory affair in the state of nature that made men form a political
society by having a social contract. This as we have studied in Hobbes,
means voluntary restriction of their rights and freedom, voluntary
submission to administration of the society by government and voluntary
decision to obey the orders issued by government. Locke (2009) believes,
therefore, that the role of government is to enforce order, justice and to

24
PHL 253 MODULE 1

protect the fundamental rights and freedom of the members of the state.
Thus, while the government could be seen as the servant of the people and
also respond to them, the people are the sovereign and could, if they so
wish, remove the government.

There are some key points that you must note in your study of Locke’s
social contract theory. First, you must note that unlike Hobbes where
sovereignty is vested in one individual called the Leviathan, sovereignty
in Locke’s theory is not with the government but in the people who went
into the contract by giving their rights and freedom to the government.
Second, unlike Hobbes, men in the state of nature are not necessarily evil
as Hobbes made us believe. Third, from Locke’s view, human positive
law is derived from nature and moral laws, which are embedded in nature
also provides the basis for natural laws. Thus, morality cannot be
separated from the law.

Although, there were points of divergent in the two political theorists

contractarian theories, however, there is no disagreement on the fact that
the absence of an authority to coordinate the individual citizens’ rights
and freedom can always lead to crises in the society. Hence, the state of
nature tries to relate to us the reason why men decided to live together
under a political society.

3.1.4 Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unlike Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau has two distinct social contract
theories, these are what he regarded as natural account and normative
account of the social contract. The two are found in his two different
political treatises. The first is found in his essay, titled Discourse on the
origin and foundations of inequality among men. In this essay, Rousseau
discussed the moral and political evolution of human beings, which
developed from the State of Nature to modern society. This he regarded
as a natural account of the social contract. However, he believed that this
account is full of absurdities. The second, which is his normative account
of the social contract, is intended to provide ways by which the problems
that modern society has created for us can be alleviated. This is contained
in his Second Discourse.
In the Second Discourse where Rousseau describes the historical process
by which man began in a State of Nature and latter ‘progressed' into civil
society. According to him, the State of Nature was a peaceful one. Mans’
condition was good, his life was peaceful and he was happy. Evil was not
part of man neither did man ever planned or do evil to fellow men. Man

25
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

was at peace with nature and his fellow men. Greed, violence,
aggressiveness was not part of human nature as Hobbes has earlier
presented. Human beings lived solitary, uncomplicated lives. Their few
needs were easily satisfied by nature. Because of the abundance of nature
and the small size of the population, the competition was non-existent,
there was no private ownership of properties, there was no reason for
conflict or fear nor was there any reason to harm one another.

However, this peaceful and happy state of affairs was disturbed as

humanity was confronted by certain changes. There was an increase in
population, and how people could satisfy their needs had to change. As a
result, people gradually began to live together in small families, and then
in small communities. This situation, therefore, led to some other social
developments. For instance, divisions of labour were introduced, both
within and between families, there were various discoveries and
inventions, which brought more meaning to human existence and life was
made easier, giving rise to leisure time. Rousseau thought that it was the
leisure time that inevitably led people to make comparisons between
themselves and others. The comparison being made by men in the state
of nature resulted in ascribing public values to themselves. It also led to
shame, envy, pride and contempt. One fundamental invention of the time
was private ownership of property. It was this that constituted the pivotal
moment in humanity's evolution out of a simple, pure state into one
characterized by greed, competition, vanity, inequality, and vice. Thus,
Rousseau sees the invention of private property as the cause of
“humanity’s ‘fall from grace’ out of the State of Nature” (Kelley and
Masters 1990: 139).

The introduction of private property made the initial conditions of

inequality to be more pronounced. Some have a property and others are
forced to work for them. This led to the development of social classes.
Eventually, those who have property notice that it would be in their
interests to create a government that would protect private property from
those who do not have it but can see that they might be able to acquire it
by force. Thus, the government was established through a contract.
Although the establishment of government was disguised as a means to
ensure equality and protection for all, its true purpose is to fossilize the
very inequalities that private property has produced. In other words, the
contract, which claims to be in the interests of everyone equally, is really
in the interests of the few who have become stronger and richer as a result
of the developments of private property. This is what Rousseau
considered as the naturalized social contract that was responsible for the
conflict and competition from which modern society suffers.

As stated earlier, the normative social contract of Rousseau as contained

in The Social Contract (1762), was directed at providing a solution to this

26
PHL 253 MODULE 1

sorry state of affairs and to remedy the social and moral ills that have been
produced by the development of society.

The Social Contract begins with the most oft-quoted line from Rousseau:
"Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains" (Rousseau 1987).
Rousseau’s opined that human beings are essentially free. And, even, in
the state of nature humans were free, but the ‘progress' of civilization has
substituted subservience to others for that freedom, through dependence,
economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which we judge
ourselves through comparisons with others. Since humans cannot return
to the State of Nature nor desire it, politics was created to restore freedom
to us, thereby reconciling who we truly and essentially are with how we
live together. In this regard, The social contract seeks to address is, the
problematic of, how can we be free and live together. In other words, how
can humans live together without succumbing to the force and coercion
of others? This problem, to Rousseau, can be resolved. To solve the
problem, he maintained that man only need to submit their individual,
particular wills to the collective or general will, created through the
contract (agreement) made with all other free and equal persons. He
believes that all men are naturally made to be equals, therefore, no one
has a natural right to govern others, and therefore the only justified
authority is the authority that is generated out of agreements or covenants
(Rousseau 1987).

According to Rousseau (1987), the most basic covenant, the social

agreement, is that which made the people come together and form a
collectivity, which by definition is more than and different from a mere
aggregation of individual interests and wills. This act, where individual
persons become people is "the real foundation of society". Thus, the
collective submission of the individual rights and freedom by the people
in the State of Nature, and the transfer of these rights to the collective
body, a new ‘person', as it were, is formed. The sovereign is thus formed
when free and equal persons come together and agree to create themselves
anew as a single body, directed to the good of all considered together. So,
just as individual wills are directed towards individual interests, the
general will, once formed, is directed towards the common good,
understood and agreed to collectively. This version of the social contract
also entails the idea of reciprocated duties: while the sovereign is
committed to the good of collective citizenry who constitute it, the
individual citizen is also committed to the good of the whole. Thus, the
individual citizen does not have the liberty to decide whether it is in his
or her own interests to fulfil his or her duties to the Sovereign, while at
the same time being allowed to reap the benefits of citizenship. They must
be made to conform themselves to the general will, they must be “forced
to be free” (Rousseau 1987).

27
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

For Rousseau, this implies an extremely strong and direct form of

democracy. No person can transfer his or her will to another, to do with
as he or she wants, as one does in representative democracies. This is
because, the general will depends on the coming together periodically of
the entire democratic body, every citizen, to decide collectively, and
unanimously, how to live together.

Some of the implications of Rousseau idea are: This strong form of

democracy, which is consistent with the general will is only possible in
relatively small states. Also, it implies that the people must be able to
identify with one another, and to a great extent know who each other is.
These individuals cannot live in a large area, and in such different
geographic circumstances as to be unable to be united under common
laws. Although the conditions for true democracy are stringent, they are
also the only means by which we can, according to Rousseau, save
ourselves, and regain the freedom to which we are naturally entitled.

Some other points that you must note in Rousseau's social contract
theories are that his theories form a single, consistent view of the society’s
moral and political situation. The theories indicate that humans are
naturally endowed with freedom and equality, however, their nature has
been corrupted by their social history. This to him can be corrected by
invoking their freewill to reconstitute themselves politically, along
strongly democratic principles, which is good for everyone in the society.

4.0 CONCLUSION

Social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and

political theory and is given its first full exposition and defence by
Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau
are other best-known proponents of the theory. These attempt to show the
gradual emergence of human society and the fact that morality and
political society came together and cannot be separated. Despite their
differences on what the ‘end’ of government is, they see political society
as a means of resolving social problems. Of course other political
philosophers, like, Spinoza, David Hume, John Rawls etc., that ventured
into discussing the theory took after the three Hobbes, Locke and
Rousseau that we have discussed in this unit. This has made the theory to
remain as one of the most dominant theories within moral and political
theory throughout the history of the modern West. Although, while some
of the latter discussants build support for the best three known proponents
of the theory, some have argued that social contract theory remained an
incomplete picture of humans moral and political lives, and may in fact
camouflage some of how the contract is itself parasitical upon the
subjugations of classes of persons. Whatever the argument against social
contract.

28
PHL 253 MODULE 1

5.0 SUMMARY

In this unit, we have discussed the idea of the social contract, which is
considered as a theory developed first by Thomas Hobbes and later by
John Locke and J.J Rousseau. From the discussion of their various
positions of the theory, it has also been pointed out that there were areas
of agreement on how the political society emerged and we were also able
to point out areas of divergence among them. It has also been pointed out
that the contractarianists attempts to show that morality and political
society came into existence together and therefore, morality is inseparable
from politics.

6.0 SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

1. What is the social contract?

2. Explain Thomas Hobbes’ theory of social contract
3. How would you differentiate between Thomas Hobbes and John
Locke conception of the social contract?
3. Discuss Jean Jacque Rousseau’s version of social contract theory
4. What are the similarities and dissimilarities in the various social
contract theories you have learnt?
5. Carefully explain the uniqueness in Rousseau’s social contract
theory

7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Amosu, K.O. (2006). “Introduction to Socio-Political Philosophy.” In

Dapo F. Asaju (Ed.). General Studies: Philosophy, Science and
Technology, Vol. 3, Lagos: Lagos State University Press.

Appadorai, A. (1942). The Substance of Politics, New Delhi: Oxford

University Press.

Arendt, H. (1998). The Human Condition, Margaret Canovan (intro). (2nd

ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Arend T, H. (2005). The Promise of Politics, Jerome Kohn (Ed.). with

Intro.), New York: Schocken Books.

Baumgold, D. (2009). “Hobbes” in Political Thinkers: From Socrates to

the Present, David Boucher & Paul Kelly (ed), Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Hampton, J. (1986). Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition.

Cambridge:

29
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Cambridge University Press.

Harrison, R. (2003). Locke, Hobbes and confusion’s Masterpiece,

Cambridge University Press.

Heywood, A. (2004). Political Theory: An Introduction. (3rd ed.). New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hobbes, T. (2002). “Leviathan.” In Dapo F. Asaju (Ed.). Lloyd’s

Introduction to Jurisprudence, (7th ed.). London: Sweet &
Maxwell Ltd.

Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. C.B. Macpherson (eE. & Intro). London:

Penguin Book.

Kelly, C. & Masters, R. (1990). The collected writings of Rousseau, USA:

Hanover.

Krato-Karpowicz, J. W. (2010). A history of political philosophy from

Thucydides to Locke. New York: Global scholarly publications

Locke, J. (1960). Two Treatises on Civil Government, P. Laslett (Ed.).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Locke, J. (1952). “Concerning Civil Government, Second Essay.” In

Robert Maynard Hutchins (Ed.). Great Books of The Western
World. London: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.

Locke, J. (1997). The Second Treatise of Government, Thomas P. Pearson

(Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.

Lucas, J.R. (1985), The Principles of Politics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. (1987) Basic Political Writings. (Trans. Donald

A. Cress) Hackett Publishing Company

Stevenson, L (1974). Seven Theories of Human Nature, New York:

Oxford University Press.

Stumpf, S.E. & Fieser, J. (2005). Philosophy, History and Problem, (6th
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Company, Inc.

The Cassell Concise Dictionary (1997). Lesley Brown (Ed.), London:

Nigel Wilcockson.

30
PHL 253 MODULE 1

Warburton, N. (1998). Philosophy: The Classics. London: Routledge.

31
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

UNIT4 BETWEEN POLITICAL SCIENCE AND

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Between Political Science and Political Philosophy
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Given our discussion of the meaning of politics in unit one and what
political philosophy is in unit two, we shall be discussing the differences
between political science and political philosophy in this unit. This is to
enable you to have a clear understanding that these two, although, are
concerned with the same concepts of politics and the science of
administration of human society. Thus, in the unit, you will be made to
understand that political science and political philosophy does not share
the same subject matter and methodology.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit you will be able to:

 examine the meaning of political science

 discuss how political science is different from political philosophy
 explain the point of divergence between political philosophy and
political science.

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 Between Political Philosophy and Political Science

What is political science?

This is a discipline situated in social science. It is concerned with the study
of the society or state and nation as the case may be. It studies
government, the political arrangement of a state as well as policies of the
government. Essentially, it is concerned with the theory and practice of
politics, the analysis of political behaviour, and political culture in any
human society.

32
PHL 253 MODULE 1

Although, there is no agreement or a univocal definition of what political

science is. In fact, Oji (1997), citing Rodee, et al, believe that the term
political science can be traced back to Jean Bodin (1530-1596), a French
political philosopher who termed the study of politics as a science
politique and gave political science an abiding concern for the
organisation of institutions related to law. However, a contemporary
attempt by political scientists to have a univocal definition has not been
successful as the various definitions only reflect differences in individual
perception. For instance, while Alfred de Gracia sees political science as
the study of events that happen around the decision-making centres of
government, Charles Hyneman believes that political science only
focuses on the part of the affairs of the state that centres on government,
and that kind of part of government which speaks through law. (Janda et
al, 1989)

The contemporary conception gave a scientific inkling to the study of

politics and therefore gave its study away from humanities by adopting
the generic sequential method of scientific inquiry as observed in natural
sciences, in their attempt to explain the myriads of problems confronting
humanity and his environment. Science is known to be an organized body
of truth or knowledge and given this nature of science and the view that
the study of politics has certain traits of the method of science, political
science can simply be defined as the systematic study of politics, bearing
certain characteristics of the natural sciences. But then, since political
science does not share full-fledge traits of natural science, it can be
regarded as an inexact science or what Oji (1997) called pseudo or quasi-
science. As a science, the study of politics involves the process of
scientific investigation, which include; identification of a problem; a
collection of data; formulation of hypothesis from where inferences are
drawn; experimentation and systematic analysis of the data collected and
making of deductions and submission of a solution to the problem (Oji
1997).

But then, it should be noted that political science does not engage the use
of systematic laboratory experimental processes as we have the natural
sciences. Unlike the natural sciences, political science, like economics,
sociology and other social sciences deals with social beings whose
humanistic behaviour cannot be predicted. Thus, unlike pure science, it
is difficult to make a prediction or draw an absolute conclusion about what
human behaviour would be, even after having consistent results in a series
of observation. For instance, every unpopular government policies in
Nigeria (say an increase in petroleum pump price) have always met with
public resistance and outcry, but the 2015 increase did not. This is while
political science, although is a science but social science. Thus, in
political science, there cannot be strict adherence to the natural science

33
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

mode of study and explanation because it deals with human behaviour,

which to a greater extent cannot be predicted or subjected to irrational
changes. As one of the behavioural sciences, political science as a field of
study was codified in the 19th century, when all the social sciences were
established, and indeed, it originated almost 2,500 years ago and deeply
rooted in the works of Plato and Aristotle. However, it has over the years
developed to the following classifications:

 Political theory
 Comparative politics
 Public administration
 International relations
 Public law
 political methodology

3.1.2 Between Political Science and Political Philosophy

From what you have studied in unit two and our discussion on the
meaning of political science, you would observe that there are distinctions
between political philosophy and political science. Some of these are
discussed below. One of the important differences is that, while the nature
of political philosophy is more theoretical and normative political science
is practical and descriptive. Political philosophy is a prescriptive activity,
which sets up norms or ideal standards for society and government. This
is explicated in Plato’s The Republic and Hobbes political theory
Leviathan. Political science is a practical science, rather than a speculative
science. A speculative science as we know has “as its object the truth of
“what is”, whereas a practical science, though concern with the truth of
“what is” is further ordained to action for the sake of some end” (Adeigbo,
1991: 13).

Furthermore, political philosophy gives recognition to the problems of

value and that these problems of value judgment fall within their scope
and province, but on the other hand, the political scientists often claim
that their discipline is value-free. Also, the political scientists only keep
to observation and examination of facts. Political philosophy does not
only offer an analysis of basic concepts but also, sets the aim of this
analysis on the establishment of the standards (norm) by which to
determine why a particular system, institution, law or belief is better than
another.

A consideration of questions that are raised in political philosophy some

of which we have highlighted in unit two, shows that political philosophy
is concerned with how things should be (normative) and not how things
are (descriptive). In political science, different aspects of political

34
PHL 253 MODULE 1

progress are quarried and specific political system is focused upon by the
political scientists. The political scientist asks questions such as:
What is the nature of political society?
Why do people create a political system?
What are the functions and structures of a political system?
What issues are at stake in politics?
How can the political system best be transformed peacefully?

These and many other similar questions that are asked in political science
portray it as being descriptive.

The hallmark of the difference between political philosophy and political

science is the method used in these two disciplines. The methodology, as
we can see from the work of political philosophers like Plato, Aristotle,
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, J. J. Rousseau and so on; has been
“collection on data”. This is contrary to the methodology of political
scientists. The political philosopher refined the data collected using a
continuous process of analysis and criticism in the interest of the desired
increase in the highest and most important form of knowledge, called
“wisdom” (Ibid, 17). Thus, political philosopher uses the tools of analysis,
which is of two forms- analysis of concepts and analysis of the
relationship that exists between concepts. For instance between rights and
freedom, equality and equity, power and authority, law and morality and
so on.

Though there are established differences between political philosophy

and political science, however, you need to know that the two must
coexist, if the aim for which the society is established is to be achieved.
This is because, the whole idea of politics rests on the enhancement of
peace, unity and progress in the society. Whatever it is in any society,
social order is germane and the objective that can be factored out of the
meaning, scope and nature of the two, that is political philosophy and
political science revolves around the ensuring a better society for human
beings.

4.0 CONCLUSION

Although, political science and political philosophy shared certain traits

which border on the administration of human society, however, they
differ in their subject matter and approaches to the study. Political
philosophy is prescriptive in its nature and approach, political science, on
the other hand, is descriptive.

35
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

5.0 SUMMARY

In this unit, you have studied the meaning of political science and you
have been made to see some of the basic distinctions or differences
between political philosophy and political sciences.
6.0 SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

1. Explain the meaning of political science

2. Outline the differences and similarities between political science
and political philosophy.

7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Adeigbo, F.A (Ed) (1991). Readings In Social Political Philosophy

Ibadan: Claverian Press

David, a. (2004). “John Locke, Carolina, and the Two Treatises of

Government.” In Political Theory, Oxford: Clarendon Press

Janda, B. & Goldman (1989). The Challenge of Democratic Government

in America, (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Oji, O.R, (1997). Introduction to political science. Enugu: Marydan

Publishers.

Rodee, A. & Christol, G. (1983). Introduction to Political Science.

Auckland: McGraw-Hill Books.

36
PHL 253 MODULE 2

MODULE 2 WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHTS

Unit 1 Plato and Aristotle

Unit 2 St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas
Unit 3 Thomas Hobbes
Unit 4 John Locke
Unit 5 Jean Jacque Rousseau
Unit 6 Niccolo Machiavelli
Unit 7 Karl Marx

UNIT 1 PLATO AND ARISTOTLE’S POLITICAL

IDEAS

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Plato’s Conception of Politics
3.1.2 Plato on Justice
3.2.3 Plato on Who Should Rule?
3.2.1 Aristotle on Politics
3.2.2 Politics as a Means to an End
3.2.3 Aristotle on Who Should Rule
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In this second module and unit one, we shall be studying the political
ideas of Plato and Aristotle. The purpose of this unit is to get you
familiar with the conception of politics and the idea of human society as
conceived by these two traditional ancient political philosophers. Thus,
we shall examine their conception of state, human nature, justice and
virtue and leadership.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit you will be able to:

 attempt an explanation of politics as conceived by Plato and

Aristotle
 grasp both Plato and Aristotle’s, understanding of human nature
37
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

 identify who should rule as discussed in the political thoughts of

the two philosophers
 explain the concept of justice as viewed by Plato
 evaluate both Plato and Aristotle’s understanding of the
relationship between politics and ethics.

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 Plato

Roman copy of a portrait bust by Silanion for

the Academia in Athens

Plato lived between 428/427 or 424/423 – 348/347 BC). He was of

Athenian origin in Greece. He was the founder of the Platonist school of
thought, and the Academy, which has been described as the first
institution of higher learning in the Western world. He was a pupil of
Socrates and a teacher to Aristotle. The three were known to be a
prominent figure in the history of Ancient Greek and Western
philosophy.

3.1.1 Plato’s Conception of Politics

Plato’s political philosophy as contained in The Republic reflects his

belief in virtue and the capacity of the human mind to attain truth and
the use of this truth by man to order human affairs virtuously and
rationally. He believes that conflicting interests of different parts of
society can be harmonised, such that peace and social order may be
attained. Korab-Karpowiez (2006:2) writes, “the best rational and
righteous political order, which he proposes, leads to a harmonious unity

38
PHL 253 MODULE 2

of society and allows each of its parts to flourish, but not at the expense
of others”. Plato sees virtue as an underpinning factor in political order
and more importantly, in the administration of the human society.
Although The Republic contained dialogues that cover various areas in
philosophy, that is, epistemology, metaphysics and ethics, but then,
political philosophy was the area of his greatest concern. Plato embarked
on a conceptual analysis of what politics ought to be in other to show
what political idea is correct and what political idea is wrong. Very
glaring in Plato’s The Republic is the movement from conceptual
analysis through evaluation of beliefs to the best political order. It is in
line with this belief that the idea of ‘what politics is’ was formed.

The Republic shows a critical reflection on how best a society can

arrange the collective lives of his people, the political institution and
social practices, such as the economic and pattern of family life to attain
an ideal state. His conception of what politics ought to be focuses on the
‘public good’. The attainment of this, that is, ‘public good’ rests on who
should rule the society, how the ruler should be appointed or elected and
how the society should be structured such that friction or chaos would
be prevented and social order is realized. Plato’s main interest is the
consideration of the nature of the ‘good life’ (Plato, 1941: 358-362).
This, he does, by considering the various answers that might be given to
the question “What is justice?” The word ‘justice’ in Plato’s idea is not
to be misconstrued as having any legal undertone, rather, that with such
a wide range of meanings as belonging to the terms ‘good’ and ‘right’.
This meaning aligns, with Plato’s intention, identified by Karl Popper
(1966: 87), as “The building of a perfect state in which every citizen is
really happy” this state he considers to be an ideal political state.

Noticeable in Plato’s political thought is, the close parallel between his
conceptions of justice (or the good life) when considered on a political
level and what it is on the level of an individual’s personal life. His
conception of politics shows that the line of demarcation between ethics
and politics will be rather artificial and not make any sense. As a matter
of fact, a perfect understanding of Plato’s idea of politics shows that a
water-tight relationship exists between ethics and politics, such that, we
can term his political thought “ethics – politics” (Adeigbo, 1991: 22-23).
Any attempt to separate politics from ethics given Plato’s idea of justice
will create a kind of injustice by means of social disorder both in the
individual soul and in the society. This, to Plato, is the only way by
which public morality can be attained in the society, that is when the
cause of justice is maintained first in the human soul which eventually
affects the moral order of the society.

Plato holds this view for the very good reason that one cannot make any
serious headway in characterising what the good society is without

39
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

having some conception of the good life for the individuals who make
up the society. For him, the two go together. Thus, in considering the
meaning of ‘justice’ he maintains that a common structure characterises
justice both in a just state and in the life of a just individual.

3.1.2 Plato on Justice

The concept of justice remains an ethical and political concept. As used

by Plato, it refers to individual virtue and the order of society. Justice is
a virtue whose necessary nature or structure is to be found as much in
the life of a person as in the way in which a whole society is organised.
Using the words of Berki, (1977: 49) “justice is the summary expression
of the good or ideal form of human society”.

Plato undertook the analysis of justice first by seeing it ‘written in large

letters’ on a social level (Berki:49). And, with its structure discerned in
the workings of a city-state, he turns to its parallels in the way a ‘soul’
might be exercised or adjusted. The state is seen as a kind of organism:
It consists of various parts. In other words, it is made up of the various
classes of society where each ‘organ’ has its function and contributes in
its special way to the functioning of the ‘political organism’ as a whole.
Thus, to Plato, the ideal state must exhibit justice in the ordering of her
affairs. He dismisses the various formulation of justice, especially that
of Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus defines justice as “nothing else than
the interest of the stronger” (Plato, 1941: 368): a definition he derived
from the city’s configuration of power and making it relative to the
interest of the dominant social or political group.

Plato also dismisses the idea that justice is based on human convention.
To him, justice is something real, objective and rooted in the nature of
human beings and society. Justice is performing what one has an ability
or skill for. His conviction is that human beings have different skills or
abilities which serves their mutual interests. Since human beings are not
self-sufficient, they live in communities. And, since the needs of each
member of the society vary, many depend on others to meet these needs
and also to provide themselves with all the necessities of life, because
they are social beings. Human beings pool their resources together, they
live together as farmers, weavers, musicians and so on. By living with
other people, it is now possible to seek help from other members of the
community. It is, therefore, not necessary to do everything by oneself.
In his view:
… If the farmer is to have a good plough and spade and other tools, he
will not make them himself. No more will the builder and weaver and
shoemaker make all the many implements they need. So, quite several
carpenters and smiths and other craftsmen must be enlisted (Ibid: 370).

40
PHL 253 MODULE 2

Thus, people tend to specialise in particular functions or activities

making a system of exchange and interdependence on one another
inevitable. In this way, through their services to others, the economic
foundation of the state is laid. The city-state would then develop and
expand, and this leads to growing expectations and luxurious wants. The
implication is that enmity and opportunities for the act of injustice
would arise since greed would creep in. This would eventually lead to
war among the people. There is, therefore, the need for a standing body,
and armed force (Army), to protect the state. This is supposed to be a
bulwark against outside invasion. The state was trifurcated into three
groups, the guardians as the ruler, the auxiliaries as the soldiers and the
artisans as the producers.

Each of these groups must function independently of one another. None

of the three groups can exchange its position for the other because of the
differences in the skill and abilities possessed by the members. He
contends that it is only when this is the case that justice and temperance
will be attained in the state. Thus, an ideal state is where the principle of
division of labour functions effectively among the three parts and it is
only through this that justice can be attained in the state. Justice in the
state, according to Plato, could be likened to justice in the individual
soul. One cannot have justice in the state without having it in the
individuals or vice versa.

To explain the idea of justice in the individual, Plato divides the human
soul into three parts, namely: the spirited, the appetitive and the rational
parts. These three must also function independently of each other for
justice to exist in the soul. A harmonious relationship existing between
the natural constituents, each doing its job, and correspondingly,
injustice is disharmony. The central problem here is how to establish
harmony in the individual and the state.

Plato’s idea on political institution, activities and beliefs emanated from

his conviction of what justice entails. To Plato, justice, understood
traditionally as virtue and related to goodness, is the foundation of good
political order, and as such it is in everyone’s interest. Justice, if we
rightly understand Plato, is not to the exclusive advantage of any of the
city’s factions, but is concerned with the common good of the whole
political community. It is to the advantage of everyone. It provides the
state with a sense of duty, and thus, a basic condition for its health.
Plato believes that injustice is the cause of civil war, hatred, and chaos,
while justice brings friendship and a sense of common purpose.

As observed in his theory, the starting point for the inquiry about the
best political order is the fact of social diversity and conflicting interest
which involves the danger of civil strife. The political community

41
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

consists of different parts or social classes, such as the noble, the rich,
and the poor, each representing different values, interests, and claims to
rule. This gives rise to the controversy of who should rule the state, and
what is the best political system. Plato, in The Republic, sees
factionalism and civil war not only as the greatest danger to a society but
also that peace obtained by the victory of one part and the destruction of
its rivals is not to be preferred to social peace obtained through the
friendship and cooperation of all the various parts in the society. Peace
is not what a particular privilege group should enjoy; it is a value that
must be usually desired by everybody. The best political order to Plato,
therefore, is that which promotes social peace in the environment of
cooperation and friendship among different social groups, each
benefiting from and each adding to the common good. The common
good is a phenomenon that ought to be pursued by all members of the
society. In the same vein, the general interest ought to be the focus on
and the pursuit of good political order. To attain this, Ryn (1999)
pointed out that individual souls must be shaped by the moral –
intellectual discipline of justice. This is because the polis cannot become
just without just individuals. This leads to the earlier identified problem
of how to establish harmony in the individual and the state and to solve
this problem Plato’s discussion of who should rule in the ideal state
becomes relevant.

3.1.3 Who should Rule?

According to Plato, if ruling is a craft, indeed statecraft, then politics

needs competent or experts, at least in the form of today’s civil servants.
Who then should the experts be if the proposed harmony is to be
achieved in the society and why? According to Plato, the philosophers
should rule, that is, those who were chosen from among the brightest,
most stable and most courageous children who have gone through a
sophisticated and prolonged educational training. These people are
competent people with true public interest whose desire is the pursuit of
the common good.

Plato assumes that when a state is not governed out of a desire for
private gain, and the leader is not motivated by personal ambition, such
a state will be free from any form of civil strife. Thus, the philosopher
will rule not only because they will be best prepared for this, but also
because if they do not, the city will no longer be well-governed and may
fall prey to economic decline, factionalism and civil war. Ruling will be
approached not as something enjoyable but as something necessary.
Aside, the philosophers that are being recommended as rulers include
both men and women. They are those who have been trained in various
forms of disciplines like gymnastics, music and mathematics, and ends
with dialectic, military service and practical city management. They

42
PHL 253 MODULE 2

have superior theoretical knowledge, including the knowledge of the

just, noble, good and they are not inferior to others in practical matters
as well. This form of education will enable them to see beyond changing
empirical phenomenal and reflect on such timeless values as justice,
beauty, truth and moderation (Korab-karpowiez, 2006).

The above principle of education discussed by Plato is meant to serve

two main purposes. The first is character training, while the second is
body training. Though, it is in two parts, namely, primary and higher
education. The primary education is meant for every citizen and the
analysis of its method and goal is to find a way of selecting and training
individuals who will be assigned the job of auxiliaries. It is meant to
enable the identification of individuals who possess’ traits of characters
that are desirable in would-be leaders in the society. On the other hand,
the nature of higher education becomes relevant only at a later stage
when the problem of selecting future rulers of the society is taken up.
This form of education is solely for those who have been identified as
possessing leadership traits. They undergo training in geometry,
arithmetic, astronomy and so on. This is to expose them to the real truth
and develop their reasoning capabilities and also enhance their
knowledge of the good. If the philosopher-kings rule, intellectual
wisdom and political power would fuse and the result will be perfect
justice in the state. This will lead to the desired ideal state.

To Plato, the political authority of the ruler is morally based on the

consent of the governed, and the existence of political institution or
government is for nothing other than the benefit of all citizens and all
social classes. Thus, the government must mediate between potentially
conflicting interests in the society. This according to Crossman’s
examination of Plato’s view is to enhance “the buildings of a perfect
state in which every citizen is really happy” (Popper 1966: 87).

From Plato’s position, there is a connection between politics and ethics,

hence the reason why his idea of politics is tied to the understanding of
his concept of justice, which he considered as a supreme virtue that
should determine the administration of the state and also characterise the
nature of the citizens. If we accept justice as a virtue that can bring about
a positive effect on the people living together in a community and
consequently affect their communal interaction, then, Plato’s political
idea is a moral way of evaluating political institutions and political
activities. When viewed this way, then the idea of public morality
underlies Plato’s political philosophy. In other words, Plato’s traditional
philosophy emphasises a great linkage between the practice of politics
and the value of ethics. This is necessary to ensure social order and the
promotion of public good.

43
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Plato’s work has also attracted various criticisms, but that which we
shall examine is the characterisation of his work as anti-democratic and
a closed society by Popper.

Popper argues that Plato’s political ideology gives pride of place to the
society at the expense of the individual (Popper, 1966). Plato’s basic
focus is that society should be stable, well ordered, and harmonious.
This led him to emphasise the organic nature of the society, leaving out
the individual. Put differently, the individual has no right or freedom
because society comes before him or her. In this regard, Plato is seen as
the founder of a totalitarian state.

Besides the above, another fundamental point, which you should note is
that Plato’s political ideology is simply in favour of a class society. His
trifurcation of the state into three supports and allows for a rigid class-
based society. The ruler must rule, the auxiliaries must defend and the
artisans must work. This he called ‘justice’ in the state. This is not in
support of an egalitarian principle. Also, his philosophy is not in any
form of egalitarian. However, two very vital points that we cannot take
away from Plato’s idea is the commitment to the morality in politics and
the belief in public morality as an important factor that underlies social
order, growth and development. Also, his emphasis on knowledge as a
fundamental criterion for leadership cannot be undervalued. He believes
that knowledge and its positive application could contribute to wise
governance and can enhance the good of society.

44
PHL 253 MODULE 2

3.2 Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC)

Roman copy in marble of a Greek bronze bust of Aristotle by

Lysippos, c. 330 BC, with modern alabaster mantle

Aristotle was a pupil of Plato and was known as the father of what
we now know as science. He was a logician, mathematician,
biologist etc.

3.2.1 Aristotle on Politics

The political philosophy of Aristotle is characterised by empirical

concepts. His concern, interest and attitude towards science greatly
reflect in his political writings. He could also be described as the father
of empirical political science, because, his work in politics was based on
the actual study of societies. Unlike Plato, Aristotle did not create a
blueprint for an ideal society and he did not fly into speculative idealism
but remained in “the terra firma” of concrete existence in his discussion
of politics” (Irele, 1998: 21). His is a kind of dialogic conversation with
Plato. Though his conclusion is Platonic, he maintained a teleological
view of things in the world. He argues that all things in the world are to
be understood in terms of the ends toward which they tend to achieve.
To Aristotle, the end of politics is to enable the citizens to perform noble
action. This will enable the citizen to attain happiness and noble action,
which is morally upright and just action.

To understand Aristotle’s conception of politics you need to first

understand his ethical ideas. This is because both are closely related. As
a matter of fact, in his Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle characterised
politics as the most authoritative science. It prescribes which sciences
are to be studied in the city-state, and the other capacities. He considers,
ethics and politics not just closely related but also that the ethical and
45
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

virtuous life is only available to someone who participates in politics,

while moral education is the main purpose of the political community.
To further show the relationship between politics and ethics in
Aristotle’s philosophy, Samuel Stumpf (1977: 109) observes that,
Aristotle in his Politics, as in his Ethics, stresses the element of purpose.

Aristotle’s Ethics is a treatise or portrait of good and happy human

beings and is premised on virtue and happiness. These two relates to
how human beings should live together in society, or the purpose of
living together in a society. This logically leads to his political ideas
which are articulated in his book, Politics. He believes that human
beings are not isolated individuals and that virtue cannot be practiced by
solitary hermits. To him, man is by nature a social animal. They have a
common activity peculiar to them. They can perceive the good and the
bad, the just and the unjust and this perception is made possible by a
partnership among citizens.

Aristotle’s idea of the State and the Individual

To Aristotle, society and state are not artificial but natural to man; they
are manifestations of human nature. Every state is a partnership, and it is
through it that human beings can attain physical, moral and intellectual
perfection. He explained that the state exists to provide the basic
necessities of life. It is not just an alliance, because, it has a moral aim,
which is, to ensure the good of the community as a whole, whereas an
alliance exists for mutual protection. “It differs from a nation in that the
state is a well-knitted political association whereas a nation is a large
amorphous entity” (Irele, 1998: 24). According to King & Mc Gilvary,
(1973: 49), Aristotle asserts:
When several villages are united in a single community, perfect and
large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into
existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in
existence for the sake of a good life.

The state is considered as a creature of nature, and man is by nature a

political animal. Aristotle does relate man and state so closely and he
was able to conclude that “he who is unable to live in society, or who
has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or
a god” (Aristotle’s Ethics 1103625. A man by nature is destined to live
in a state and the state, “is established with a view to some good” (King
& Mc Gilvary: 50) that is, it exists for some end.

But, a state is not an aggregate collection of individuals; it is a

community under a single constitution and law. The state is united, not
necessarily because of its location and size, but, rather, because of its
constitution. It evolves through a whole complex of development; from
family household to villages and finally into a state.

46
PHL 253 MODULE 2

The important point to note in Aristotle’s idea of the state is that the
state was created to ensure a more comfortable life for the citizens. It
exists for the sake of “living well”. “Living well” to Aristotle means
leading a life of happiness and virtue, and by so doing fulfilling one’s
teleos. It is, therefore, necessary for men to live in a state for the
realisation of his teleos that is, goal or end.

3.2.2 Politics as a Means to an End

In his scheme of things, Aristotle believes that everything has an end or

final purpose (teleos) towards which it is or ought to be striving. And, in
Clayton Edward’s (2003) opinion, whatever is the end-product of the
coming into existence of any object that is what we call its nature. Thus,
the final end or teleos of man is happiness, which can be seen as an
activity of the soul in conformity with excellence or virtue in a complete
life.

To Aristotle, living happily requires living a life of virtue. Someone

who is not living a virtuous life or who is not morally good is also not
living a happy life, no matter what they might think. They are like a
knife that will not cut. Those who do live according to virtue are living
a life that flourishes, and they are those who have been able to use their
reasoning ability to discover what is right and wrong, what is good and
bad, what is just and unjust. Thus, relating the idea of an end to
Aristotle’s conception of politics, the end or goal of politics is the best
of ends, and the main concern of politics is to engender a certain
character in the citizens and to make them good and disposed to perform
noble actions. By noble action, Aristotle means actions that are morally
upright and just.

Aristotle opined that political practice must intend to enable the citizens
to achieve their end, which is happiness by inculcating into them moral
virtues that will enhance good behaviour towards other citizens and the
state. On the other hand, the citizens either as an individual or as a
group must also enable the state to attain its end, which is the pursuit of
the common good and the interest of her citizens.

The above views of Aristotle may be alien to the contemporary

conceptions of politics hence, the various opposition to Aristotle’s view.
In contemporary society, we are likely to regard politics (and political
activities) as aiming at ignoble, selfish ends such as wealth and power,
rather than the “best end”. To buttress our position, Clayton Edward
(2003), argues that many people often regard the idea that politics is or
should be primarily concerned with creating a particular moral character
in citizen as a dangerous intrusion on individual freedom in large part.
Those who argue this way have always premised their argument on the

47
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

fact that there is no agreement about what the “best end” is. Thus,
contemporary society’s political and ethical beliefs are not Aristotelian.

Aristotle identified three kinds of knowledge: theoretical knowledge,

practical knowledge and productive knowledge (Adeigbo 1997: 22-23).
In a simple term, these kinds of knowledge are distinguished by their
aims. Theoretical knowledge aims at contemplation, productive
knowledge aims at creation, and practical knowledge aims at action.
Theoretical knowledge involves the study of truth for its own sake; it is
knowledge about things that are unchanging and eternal, and it includes
things like the principles of logic, physics, and mathematics. Productive
knowledge means, roughly, know-how; the knowledge of how to make a
table or a house and so on are examples of practical knowledge.

To justify the relationship between ethics and politics, Aristotle

maintains that to live a moral life, man must possess a practical
knowledge which is the knowledge of how to live and act. To him,
ethics and politics, which are practical science, deal with human beings
as moral agents. Ethics is primarily about the actions of human beings
as individuals, and politics is about the actions of a human being in
communities. Although, it is important to remember that Aristotle ethics
and politics influence each other because of their closeness and both as a
kind of practical knowledge, have several important consequences in
Aristotle’s philosophy. One of the consequences is that Aristotle
believes mere abstract knowledge of ethics and politics is worthless.
The reason for this is based on his belief that practical knowledge is only
useful if we act on it; thus to Aristotle, we must act appropriately if we
are to be moral. Edward Clayton puts this idea of Aristotle as contained
in Ethics 1103625 as follow:

The purpose of the present study (of morality) is not, as it is in other

inquiries, the attainment of theoretical knowledge; we are not
conducting this inquiry to know what virtue is, but to become good, else
there would be no advantage in studying it (Clayton 2003).

The second consequence is, only mature men should be allowed to study
politics. Because only these people (in Aristotle’s view) have the
experience and mental abilities that will benefit society. Women, slaves
and underage men lack reasoning ability and the experience in the
actions which life demands of them and these actions form the basis and
subject matter of the discussion. Moreover, young men will always act
based on their emotions rather than according to reason. Since acting on
practical knowledge requires the use of reason, young men are
unequipped to study politics for lack of the ability to reason. So, the
study of politics will only be useful to those who have the experience
and the mental discipline to benefit from it.

48
PHL 253 MODULE 2

Be that as it may, what we need to note is that reasoning plays an

important role in Aristotle’s ethics and political practice. As earlier
adverted to, those who engage in politics must use their reason to
determine a morally justifiable action such that we can assert to be
virtuous. It is only in doing this that they can be proved to be living to
attain their teleos. Though Aristotle notes that it is not easy to be
virtuous, he acknowledges that becoming virtuous can only become
possible under the right conditions, that is, both politicians and other
people can only fulfil their teleos and be a moral and happy human
being within a well-constructed political state. The state brings about
virtue through education and through laws which prescribe certain
actions and prohibit others. Aristotle’s conception of politics, therefore,
maintains a strong linkage between ethics and politics.

Aristotle in Ethics 1103625 asserts:

… we become just by the practise of just actions, self-controlled by
exercising self-control and courageous by performing acts of courage …
Lawgivers make the citizens good by inculcating (good) habits in them,
and this is the aim of every lawgiver; if he does not succeed in doing
that, his legislation is a failure. It is in this that a good constitution
differs from a bad one.

Given this view, it is obvious that the main concern of Aristotle about
the idea of politics is: how can we discover and put into practice the
political practice and the political institutions that will develop virtue in
the citizens to the greatest possible extent? This is one of the ideas that
form the central feature of political philosophy.

3.2.3 Who should Rule?

In defence of his view on politics and to further strengthen his political

idea, Aristotle considers the issue of political power by asking the
question; ‘who should rule?’ To answer this question, he attempts an
examination of how a regime should be organised or what we can refer
to as types of political power that can exist in a state. These are; the rule
of the many, one man or a few men. His acceptance of any of these is
based on whether these sorts of regimes and the wielder of political
power, rule in their own interest or they do rule in the interest of all the
citizens. He considers those who rule in the common interest as a good
regime, while those who rule in their own interest as tyrants and are
deviations from the correct or the good regime.

Aristotle identifies six kinds of regimes, they are monarchy (rule by one
man for the common good), aristocracy (rule by a few for the common
good), and polity (rule by many for the common good). Those he

49
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

identified as flawed or deviant regimes are tyranny (rule by one man in

his own interest), oligarchy (rule by a few in their own interest) and
democracy (rule by the many in their own interest). Despite this
identification, Aristotle favoured monarchy, if it is in the interest of all.
In another circumstance, he is for democracy, where a constitution is
operative in the state. In a democratic set-up, offices rotate frequently
and there is wide participation in government by the citizens. However,
citizens do not include slaves as well as servants, manual workers and
artisans.

On who should rule, Aristotle believes that those who are most virtuous
have the strongest claim of all to rule. This is because, if a city exists
for the sake of developing virtue in the citizens, then, those who have
the most virtue are the fittest to rule: they will rule best and on behalf of
the citizens establish laws that lead others to virtue.

It must also be said here that Aristotle identifies the way by which
political administration can be protected such that would not cause
instability in the society. First, the cause of ‘revolution’ or instability
should be identified and avoided. Second, one should watch out to
ensure there are no transgressions of the laws. Third, every regime
should have laws and the management of the society should be arranged
in such a way that it is impossible to profit from the offices. This is
because people are always bitter when they realise that public fund is
being stolen by the ruler. Four, those groups that do not have political
power should be allowed to share in it to the greatest extent possible.
That is, they are allowed to have a say in the administration of their
society. Above all, people should be educated on the value of the
administration and exercise of political power as well as the form of the
system of administration that is in place in the society.

Some important points are surrounding Aristotle’s conception of

politics, which you must note. One, his political ideas were grounded in
his biography and historical experience. According to Irele (1998: 25),
Aristotle did not fly into the speculative terrain like Plato but, that he
remained on earth. However, it is imperative to note that his theory in
the last instance comes close to that of Plato, most especially in his
belief that it is only those who have attained philosophical wisdom who
should be allowed to rule the state. Two, to Aristotle, political power is
not whatever one fancies at the moment, rather it is the ability to achieve
one’s most important goals. This goal is happiness, a worthwhile life.

Three, Aristotle’s conception of politics, like Plato, also shows support

for a classed society. This occurs in his expression of the belief that only
a certain class can rule – those who have attained wisdom, the so-called
leisured class. We cannot but conclude from this last point that, though

50
PHL 253 MODULE 2

different from Plato in many points, he alludes to the whole idea of the
philosopher-king in an indirect way.

4.0 CONCLUSION

Generally speaking, what underscores Plato and Aristotle’s conception

of politics is ‘public good’ which has been explained in terms of how
best a state can arrange the collective lives of his people as well as the
political practices in order to attain an ideal state and a happy life for all
citizens in the state. In this regard, the two ancient traditional political
philosophers considered ethics as a fundamental part of politics. It is
also considered that politics and ethics are not just related, but that
ethical and virtuous life must characterise the lives of those who
participate in politics.

5.0 SUMMARY

So far in this unit, we have examined Plato and Aristotle’s conception of

politics. While our discussions of Plato cover his conception of an Ideal
State, his concept of justice both in the state and in the human soul and
his idea on who should rule in the ideal state, our examinations of
Aristotle on the other hands include, his scientific perception politics,
his idea of ethics as explicated in his Nichomachean ethics, his view on
the state and the individual members of the society and his idea on who
should rule.

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Discuss Plato’s conception of politics.

2. How would you assess the relationship between politics and
ethics in Plato’s political philosophy?
3. Explain Aristotle’s description of politics.
4. Evaluate Aristotle’s discussion of who should rule in a state.
5. Briefly explain the relationship between Plato and Aristotle’s
conception of politics.
6. What is or are the role of ethics in Plato and Aristotle’s political
theory?

51
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Adeigbo, F.A. (Ed.) (1991). Readings In Social Political Philosophy.

Ibadan: Claverian Press.

Berki, R. N (1977). The History of Political Thought. London: Dent.

Berry, G. (2007) “Political Theory in a Nut Shell”

[Link]
olitis/[Link]

Clayton E. (n.d.). “Aristotle’s Politics” The Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy,[Link]

Irele, D. (1998). Introduction to Political Philosophy. Ibadan: Ibadan

University Press.

King, C. & Mc Gilvary (1973). Political and Social Philosophy:

Traditional and Contemporary Readings. New York: Mc Gaw
Hill Books.

Korab-Karpowicz, W. J. (n.d.). “Plato’s Political Philosophy” in The

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy mailto: sopot Plato@ hot
[Link]

Lloyd, G. (1968). Aristotle: The Growth and Structure of his Thought.

Cambridge: CUP.

Llyod, S. A. (Ed.) (2001). “Moral and Political Philosophy of Thomas

Hobbes.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, Vol82, Nos. 3 &4.

Morrow, J. (1998). History of Political Thought: A Thematic

Introduction. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Plato (1941). The Republic of Plato (trans.) F.M. Conford, Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Popper, K. (1966). The Open Society And Its Enquiries, Vol I London:
Routledge Kegan Paul.

Ryn, C. G. (1999). “The Politics of Transcendence: The Pretentious

Passivity of Platonic Idealism” in HUMANITAS, VOL. XII, No2

Stumpf, S. E. (1977). Philosophy: History and Problems. USA: Mc

Graw-Hill.

52
PHL 253 MODULE 2

UNIT 2 ST AUGUSTINE AND ST THOMAS AQUINAS’

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Saint Augustine’s Conception of Political Society
3.2 Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Idea of a Political Society
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In this unit, we shall examine the idea of political society as conceived

in the medieval age of philosophy. Two philosophers of the age shall be
discussed and they are Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas. The
purpose of this unit is to let you know that, despite the religious belief of
the age, the philosophers of the period consider very important how
human society should fare.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 explain politics as conceived by Saint Augustine and Saint

Thomas Aquinas
 discuss Augustine and Aquinas’s, believe of the role of God in
the creation of the political society
 examine how political society was created and the purpose it is
expected to serve as discussed in the political thoughts of the two
philosophers
 explain the best political regime in the two philosophers’
discussions
 evaluate both Augustine and Aquinas’ understanding of the place
of virtue in the formation of political society.

53
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 Saint Augustine’s Political Philosophy

St. Augustine (354-430 C.E.)

Aurelius Augustinus was the Catholic bishop of Hippo in northern

Africa, trained in rhetoric. He was generally believed to be the first
Christian philosopher. His views on political and social philosophy
connect the late antiquity and the emerging medieval world. Augustine’s
works cover areas like the nature of human society, justice, the role of
the state, the relationship between church and state, just and unjust war,
and peace. These works were believed to have greatly influenced
Western civilisation. This is evident in some of the writings of some
modern thinkers like Machiavelli, Luther, and, in particular, Hobbes.

Augustine’s political and social views cannot be divorced from his

theology. His political arguments are found in his various writings,
which include sermons, autobiography, commentaries, expositions,
letters, and Christian apologetics. Using the Christian doctrine as the
basis of his philosophy and that of political philosophy, Augustine
believes that there are a beginning and an end for all things. To him, the
earth and human being were created ex nihilo by a God he conceived to
be perfectly good and just. Thus, the earth is not eternal. There are a
beginning and an end for both the earth and time (Omoregbe 1993).

From Augustine’s point of view, at creation, God created a perfectly

good ordered earth, which was disrupted by the Fall of Adam, the first
man He created with free will. The Fall of Adam to Augustine was the
original sin. It was the Fall of Adam that made all human beings to be

54
PHL 253 MODULE 2

heirs to this original sin and human beings develop traits of greediness,
pride and selfishness. God, to Augustine, out of His unmerited mercy,
has, however, predestined some number of men to be saved from the
original sin while most other men He has predestined for condemnation.
Thus, human history is the revelation of the divine plan of God, which
will “culminate in one or other outcome for every member of the human
family” (Deane, 1963: 114)

From Augustine’s idea, certain points must be noted. First, it is not clear
whether every event during man’s existence on earth has been
predestined by God, however, it would be observed that nothing
contravenes His designs on earth. This implies that predestination
determines the ultimate destination of every human being as well as
their political states.

Although, Augustine’s theory may beg for many logical questions which
may affect the acceptability of his position, but then his ideas seem to
have best “provide a description of political life on earth, but not a
prescription for how to obtain membership in the perfect society of
heaven; for, even strict obedience to Christian precepts will not
compensate for one’s not being gratuitously elected for salvation”
(Mattox, 2006: 72).

It suffices to let you know here that the latter experience of Augustine
about the political situation of his immediate society made him arrive at
the central question of politics: How do the faithful operate successfully
and justly in an unjust world, characterised by selfishness, lack of public
interest, good and evil men, yet search for a heavenly reward in the
world hereafter?

Furtherance of his political idea, Augustine created two cities which

represents his description of the two sets of human beings in the world,
that is, those elected for salvation and those elected for damnation. The
two cities are the city of God, which belong to those who inherited the
unmerited mercy of God. The citizens of this city are “pilgrims and
foreigners” who (because God, the object of their love, is not
immediately available for their present enjoyment) are very much out of
place in a world without an earthly institution sufficiently similar to the
City of God. No political state, nor even the institutional church, can be
equated with the City of God. Moreover, there is no such thing as “dual
citizenship” in the two cities; every member of the human family
belongs to one—and only one.

The second city is the earthly city, which is the city of the damned men.
Citizens of the earthly city are the unregenerate progeny of Adam and
Eve, who are justifiably damned because of Adam’s Fall. These

55
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

persons, according to Augustine, are aliens to God’s love (not because

God refuses to love them, but because they refuse to love God as
evidenced by their rebellious disposition inherited from the Fall).
Indeed, the object of their love—whatever it may be—is something
other than God. In particular, citizens of the “earthly city” are
distinguished by their lust for material goods and domination over
others.

Augustine’s conception of justice is based on the biblical doctrine,

which he simply described as, “love, serving God only, and therefore
ruling well all else” (Deane 1963). In this regard, justice is seen as the
crucial distinction between ideal political states (none of which actually
exist on earth) and non-ideal political states—the status of every
political state on earth. He opined that “where there is no justice there is
no commonwealth” (Ibid). Justice is the foundation for an ideal state and
when a state lacks it, then social order and unity cannot be attained.
Thus, to him, “Remove justice,” he asks rhetorically, “and what are
kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale? What are criminal
gangs but petty kingdoms?” (Omoregbe 1993: 173). Augustine holds
that No earthly state can claim to possess true justice, but only some
relative justice by which one state is more just than another. Likewise,
the legitimacy of any earthly political regime can be understood only in
relative terms. It was on this ground that he concluded that the then
Roman empire could not truly be a commonwealth i.e., an ideal state
and cannot be equated with the City of God.

3.2 Thomas Aquinas’ political philosophy

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

56
PHL 253 MODULE 2

Thomas Aquinas political philosophy shares a certain resemblance with

both the Christian doctrine and Aristotle’s political philosophy. He
modified Aristotle’s politics to fit his Christian belief and doctrine.
Thus, issues like the nature of the divine, the human soul, and morality
were part of what he retained in Aristotelianism. All these he considered
with utmost care not to allow Aristotle’s conception of politics
influences negatively the sacred writings of his religion. To him, “God
no longer requires people to live according to the judicial precepts of the
Old Law (Summa Theologiae, I-II, 104.3), and so the question of
formulating a comprehensive Christian political teaching that is faithful
to biblical principles loses it urgency if not its very possibility” (Morrow
1998: 279). Aquinas opined that the conditions for running a civil
society are not contained in Christian doctrine. He believes that the
legitimacy of the Kingship title, that Jesus claimed in John 18:36 does
not belong to this world, yet Jesus Himself suggests that believer must
obey the state laws as well as those of God.

Although, Aquinas discussion did not present to us, a concise treatise

that can be regarded as whole work on politics, however, his thoughts on
politics and political philosophy, in general, are contained in his various
discussions on issues of political concerns such as, virtue, justice,
common good and other politically related issues.

Like Aristotle, Aquinas believes that human beings naturally cannot but
lives in society. This is due to human needs and aspiration, which
eventually led to the establishment of political society. This view of
Aquinas is different from those who construe the creation of society as
the invention of human ingenuity that we have studied in the social
contract theory. His view also did not see the creation of the political
society as an artificial construction designed to make up for human
nature's shortcomings (Omoregbe 2007). Aquinas sees the creation of
political society as nothing but that which enables human beings in the
society to attain the full perfection of their existence. Thus, the natural
desire of man to attain perfection was the drive behind the creation of
the political society. Although, political society naturally evolved, since
nature has naturally separated man from other natural creature, however,
we must note that “the naturalness of politics is more appropriately
compared to the naturalness of moral virtue” (Internet encyclopedia of
philosophy). The idea of moral virtue, to Aquinas, is natural to man
and this plays a vital role in the creation, maintenance and development
of the political society. There is absolutely no person who can live
successfully and a full man without a political society. his view in this
regard, corroborate Aristotle’s claim that one who is separated from
society so as to be completely a-political must be either sub-human or
super-human, either a "beast or a god." (Aristotle's Politics, 1253a27;
Cf. Aquinas' Commentary, Book 1, Lesson 1).

57
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Perhaps, we should note here that, Aquinas also emphasise that the
naturalness of the political society is not independent of that of the
family which has been in existence before the formation of the former.
The place of the family is played down when juxtaposed with political
society. This is because the political society concerns with the macro-
society and politics itself aim at a higher and nobler good than the
family. But then, in tracing the development of political society the
family serves as the basis for its emergence. This position is similar to
Aristotle’s explanation of the origin of political power as contained in
his work Politics. So, like Aristotle, the creation of a political society is
for special consequences, in so far that it is meant to meet the difficulties
that may arrive as a result of expansion among families and the inability
to meet up with the demands for goods that are not within the productive
means of some families, i.e., provide economic benefit to the society.
Aside, it is also meant to enhance greater protection and the moral and
intellectual lives of human beings. Thus, when people live in a
community or society, their lives would be more productive and they
tend to be more comfortable and fulfilled. More so, it allows for division
of labour because individuals will specialize in skills that they are best at
and exchange of goods and services for monetary or other gains and
rewards will equal thrive.

So, moving from family to village, to conglomeration of villages and

then to political society, is the result of the natural growth in population
and demand for more commodities and specialization as well as the
opportunity for specialization among human beings. The political
society, because of its larger size compares to the sizes of family or
village is more advantageous to man and consists of an elaborate
administrative system. It aims to serve the interest of the whole
community, the pursuit of the common good and not the individual
interest of the family. This goal of the political society to Aquinas is
better and in accordance with the divine purpose.

Aquinas believed that since the political society serves every member,
individuals will, therefore, benefit immensely, because, the society will
serve them better by promoting a life of virtue in which, the human
being will be able to attain his fullness. In this regard, Aquinas contends
that although political society originally comes into being for the sake of
living, it exists for the sake of "living well." (See the Commentary on the
Politics, Book 1, Lesson 1, Internet encyclopedia of philosophy).

His emphasis on good citizenship in a political society cannot be

undermined. To him, a good citizen is someone who places the
common good or the good of all over and above his personal interest. He
is someone who exhibits the virtue of justice and has all his deeds
directed toward public goods and not private goods. Although, the

58
PHL 253 MODULE 2

conditions for good citizenship vary from regime to regime. However, a

good citizen cannot be found in a bad regime or an imperfect regime.
This is because such a less good regime would never be committed to
the pursuit of the public good. Thus, good citizens are only realizable in
the best regimes. He, however, was quick to note the possibility of not
having very many good citizens in the best regime. His reason was
underscored by the fact that it is not possible to have all citizens in the
society to be virtuous. The best regime to Aquinas can be known by
either or both of the following two characteristics: 1. How the regime is
ruled and 2. Whether it is ruled justly.

As he explains, the political rule may be exercised by the multitude, by a

selected few, or by one person. If the regime is ruled by one single
individual, it is called a monarchy or kingship, when ruled by a few it is
called an aristocracy, and a polity or republic when ruled by the
multitude. If, on the other hand, a regime is ruled unjustly (that is, for
the sake of the ruler(s) and not for the commonweal), it is called a
tyranny when ruled by one, an oligarchy when ruled by a few, and a
democracy when ruled by the multitude (See Aquinas discussion On
Kingship, Book 1, Chapter 1; Commentary on the Politics, Book 3,
Lecture 6; Internet encyclopedia of philosophy).

Of all the above-discussed regimes, Aquinas states his support for

monarchy as the best regime. His argument in support of monarchy was
drawn from both philosophical and theological observations. Inasmuch
as the goal of any ruler should be the "unity and of peace," the regime is
better governed by one person rather than by many. For this end is much
more efficaciously secured by a single wise authority who is not
burdened by having to deliberate with others who may be less wise and
who may stand in the way of effective governance. (Aquinas, Internet
encyclopedia of philosophy). However, whether it is possible to have
such system of governance or regime in political society or that this
favoured regime by Aquinas will be a good regime in the face of
possible challenges in the society, are questions that are begging for
answers in his political philosophy. This is so, because, the monarchy
regime, even though, the monarch is to be selected by the entire
multitude of the citizen, yet he can become corrupted and a dictator.
Therefore, this suggested the best regime may not at all time enable the
realization of the goals of creating a political society. This might be the
reason why he at another point, suggest that the best possible regime
seems to be the mixed government that incorporates the positive
dimensions of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.

59
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

4.0 CONCLUSION

From the above discussions that concepts of politics and human nature
in the medieval age have been greatly influenced by religion. This is
evident from the two medieval philosophers discussed in this unit. Their
understanding and discussions cannot be divorced from their Christian
Faith. Thus, God is seen to be instrumental to the creation of political
society and political society is simply fulfilling the purpose of God for
humanity.

5.0 SUMMARY

In this unit, we have discussed both Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas
Aquinas ideas on how the political society was created and the purpose
that this larger society is to serve. In Augustine’s opinion, political
society emerged as a result of the Fall of man. While God, out of mercy
redeemed some group of human beings and considered them to be
citizens of the City of God, those who were condemned were out of His
mercy and they are citizens of Earthly city.

Aquinas opined that the creation of political society is systematic, from

family to village and then to conglomeration of villages. Political society
is to enable the full perfection of man by teaching and making him be
virtuous. This, however, can only be realized through a good regime. He
identified (although, with caution) a monarchy regime as a good regime.

6.0 SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

1. Explain Augustine view of political society.

2. Outline some of the links between Augustine and Aquinas
political philosophy
3. Would you agree that Aristotle’s politics serves as the basis for
Aquinas’ political philosophy?
4. Distinguished between Augustine’s Earthly city and City of God
5. What are the stages that led to the creation of a political society in
Aquinas political philosophy?

7.0 REFERENCES/ FURTHER READING

Finnis, J. (1998). Aquinas: Moral, Political and Legal Theory. Oxford

University Press.

Kempsall, M.S. (1999). The Common Good in Late Medieval Political

Thought. Oxford University Press.

60
PHL 253 MODULE 2

Maritain, J. (2001). Natural Law Reflections of Theory and Practice. St.

Augustine's Press.

Mattox, J. M. (2006) Saint Augustine and the theory of Just War. New
York: Columbia University Press.

McInerny, R. (1997). Ethica Thomistica: The Moral Philosophy of

Thomas Aquinas, Washington DC: Catholic University of
America Press.

McInerny, R. (1992). Aquinas on Human Action: A Theory of Practice.

Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press.

Omoregbe, J.I. (1993) Ethics: A systematic and historical study. Lagos:

Joja Educational Research and publishers.

____________, (2007). Social-political philosophy and International

relations.

Vernon, B. (1975). Summa Contra Gentiles, vol. III. 1975. (Trans.),

Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Internet encyclopedia of philosophy [Link]

Internet encyclopedia of philosophy [Link]

61
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

UNIT 3 THOMAS HOBBES

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Thomas Hobbes’ Conception of Political Society
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In this unit, we shall examine the political philosophy of Thomas

Hobbes. The unit will introduce you to the metaphysical basis of
Hobbes’ political thought, which is quite connected to his social contract
theory i.e., ‘State of nature as we have discussed in the first module.
You will also learn about how political society emerged as well as
Hobbes idea of ‘right’

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 attempt an explanation of political society as conceived by

Hobbes
 discuss Thomas Hobbes idea of rights and the metaphysical basis
of his political thought
 explain Hobbes concepts of ‘Rights’

62
PHL 253 MODULE 2

 examine how political society was created and the purpose it is

expected to serve as discussed in the political thoughts of Thomas
Hobbes
 evaluate the political ideas of Hobbes.

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan

Thomas Hobbes, the great English socio-political philosopher, was born

in Malmesbury in Britain at the time the country was going through civil
strife. The story is told about how his mother gave birth to him
prematurely due to her flight at the approach of the Spanish Armada. In
his Autobiography, Hobbes says that his mother gave birth to twins:
himself and fear. Having therefore been disturbed by the troubled
political situation of his time; Hobbes’ special interest in political
theories was aroused. This enabled him to produce a political philosophy
of first-rate importance.

Metaphysical Basis of Hobbes’ Political Theory

In dealing with how to avert wars and ensure peace in the society,
Hobbes considers it imperative on his part to find the metaphysical basis
of conflicts in nature. He would then be in a position to consider how we
may make it possible for the causes of disorder to be overcome and the
causes of ordered society to operate.

Thus in his ‘scientific’ study of nature, Hobbes sees the world as being
made up of bodies (atoms) in motion, which are arranged in an orderly
pattern and which follow well-defined causal laws. He thinks of human
societies as starting from a mass of atoms, and wishes to construct
human society from its parts by means of a ‘causal definition’. Thus in
his view, the atoms are always in a collision and liable to knock one
another to pieces. This Hobbes’ pessimistic notion of human nature
explains his idea of the state of nature pre-occupied with civil strife and
warfare; the state of lawlessness. For him, the main cause of ordered
society is the desire for security; while the main causes of the disorder
are competition, distrust and ‘glory’ (enjoyment of power) (Hobbes
1963).

It suffices to say that Hobbes’ political theory started with a description

of human nature. This description is fundamental to his moral and
political theory. His intention is to understand “the quality of human
nature” (Hobbes 1963). He began by analyzing human nature, using the
new Galilean scientific outlook to describe human beings. Man to him is
like a machine and just like a machine, man, operate in a deterministic
way, without any end or purpose. Man is a complex being and his

63
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

complexity generates in him a multiplicity of goal which he pursues,

which are determined by the motions of will, appetite and aversion. To
Hobbes, appetite and aversion are part of man’s abnormal nature that
makes him pursue his personal interest at all time (Hobbes 1963).

The above description of Hobbes idea of the nature of man shows man
as egoistic and as such man would always struggle for whatever he
covets and tries to get at all cost. Man, therefore, possesses a restless
desire for power and glory by all means, and till his death (ibid). To
Hobbes, power is necessary for individual security and self-preservation
and this is what each man competes for every time. But power cannot be
had by all, so men resort to contention, enmity, violence and war.

You need to know that the above description of human nature by

Hobbes has representation in the state of nature where everyone has
equal power and ability to do whatever he can do. Human reasoning
ability does not absorb him from been egoistic rather it makes him
create means by which his personal interest and desires can be achieved
without any consideration for others around him.

His State of Nature

Hobbes’ idea of the state of nature has been discussed in module 1
(students are advised to go through the discussion in module 1).
However, you must know that the state of nature is a hypothetical
creation of Hobbes like other contractarians. In other words, it is an
imaginary situation of a state without government, laws and check and
balances. Such a state is characterised by insecurity and warfare and
men are enemies of one another (Hobbes, 1963).

The members of the society agreed to surrender their rights and

freedom, to be managed by one man (who would also enforce the law in
the society) called the Leviathan. Hobbes believes that the enforcing
agency (Leviathan) can do so only if it is “granted absolute power”
(Popkin & Stroll, 1993:67). This made him conclude that supreme
power must coincide with supreme authority. For him, therefore,
governments have to be always backed by force, if not direct, at least,
implicit; for covenants without swords are but words and of no strength
to secure a man at all” (Hobbes, 1963:119). Only laws made by the
Leviathan is acceptable and his authority is total, hence elsewhere,
Hobbes referred to the Leviathan as ‘Mortal God’.

Hobbes opined that in the state of nature, there existed certain precepts
which of course does not have an effect because they were not agreed
upon and there was no sovereign to enforce them. Aside, these precepts
are contrary to the ground norms or laws of nature, which is self-
preservation. These precepts, according to Hobbes, are immutable and

64
PHL 253 MODULE 2

eternal. Dipo Irele (1998:40) identified two of these laws, which are;
first, people in the state of nature should seek peace, although, the
condition in the state of nature does not allow for this. Also, every man
should be willing, when others too are willing, to seek peace and self-
defence, not claiming rights, and be contended with liberty which others
enjoy. Lastly, that men should obey the covenant made. The covenant
made results from the social contract, which member of the society
agreed to when they surrendered their rights and freedom in other to
enhance peace in the state of nature. As earlier adverted to, Hobbes
political theory, which he derived from his idea of human nature, made
him postulate an absolute monarchy who can curb human excesses.

Hobbes on ‘Rights’
These rights could be seen in two dimensions; the rights of the
Leviathan to issue commands to her citizens and the rights of the
citizens to either obey or disobey the commands of the Leviathan.
Perhaps, we should note here that Hobbes provides for artificial chains,
called ‘Civil Laws’ to bind the sovereign, but these, as he himself
admits, are weak (Ibid. 162-163). The chains are weak because Hobbes
holds that, the subjects are only free where the laws do not interfere. The
subjects have no rights as against the sovereign, except what the
sovereign voluntarily concedes. However, Hobbes admits one limitation
on the duty of submission to the Leviathan. The right of self-
preservation he regards as absolute. This means the sovereign could not
command a man to kill himself, for life was a gift by nature to man. The
right remains inalienable to individuals since the basic motive for the
total surrender of their powers was self-preservation. Thus, “as long as
the sovereign existed, he enjoyed absolute, undivided, inalienable
powers with just one limitation namely, the right to preserve
individuals” (Mukherjee & Ramaswamy, 1999:183).

7.0 REFERENCES/ FURTHER READING

Adegboyega O.O. (2015). Readings in socio-political philosophy Vol. I

(ed.) Ago-Iwoye: Julisco Press

Armitage, David, (2004). “John Locke, Carolina, and the Two Treatises
of Government, in Political Theory, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Baker, E. (1963). Locke J., Hume, D., Rousseau, J.J, Social Contract:
Introduction.

Chappell, V., (1994). The Cambridge Companion to Locke, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

65
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Creppell, I. (1996). “Locke on Toleration: The Transformation of

Constraint”, in Political Theory. London: Longmans, Green

Hobbes, T. (1963). Leviathan in English works of Hobbes. NY:

Molesworth

Irele, D. (1998). Introduction to political philosophy.

Ibadan: Ibadan University Press.

Locke, J. (1983). Concerning Toleration, James Tully (Ed.),

Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Locke, J. (1988). Two Treatises of Government, P. Laslett (Ed.),

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Waldron, J. (1988). The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.

Skinner, Q. (1978). The foundation of modern political thought,

Cambridge: CUP.

66
PHL 253 MODULE 2

UNIT 3 JOHN LOCKE’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

John Locke (1632- 1704)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 John Locke’s Political Theory
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In this unit, we shall discuss John Locke’s idea of political philosophy.

As one of the modern age political philosopher, his concrete political
concepts and thoughts are quite distinct from what we have in the
medieval age. The unit shall discuss Locke’s libertarian tradition, his
concepts of property, consent, and type of government that may be
accepted in society

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit you will be able to:

 discuss how a political society emerged according to Locke in his

political philosophy
 attempt an explanation of political society as conceived by John
Locke

67
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

 explain John Locke’s idea of Class inequality, consent and

property
 assess Locke’s type of government that may be acceptable in
society
 discuss his idea of revolution
 grasp Locke’s Liberal tradition
 evaluate the political idea of John Locke.

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 John Locke’s political idea

John Locke lived through the two British revolutions of the seventeenth
century, the civil war of mid-century and the Glorious Revolution of
1688 and 1689. He was much identified with the Whig Party before and
during the latter revolution because of his close relationship with the
Earl of Shaftesbury, the acknowledged leader of the Whigs in the post-
Restoration years. Locke was in exile in Holland when the Glorious
Revolution came, but his name is indelibly associated with it because he
cast his Two Treatises of Government as an effort “to establish the
Throne of our Great Restorer, our present King William” (Armitage,
2004:4), the ruler who supplanted King James II as a result of the
Glorious Revolution.

Locke’s political writings could be seen as efforts to respond to the

issues underlying the political turmoil of the age. Those conflicts were
complex because they occurred along two dimensions — the strictly
political or constitutional and the religious. The political dimension
concerned the relations between the powers of King and Parliament; the
religious dimension derived from the unsettled character of British
Christianity that followed on the Reformation. Locke wrote his Two
Treatises to settle the political side, and his Letter on Toleration to settle
the religious side.

Locke’s political philosophy is contained mainly in his Two Treatises of

Government, but others of his works, especially his Letter on Toleration
contain important supplementary materials. The Two Treatises was
published in 1690, shortly after the Glorious Revolution and ostensibly
to justify the replacement of James II as King by William III. The
occasion, it is now believed, was not the Glorious Revolution, but the
agitation to prevent the openly Catholic James from succeeding his
brother Charles II as King. The leader of this movement for Exclusion,
as it was called, was Locke’s friend and patron, the Earl of Shaftesbury.

The first of the Two Treatises was aimed against the work of Sir Robert
Filmer, strong partisan of the royalists in the political conflicts of the
68
PHL 253 MODULE 2

day, who had argued that kings ruled by divine right (Chappell, 1994).
Filmer, in his thought, attempted to show that divine right monarchy
was established in the Bible. According to Filmer, God had appointed
Adam, the first father to mankind, king of all his descendants, with his
monarchic power descending to his next heir: According to Locke’s
subtitle, the First Treatise aimed to overthrow “the False Principles and
Foundation” of Filmer’s system. The second essay was meant to supply
“The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil-Government”. The first
was largely critical while the second was more constructive.

John Locke and Liberal Tradition

Locke is the founder of the liberal tradition in political thought. He asks
some questions about politics, most importantly on political power.

Political power then I take to be a right of making laws with Penalties of

Death, and consequently all fewer Penalties, for the Regulating and
Preserving of Property, and of employing the force of the Community,
in the Execution of such Laws, and in the defence of the Commonwealth
from Foreign Injury, and all this only for the Public good (Locke, 1998:
4).

Political power, according to Locke, is a certain kind of power to coerce,

to make and enforce laws with the penalty of death and consequently all
lesser penalties as well. In his discussion, Locke takes for granted the
existence and contours of political power. He demands at the outset, a
justification for its very existence. It is for this reason that he begins his
political philosophizing by positing a state of nature. His idea of the
state of nature we have earlier discussed in Module One. This is a state
of perfect freedom and a state of Equality, wherein all the Power and
Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another. The main
point of the state of nature is not to identify an actual condition, it is to
give us the baseline of no authority and to pose for us in a particularly
graphic way the question implied in the definition of political power:
whence comes the right to exercise coercive power, especially the power
to take the life of another?

As the founder of the liberal tradition, he formulates the demand that the
very existence of political power as rightful coercion be justified.

The immediate target of his critical First Treatise was Robert Filmer,
who, according to Locke, rested his argument solely on the Bible.
Although Locke engages in Biblical one-manship against Filmer, he
rests neither his main critical weight nor his constructive philosophizing
there. He emphasis the place of reason in politics, for, contends that
politics is well within the sphere of reason. Although, he occasionally

69
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

looks to the Bible for confirmation of conclusions he draws based on

reason, yet, it is the reason by which he “steers”.

Locke’s definition of political power highlights rightful coercion as the

decisive means of the political and at the same time he emphasises the
limited ends for which that power exists. To him, it exists “for the
Regulating and Preserving of Property, and … the defence of the
common-wealth from Foreign Injury, and all this only for the Public
Good”(Creppell, 1996: 201).

Locke on ‘Property’
As discussed earlier, the identification of the regulation and preservation
of property is the purpose for which political power exists. Contrary to
what some have said of Locke, he does not see government as
exclusively serving the needs of property and property owners,
understood in the narrow sense of external goods. Men form civil
societies, Locke says, “for the mutual Preservation of their Lives,
Liberties, and Estates, which of could be called by the general, Name,
Property” (ibid: 123). All human beings are possessors of some property
in this extended sense.

Yet, it is true that Locke is also deeply concerned with property in the
narrow sense and that concern is also reflected in his positing the
regulation and protection of property as the chief end of civil society.
Locke devotes an entire chapter of his Second Treatise to the topic of
property. This chapter is probably the best-known part of the treatise and
seems to have been the part Locke took special pride in, for he
commended it above all in the book. However, we should be quick to
say that it has been argued against him, that his argument and its
conclusions on the idea of property have been held to lay the
groundwork for the theory of capitalism. But then, we must understand
that Locke’s discussion was an attempt against Filmer’s Biblical
position that all property belongs to Adam and God had conceded the
authority of possession to him and his heirs. Locke also initiated his
‘labour theory of property’ and ‘labour theory of value’ to refute
Filmer’s claim.

Both theories defend the possession of lands by individuals as against

Filmer’s claim. While Locke’s labour theory of property proves that the
possession of land by the individual is embedded in the natural rights of
the individual, the labour theory of value introduced a medium of
exchange as a mechanism to appreciate the greater value of labour. This
results from the excess of labour that may accrue in the cause of
exchange of labour for property or the exchange of goods for labour
thereby leading to what he called ‘spoilage’. However, he outlines a
two-stage process whereby the spoilage limitation is overcome both as a

70
PHL 253 MODULE 2

moral and as a practical matter. The first stage has to do with barter. If
one can exchange the surplus of one good, i.e., of what one has (or can
have) over and above what one can use without spoiling, for the surplus
of another, one can rightly acquire more than the spoilage limitation
would otherwise allow. The possibility of bartering, then both encourage
and morally permit the expenditure of more labour than life without
barter would allow. The decisive innovation, however, is money, for this
can be stored indefinitely with no threat of spoilage and thus it leads to
an even greater unleashing of human labour, for it, in effect, waives all
limits on the acquisition by leading to an exponential increase in
productivity.

One result of the invention of money, however, is the disappearance of

the commons.

The system of private ownership serves the public good so far as it

allows freedom to acquire and use the property. All (more or less) are
better off under this system than they would be without it, but the
benefits are differentially spread through society, which thus takes on a
class character. Some own much and can hire others to do the hard
labour that produces value; others must sell their labour to survive.
Although Locke affirms that all are better off, some are a good deal
better off than others, and great inequality comes to characterise a
society.

One important point to note in Locke’s property theory is the

introduction of class and inequality in the complex society, the society
divided between the landowners and the non-owners. Of course, at a
point, the non-owners may try to dispossess or redistribute the property
of the owners through violence. It is against the backdrop of possible
crises that Locke sees the operation of political power. Thus, he affirms
that the purpose of political power is also the Preserving of Property,
meaning the preserving of the property rights of all in both the narrow
and broad senses for property in light of the potential conflict between
the two. Without government to regulate and preserve both sorts of
property, this institution of so great value to mankind is vulnerable to
abuses by both great classes formed around ownership. Property is thus
another great reason for the negation or overcoming of the state of
nature and the formation of civil government.

Consent
From Locke’s narrative of the state of nature, when men discover that
they cannot safely abide by the state of nature, they pool their individual
natural executive powers. They agree first to form a society and resign
up their executive powers to the community. The individuals surrender
their rights to wield the executive power on their own and according to

71
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

their own judgment. The state that they create thus acquires a
“monopoly of legitimate coercion” (Locke 1998: 87). The coercive
power that exists in the community is now exercised “by Men having
Authority for the community” (Locke:130).

The process whereby the executive power is transferred to the

community is called “compact”; and it requires the unanimous and
individual consent of every would-be member. The “compact” actually
has two elements: first, the unanimous agreement to form a political
society, and then a unanimous agreement that the majority of the
community will have the power or right to establish a particular sort of
government for the community.

As we have seen, Locke emphasizes that the entire process occurs

according to the consent of the governed. Since no person is born
subject to another, the only way in which subjection can be instituted is
voluntarily and consent is how this is done. The consent is, therefore,
derived when men give up their original equality; in subjecting
themselves to be “regulated” by the laws of the society, they give up
their original liberty. However, unlike many of the Whig thinkers who
preceded him, Locke did not claim that the consent of some group of
“original compactors” was sufficient to bind their descendants. The
consent of each member, since each is free and equal, is required to
continually reconstitute the political society. Locke explicitly recognizes
the following forms of consents in his discussion; express consent,
presumably taking an oath or some related act; tacit consent, consent
expressed in some lesser way, or implied in some other overt act
undertaken; constructive consent, an imputation of consent (and the
contents of the consent) to men as what “rational men” in that
circumstance would or should consent to; and finally, consent as
consensus. All of these meanings one at work in different places in
Locke’s theory, but one could have a difficult time sorting out which is
in the play where and, in particular, how to understand his most thematic
claims which are that “nothing can put a man into subjection to any
Earthly Power, but only his own Consent” (Locke). Thus, his doctrine of
the means of consent is largely intelligible but many ambiguities and
uncertainties surround the more specific working out of the doctrine.

Government
Locke lays down quite flexible guidelines for the form of government
the majority of the society may settle on. The community may choose
among the various forms as they think well, always accepting
absolutism. To him, government, people should know, is an artefact of
their rational willing, thus they need to realize, it has been made as
existing - for certain specific purposes, namely, to secure their
preexisting rights. Rational individuals will understand the shortcomings

72
PHL 253 MODULE 2

of the state of nature led to the creation and enforcement of organized

laws by legislative authority. From his doctrine of the state of nature
Locke thus generates the modern theory of separation of functions. This
is clearly represented in the contemporary society’s system of
administration where we have, judiciary, legislature and executive.
Locke also concludes that rational individuals will establish a
government that separates the powers in different and independent
institutions (Locke: 143). The separation of powers is one device by
which rational actors attempt to assure that the government they
establish will serve the ends for which it exists. All well-framed
governments separate the legislative and executive powers.

Although Locke is strongly in favour of legislative supremacy – the

legislative function is conceptually primary, and the legislature,
possessing the will but not the force of the community, is more safely
entrusted in practice with supremacy. Nonetheless, Locke also
demonstrates that there must be a large scope for independent action by
the executive, which he calls by the traditional name of prerogative.
This, however, is not the traditional doctrine of prerogative. He defines
the prerogative as a “power to act according to discretion, for the public
good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against
it” (Locke: 160).

Revolution
At the end of the Second Treatise, Locke turns to the “end” in the sense
of the death of government. He surveys circumstance or ways in which
civil government may come to an end: conquest, which is the equivalent
of “demolishing a House” (Locke:175); usurpation, which occurs when
a person or persons other than those designated in the established
political order seize power, is also a kind of death for civil government
because a usurper “hath no right to be obeyed” (Locke:198), which
means that there is no government; tyranny, which Locke sees as the
exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to has
the same fatal effects as usurpation (Locke:202). Finally, in a kind of
summary chapter Locke speaks of “the dissolution of government”, a
chapter in which he lays out his well-known doctrine (usually misnamed
as) the right of revolution.

Locke’s position on “the end” of civil government follows seamlessly

from his clear rejection of the legitimacy of absolute arbitrary power and
his affirmation of institutionally and constitutionally necessary means to
the effectuation of non-arbitrary government. A government that goes
beyond its bounds is no government at all. When governments act
beyond their powers, they are using force without right, and thus,
literally, provoking a state of war with their citizenry. The citizens may
then act as they have a right to in a state of war - they may resist

73
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

illegitimate authority and act to establish a new, legitimate government.

When they do so, Locke insists, they are not rebelling - it is the
authorities who go beyond their legitimate powers who reintroduce the
state of war and who therefore rebel (ibid: 226). Locke then denies that
he is a teacher of rebellion and disorder, as he strives to make resistance
to rulers more respectable than it had ever been.

4.0 CONCLUSION

Locke’s political philosophy is quite distinct to what we have studied in

medieval political philosophy. Like Thomas Hobbes, he was more
concerned about the concrete terms in political society. His libertarian
tradition was a direct criticism of Robert Filmer’s political tradition.
Some important points to note in Locke’s philosophy are the
introduction of the idea of class inequalities and the idea of separation of
governmental functions.

5.0 SUMMARY

We have in this unit, examined the various political ideas and concepts
of John Locke as contained in his work Two treatises of government.
You have been introduced to his libertarian tradition idea on how
political society was formed. You have also learnt about his ideas on
property, consent, government and revolution.

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Assess the political theory of John Locke.

2. Explain the following concepts as used in Locke’s political
philosophy, Consent, Property and Revolution.
3. What led to the emergence of class inequality in Locke’s
philosophy?
4. How did Locke arrive at the idea of separation of functions in the
society?

7.0 REFERENCES/ FURTHER READING

Adegboyega O.O. (2015). Readings in Socio-Political Philosophy Vol. I

(Ed.) Ago-Iwoye: Julisco Press

Armitage, D. (2004). “John Locke, Carolina, and the Two Treatises of

Government, in Political Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Baker, E. (196). Locke J., Hume, D., Rousseau, J.J, Social Contract:
Introduction.

74
PHL 253 MODULE 2

Chappell, V. (1994). The Cambridge Companion to Locke. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Creppell, I. (1996). “Locke on Toleration: The Transformation of
Constraint”, in Political Theory. London: Longmans, Green

Irele, D. (1998). Introduction to political philosophy

Ibadan: Ibadan University press

Locke, J. (1983). Concerning Toleration. James Tully (Ed.),

Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Locke, J. (1988). Two Treatises of Government, P. Laslett (Ed.),

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sreenivasan, G. (1995). The Limits of Lockean Rights in Property.

Oxford: Oxford University Press

Waldron, J. (1988). The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.

Skinner, Q. (1978) The Foundation of Modern Political Thought,

Cambridge: CUP.

75
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

UNIT 4 JEAN JACQUE ROUSSEAU

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Jean Jacque Rousseau’s Political
Idea
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In this unit, we shall discuss Jean Jacque Rousseau’s idea of political

philosophy. As one of the modern age political philosopher, his concrete
political concepts and thoughts are quite has a sharp contrast to the
medieval political thought. The unit shall discuss Rousseau’s idea of
human nature, his idea of general will and inequality as well as the
acceptable system of government in human society.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit you will be able to:

 discuss how a political society emerged according to J.J.

Rousseau
 explain Rousseau’s idea of Class inequality, a general will and
human nature

76
PHL 253 MODULE 2

 attempt an explanation of political society as conceived by J. J

Rousseau
 assess the distinction between Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke’s
political ideas
 discuss his idea of revolution
 evaluate the political idea of J. J Rousseau

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 J. J Rousseau’s Political Idea

J.J, Rousseau was a French political philosopher. His political

philosophy was characterised by romantic ideas, and it has a great
influence on the French revolution. He is sometimes referred to as the
patron saint of the French revolution because his ideas served as a guide
for the French revolutionaries. His political theory was a new dimension
of the social contract theory and was considered as a new formulation of
the theory.

Human nature and the development of political society

As discussed in Module 1 of this study material, his social contract
theory did not paint the state of nature in the dark image as we already
found in Hobbes’ philosophy. Man according to Rousseau in the state of
nature is naturally a happy being. Although, he is neither moral nor
immoral, because the idea of morality and immorality is considered by
him to be associated with civilization. Also, man is not lonely, but he
has a loose relationship with other members of the society.

Rousseau believes that man is naturally sentimental and possesses self-

respect and compassion. However, the self-respect is not one of egoism
(as found in Hobbes’ theory), the latter being “a purely relative and
fictitious feeling, which arises in the state of society. To him, egoism has
a double origin-one relating to individual psychology and the other to
social relationships and both lead to a state of inequality (Irele 1998).
The individual psychology of inequality developed from the feelings of
“pride” which emerged in human communities when men successfully
overpowered other animals. This was when they began to compare
themselves with other people and attempted to rise or excel above one
another in different aspects of life.

Rousseau’s other view of inequality was seen in the increase in the

productive capacity of human communities brought about by various
forms of inventions like fire and agriculture. These inventions led to the
creation and ownership of wealth and private property by individual
members. In Rousseau’s opinion, the man, who first enclose a piece of
land and declared it as his exclusive property was the founder of civil
77
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

society. It was this that led to the setting up of rules and government as
those possessing wealth could no longer live secured lives and by force
and cunning way prevailed on the poor to establish these rules in other
to safeguard themselves.

Originally, in the state of nature, the people in the state of nature were
happy and everyone enjoyed liberty. Rousseau believes that it was a
civilisation in the civil state that brought all the social ills and most
importantly, inequality. Thus, the freedom that was enjoyed by man in
the state of nature was destroyed by the formation of civil society, as a
result of the property relations that accompanied it. This was why he
said, “man was born free but everywhere in chains” (Locke et’al
1966:246). To remedy the situation, Rousseau suggests that the state of
affairs should be legitimized. He thus moved to develop his social
contract around the idea of ‘general will,’ which allows for the state of
affairs to become properly a legitimate social order.

His idea of the general will

The general will is introduced as a self-learning device that will unite all
into one and it is a moral and collective body, composed of many
members, as the assembly consists of voters and receiving from this act,
its unity, its common identity, its life and its wills (Irele 1998). The
general will in Rousseau’s opinion does not consist of the interaction of
individual wills but it is the unified will of all members of the society.
The general will expresses the real interest of the society and not the
interest of the individual or group of individuals in the society. This is
because the individual member renounced their freedom to be part of the
agreement that produced the sovereign which represents the general
will. It is, therefore, a three-fold step that is taken before the final
agreement, and the sovereign body is absolute. Once the pact of the
agreement is properly made, the individual cannot claim any right
against the sovereign body as he must give up all his natural rights in
making the contract.

You must also note that the sovereign in Rousseau’s philosophy, the
sovereign is indivisible as well as inalienable since in the contract, the
people agree to act as one, the sovereign cannot be represented since the
representative body can push the interest of a particular group in the
society, and the sovereign would institute laws that are for the general
will.

4.0 CONCLUSION

From the above discussion, it is obvious that the political philosophy of

Rousseau like the other two- Hobbes and Locke is a total shift from
theological-metaphysical foundation to one of civic vision that is

78
PHL 253 MODULE 2

thinking that centres on the state. Rousseau ideas show that political
society was a clever device by the rich to protect themselves and their
properties from the attack of the poor. Thus, man’s natural liberty which
he enjoyed in the state of nature was lost. Inequality and injustice were
given official sanction and protection by law. But then, this is not to say
that Rousseau’s philosophy did not consider morality in the creation of
political society. In fact, he believed that morality and political society
came into existence together. The notion of right and wrong, justice and
injustice came into use when the political society was formed.

5.0 SUMMARY

In this unit, we have examined the political theory of Jean Jacque

Rousseau. You have learnt about his ideas on the emergence of civil or
political society, human nature and how this has influenced the
development of the political society. You have also studied Rousseau’s
idea of the general will, inventions and its effect on the development of
inequality in the society.

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Outline the basic features of Rousseau’s political philosophy.

2. How did the problem of inequality arouse in Rousseau’s political
society?
3. Explain the idea of ‘general will’ in the establishment of political
society in Rousseau’s philosophy.

7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Adegboyega O.O. (2015). Readings in Socio-Political Philosophy Vol. I

(ed.) Ago-Iwoye: Julisco Press.

Armitage, D. (2004). “John Locke, Carolina, and the Two Treatises of

Government, in Political Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Baker, E. (196). Locke J., Hume, D., Rousseau, J.J, Social contract:
Introduction.

Chappell, V. (1994). The Cambridge Companion to Locke, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Creppell, I., (1996), “Locke on Toleration: The Transformation of

Constraint”, in Political Theory, London: Longmans, Green.

Hobbes, T. (1963). Leviathan in English works of Hobbes. NY:

Molesworth.

79
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Irele, D. (1998), Introduction to political philosophy

Ibadan: Ibadan University Press.

Locke, J. (1983). Concerning Toleration, James Tully (Ed.),

Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Locke, J. (1988). Two Treatises of Government, P. Laslett (Ed.).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sreenivasan, G. (1995). The Limits of Lockean Rights in Property.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Waldron, J. (1988). The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.

Skinner, Q. (1978). The Foundation of Modern Political Thought,

Cambridge: CUP.

80
PHL 253 MODULE 2

UNIT 5 NICCOLO di BERNARDO dei MACHIAVELLI

(1469-1527)

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Niccolo Machiavelli’s Short Biography
3.2 Niccolo Machiavelli’s Philosophical Ideas
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/ Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In this unit, you shall be exposed to the political thoughts of Niccolo

Machiavelli as contained in his book, The Prince. We shall discuss the
personality of Machiavelli and how the situation of his immediate
society influenced his thought as clearly stated in The Prince such that
his work was able to make important changes in the politics of late
fifteenth century and has continued to shape the politics of the modern
world.

81
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 explain Niccolo Machiavelli’s political thoughts

 explain the conception of political power
 discuss the reason for Machiavelli’s separation of morality from
politics.

3.0 MAIN CONTENTS

3.1 Niccolo Machiavelli's Short Biography

Machiavelli was born in Florence in 1469 to the family of Bernardo and

Bartolomea. He started the school of Paolo da Ronciglione with his
brother Totto in the year 1481 in which period he attended a lecture by
Marcello Virgilio Adriani who reputed to be one of the most influential
teachers of the time. This period coincided with the period of active
preaching in Florence by Girolamo Savonarola whose years of
domination in Florentine politics coincided with the beginning of
Machiavelli's mature life. According to Uduma, (2014) in May 1498,
Savonarola was executed publicly for heresy while in the June of that
same year, Machiavelli was confirmed the second chancellor of the
Republic by the Great Council and was also elected the secretary of the
Ten of War by July and sent on his first diplomatic mission to Piombino
on behalf of the Ten of War in November. He was greatly influenced by
Savonarola’s life and political experience. Given his position as the
second Chancellor and the secretary of the Ten of War, Machiavelli had
the opportunity to travel to many places on a diplomatic assignment to
represent the Florence Republic. These positions offered him the rare
opportunity to know the strengths and weaknesses of many republics
outside his own.

Italy in Machiavelli's time was a weak and divided country with city-
states, while cities like Milan - Naples, Venice,.Florence, Milian were
sovereign states, Rome and Central Italy were under the control of the
Pope. Machiavelli accused the Catholic church of being responsible for
the political weakness of Italy and the moral decadence and corruption
that characterised Italian societies. Omoregbe (1997:187), in his
examination of Machiavelli’s idea emphasis Machiavelli’s assertion
that:

We Italians, owe to the Church of Rome and her priests our having
become irreligious and bad; but we owe her a still greater debt and one
that will be the cause of our ruin, namely, that the church has kept and
still keeps our country divided.

82
PHL 253 MODULE 2

The two best-known books of Machiavelli are The Prince and the
Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius. However, his
political treatise, The Prince gave him fame in socio-political
philosophy or, as Omoregbe avers, made him notorious, because, it was
in this book that he boldly expresses his immoral views which have now
come to be known as Machiavellianism.

We need to note at this point that the book The Prince was not meant for
public consumption but to serve as a guide to the prince. Thus, his
advice was so blunt and frank (practical and real). Perhaps he saw the
implication of religion on politics hence, his separation of politics from
morality.

3.2 Machiavelli's Political Thoughts

Before Machiavelli, and from the time of the traditional political

philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, etc. politics has always been
linked with morality. Most of the earlier treatises assumed that a prince
(the ruler) needed above all to be good, to pursue virtue in the traditional
sense. According to Whitefield, writers like Bartolomeo Platinma and
Francesco Patrai offered, in essence, long lists of the virtues that a
prince should cultivate and the vices he should avoid, each supported
with ample anecdotes from classical sources (1979:88). From the point
of traditional philosophers, morality is seen as the yardstick for
measuring good politics and political actions. It is used to checkmate the
activities of rulers or leaders. However, in The Prince, Machiavelli
maintained the opposite. He was completely against this tradition and by
this separated morality from politics. For him, politics should be devoid
of moral restraint or control. He advised the Prince (the ruler) to ignore
morality if he wants to succeed as a ruler. To Machiavelli, a successful
ruler is one who can do anything or employ any means (fair or foul) to
perpetuate himself in power. He avers that the ultimate goal of politics is
to grab power, by all means, retain it and expand it and that any means
moral or immoral can be used to achieve this. He characterises a
successful ruler as someone who is prudent, shrewd, practical and swift
in his actions. Whatever he employs, cruelty or brutality is justified
provided he succeeds. However, he should be ruthless and fast to end
the cruelty or brutality within the shortest period.

He cautioned the Prince not to bother himself with moral uprightness,

religious virtues, honesty, compassion or humanistic niceties, although
he must pretend to be all these and in fact, should employ them only
where and when they work in his favour to achieve his goal. He must be
vigilant and clever and should know when to use moral or immoral
means to achieve his purpose. He should be smart to tell the people what

83
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

they want to hear and then do what he wants to do. Omoregbe

(1997:191) quoted Machiavelli as saying,

A prince therefore who desires to maintain himself must learn not to be

always good, but to be so or not as necessity may require. It is well that
when the act accuses him, the result should excuse him and when the
results are good, it will always absolve him from blame... nor need he
care about ensuring censure for such vices without which the
preservation of his state may be difficult.

What does Machiavelli mean by the result of the act excusing him and
absolving him from blame? By this, Machiavelli means that the end, that
is the result, justifies the means. For Machiavelli, provided the end is
good, any means (cruelty, brutality, dishonesty, lies, cunning) employed
to achieve it, is justified. Machiavelli opined that whatever means
employed by the ruler to keep himself in power and to secure the state,
is acceptable and justified. A Prince must not commit himself to moral
principles for that is capable of leading to his ruin. Machiavelli writes:

...and again, he need not make himself uneasy at incurring a reproach for
those vices without which the state can only be saved with difficulty, for
if everything is considered carefully, it will be found that something
which looks like virtue if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something
else, which looks like a vice, yet followed brings him security and
prosperity (The Prince, Ch. 15).

Machiavelli also warns the prince not to encourage such Christian

virtues as patience, meekness, mercy, humility, self-denial, compassion,
forgiveness. He calls them negative virtues and these negative virtues
will only turn his subjects into weaklings and his state into a weak state.
Thus, what is outmost is for the prince to possess such virtues as vitality,
energy, the strength of character, ambition, thirst for power, ability to
achieve one's aims, desire for fame etc. Machiavelli defended his
immoral political views by insisting that his views are a more realistic
way of living than needless abstractions and utopia that are never real
and never can be real in human history. Tracing the history of most
successful men, Machiavelli claims that his views align with how these
successful men in history actually lived and acted. He, therefore, warns
that what is, is actually different from what ought to be and that what
ought to be done is different from what is actually done. Thus, he cited
Cesare Borgia - the illegitimate son of Pope Alexander VI who was a
ruthless tyrant, as one of the great men in history who have achieved
greatness and it is through people like this that he drew the strength of
his argument.

84
PHL 253 MODULE 2

Machiavelli lists four ways by which a person can gain political power.
1) Through his abilities or qualities.
2) By inheritance.
3) By violence and crime.
4) By election.
It is to be noted that all these four ways are acceptable to Machiavelli
provided any of them is successful in helping one gain political power.
He gives an example of Agathocles who rose to power through crimes in
ancient Sicily. Agathocles killed the rich men and the senators of
Syracuse and rose to political power. To the extent that he grabbed
political power despite the means he used, to that extent, he was justified
(Omoregbe, 1997:191). A ruler who wants to succeed must not always
be mindful to keep his promises. If keeping his promises will help him
achieve his goal, then it is allowed but if not, he should not hesitate to
break them. Deception with a good result is better than honesty without
result. For Machiavelli, the ruler is at all times above the law or
morality. Omoregbe (1997:191) quoted him in the Discourses thus:

for where the very safety of the country depends upon the resolution to
be taken, no considerations of justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty,
nor of glory or shame, should be allowed to prevail. But putting all other
considerations aside, the question should be, what course will save the
life and liberty of the country.

As we close this unit, it is instructive to note that a careful reading of the

Discourses which is the second book by Machiavelli, reveals that
Machiavelli is a democrat. He only supports tyranny as the best system
of government in a corrupt society. Democracy remains the best system
of government but only in a normal society. Italy at the time of
Machiavelli was a very corrupt society and so Machiavelli wrote The
Prince as a recommendation or practical advice for Lorenzo de Medici
on how to successfully rule Italy. However, Omoregbe is of the view
that it was not just advice alone but also was written to win some favour
from Lorenzo to give him a political appointment. Machiavelli has been
a civil servant for long in Italy but with the collapse of Democracy to
Tyrannical Rule under the rulership of Lorenzo, Machiavelli lost his
civil service job and therefore was looking for a political appointment
from Lorenzo, thus the writing of The Prince which was direct praise to
Lorenzo the tyrant. Omoregbe (1997:192) wrote:

With the collapse of democracy, Machiavelli lost his civil service job
and made efforts to win the favour of the Medici. Part of this effort was
the writing of The Prince and addressing it to Lorenzo de Medici. The
Prince can, therefore, be seen as a book in praise of tyranny and
addressed to a tyrant to win his favour. The strategy did not work. The
Medici who were enemies of democracy had no confidence in anybody

85
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

who so closely associated with the preceding democratic government as

Machiavelli was. Machiavelli could not win their favour nor was he able
to get an appointment from them despite his glorification of tyranny in
The Prince.

4.0 CONCLUSION

Machiavelli made the dictates of necessity the guiding principle for the
actions and inactions of the ruler and not the dictates of conventional
morality. Much has been said in this unit, and your understanding of
them will help you to access the success or the failure of The Prince as a
handbook of political engineering in our present time. Machiavelli, due
to his ulterior motives, we may say, may not have envisaged the
consequences of his political thoughts on our polity today.

5.0 SUMMARY

In this unit, you have been made to understand that the best-known
books of Machiavelli are two, and these are; The Prince and The
Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius. You were also made
to understand that Niccolo Machiavelli’s political thoughts are spelt out
in these books. Also, in the unit, it was discussed that Machiavelli in his
political treatise attempted a total separation of politics from morality.
This idea was contrary to the prevailing traditional political philosophers
who existed before him. The views of philosophers, like Plato, Aristotle,
John Locke, on politics and morality saw morality as a check to bad
politics. Furthermore, you have been told that Machiavelli made the
dictates of necessity the guiding principle for the actions and inactions
of the ruler and not the dictates of conventional morality.

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Explain Machiavelli’s idea of politics.

2. Why did Niccolo Machiavelli separate politics from morality?
3. Outline the Machiavellian ways of acquiring political power.

7.0 REFERENCES/ FURTHER READING

Adegboyega, O.O. (2016). Machiavellian politics and the Crises of

Public Morality in Nigeria, Ibadan: Julisco Press.

Ebenstein W. (1969) Great Political Thinkers – Plato to the Present.

(4th ed.). Illinois: Dryden Press.

Machiavelli, N. (1999). The Prince. Trans. George Bull. England: Clays

Ltd.
86
PHL 253 MODULE 2

Morrow, J. (1998). History of Political Thought: A Thematic

Introduction. London: Macmillan Press.

Omoregbe, J. (1997). A Simplified History of Western Philosophy.

Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Limited.

Onigbinde, A. (2009). What is Philosophy; A Reader’s Digest in

Philosophy Inquiry. Ibadan: Frontline Books.

Uduma, C. (2014). “The Italian Philosophers – Marcilius of Padua and

Niccolo Machiavelli.” In A. Uduigwomen & C. U. (Eds.) A
Critical History of Philosophy. Calabar: Ultimate Index Book
Publishers.

87
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

UNIT 6 KARL MARX AND FREDRICH ENGEL

Friedrich Engels

88
PHL 253 MODULE 2

Georg Wilhem Friedrich Hegel

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Karl Marx and Fredrich Engel’s political thoughts
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/ Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In this unit, you shall be introduced to the political thoughts of Karl

Marx and Fredrich Engel. We shall outline the three sources that
influenced Karl Marx political idea and discuss their criticism and
rejection of Hegel’s idealism. You shall also be exposed to their
discussion of the factor considered by the two philosophers as
determinants of the whole aspect of life in any society. Finally, you shall
be exposed to Karl Marx idea of class struggle, its cause and the
possible outcome in the society.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 explain Karl Mar and Fredrich Engel’s political ideas

 explain the concept of class struggle in Karl Marx
political philosophy

89
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

 identify the sources that influenced Karl Marx’s political

philosophy
 evaluate the place of the mode of production in Karl Marx
political idea and its effect on society
 discuss Marx and Engel’s discussion of the relevance of
economic condition in any society
 outline the sources that influenced Marx and Engel’s political
ideas
 identify the reason for Marx and Engel’s rejection of Hegel’s
philosophy of idealism.

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel’s Political Philosophy

It is important to point out from the outset, that Karl Marx political idea
was inspired by the following three sources: the German philosophic
tradition, especially that of Hegel; the French radical political thought;
and the British political economic tradition (Irele 1998:62). These
sources were used by Karl Marx as platforms to launch his own political
thought. He was highly critical of the traditions of the three sources in
that he saw certain defects in them. Thus, he critically analysed these
three main sources and thereafter developed his own political idea.

His idea is better considered along with that of his friend Friedrich
Engel. According to the two philosophers, Hegel’s idealism was the
basic reason for his wrongly positing consciousness as the basic
determinant of social existence. In Marx and Engel’s view, the reverse is
the case. In other words, it was a social existence that determined
consciousness. On this premise, they discarded the idealism of Hegel.
Though they accepted his dialectical method but this is because they
believed that the dialectical process was operative in both history and
nature. Marx contrasts his dialectic method and that of Hegel when he
asserts:

My dialectic method is not only different from Hegelian but is its direct
opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e. the process
of thinking, which under the name of ‘’the idea’’, he even, ‘’transforms
into an independent subject, is the demiurges of the real world, and the
real world is only external, phenomenal form of ‘’the Idea’’. With me,
on the contrary, the idea is nothing else than the material world reflected
by the human mind and translated into forms of thought
(Marx 1977:29).

According to Marx and Engel matter is the basic causal factor in the
historical process and the evolution of social and political systems.
90
PHL 253 MODULE 2

Hegel was criticised for seeing ‘matter’ and not ‘mind’ as the
fundamental factor in any human society. They are also of the view that
by casting away the idealistic nature of dialectics, the revolutionary side
of it could be gleaned, hence the emphasis they place on the dialectical
method as a revolutionary concept (Irele 1998).

Both Marx and Engels maintained a materialistic conception of history,

but quite different from the earlier conception, in that they believe that
the earlier materialists were mechanistic but their materialism is
dynamic because of its dialectical nature - hence they have a dynamic
view of the historical process of society.

In Marx and Engel’s opinion, the whole aspect of life in any society is
determined by the mode of production in that society. The mode of
production consists of the relations of production and the forces of
production. These two aspects of social life determine the other aspects
of social existence which they term superstructure. The superstructure of
social life consists of the legal, religious and political institutions of the
society. The mode of production is the economic aspect of the society
that mostly determines the social and political existence.

Marx and Engels contend that the forces of production are very
important in the society and they determine the relations of productions,
that is, the existence and structure of social classes and the social, legal,
and political system of the society (Irele 1998). This position of Marx
and Engel implies that the entire social life of any system can be
properly explained by the mode of production of that society. It also
implies that a change in the mode of production will affect the whole
social life of the society, and consequently, the relations of production.
The long-run effect will, therefore, be a complete change in the whole
structure of society. Thus, Marx (1977) sees the history of man, to be
characterized by conflicts between the forces of production and the
relations of production.

To Marx and Engels, the contradictions in the mode of production,

which men are aware of are the cause of the class conflict between the
class that controls the mode of production and the class that does not. In
most cases of theses class struggles, those who control the out-dated
mode of production would lose out. Marx and Engels argue that this had
been the scenario in all societies. Thus, they maintain that the history of
all hitherto societies has been the history of class struggle.

They believe that capitalism will eventually collapse because of the

inherent contradictions in the capitalist society. The next stage of human
historical development would be socialism, which is a stop-gap., and
will be characterized by the dictatorship of the proletariat. The

91
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

dictatorship of the proletariat would intend to smash the remnants of the

bourgeois ideas of thinking; socialism is a transitional stage. The next
stage is the communist society where the state will wither away and
what you have is simply the administration of things. There will be no
state because the state exists to promote the interest of a particular class.
Marx and Engels contend that with the advent of communism the
history of man has just begun. What existed before communism was
pre-history. Man would enjoy freedom in all its ramifications in this
stage of human historical development.

Marx holds the view that in the capitalist subsystem, freedom cannot
exist because the system is alienating, though that of the proletariat class
is more thorough. He believes that in the capitalist system, man is
alienated from his labour, from other men, from nature, and he is
alienated from the system. These four alienated situations cannot allow a
man to have freedom in the capitalist system.

4.0 CONCLUSION

It is obvious that Karl Marx employs a more radical approach in his

political theory when juxtaposed with other earlier political thinkers we
have discussed. His political thought can be viewed as revolutionary
because his ideas are more of an attack of the established social order of
his day. The available sources that inspired him no doubt was
instrumental to his been critical of existing political thoughts at his time
and the development of his political ideology.

5.0 SUMMARY

In this unit, you have learnt about how Karl Marx was critical about the
idea of Hegel’s philosophical idea. You have also been informed, that
Marx political theory is better understood when considered along with
his life-long friend Fredrich Engel and that the two holds that the
economic aspect (which consist of the mode of production in the
society) of any society determines the social and political existence of
the people and the society. Also, you have studied how Marx considers
the possible contradiction in the mode of production can cause class
conflict in the society, which will lead to the collapse of capitalism
thereby leading to the development of socialism and finally
communism.

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Explain Karl Marx assertion that “the history of all society is the
history of class struggle.”
2. What are the three sources that inspired Karl Marx political idea?

92
PHL 253 MODULE 2

3. “The mode of production determines the whole aspect of life in

that society” - Karl Marx. Do you agree with this assertion?

7.0 REFERENCES/ FURTHER READING

Adeigbo, F.A. (1991). Readings in Social and Political Philosophy (Ed.)

Ibadan: University Publishers and Press.

Barry, P. (1981). An Introduction to Modern Political Theory. London:

Macmillan Press Ltd.

Ebenstein W. (1969). Great political thinkers – Plato to the Present.

(4th ed.). Illinois: Dryden Press.

Hegel, G.W.F. (1976) Hegel Philosophy of Right, trans. with notes

Knox, T.M, Oxford: O.U.P.

Irele, D. (1998). Introduction to Political Philosophy. Ibadan: Ibadan

University Press.

Marx, K. (1977). Capital, Vol. I (trans.) Samuel Moore and Edward

Avebug, Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1975). Manifesto of the Communist Party.

Peking: Foreign Languages Press.

Morrow, J. (1998). History of Political Thought: A Thematic

Introduction. London: Macmillan Press.

_______ Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

In Selected Works, Vol. I Moscow: Progress publishers.

93
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

MODULE 3 THE IDEA OF JUSTICE IN JOHN

RAWLS, IRISH YOUNG AND ROBERT
NOZICK POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Unit 1 John Rawls Concept of Justice

Unit 2 Irish Young Concept of Justice
Unit 3 Robert Nozick Concept of Justice

UNIT 1 JOHN RAWLS’ CONCEPT OF JUSTICE

John Rawls (1921—2002)

CONTENT

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 John Rawls Concept of Justice
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This unit will introduce you to John Rawls’ idea of social justice. You
will learn about his idea of the original position, veil of ignorance and
impartiality as the basis for his idea and formulation of the theory of
justice in a well-ordered society.

94
PHL 253 MODULE 3

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 explain John Rawls’ idea of justice

 explain his idea of the original position as the origin of justice
 discuss his understanding of the veil of ignorance and impartiality
 identify the reason why Rawls subscribe to the particular
conception of justice.

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 John Rawls’ Concept of Justice

John Rawls, political philosophy has influenced many other thinkers

such as Thomas Nagel, Martha Nussbaum, and Thomas Pogge, and he is
often considered as the most important American political philosopher
of the 20th century. Rawls was regarded as the revivalist of political
philosophy after the publication of his work A Theory of Justice in 1971.
From then on, there have been many excellent criticisms on the
Rawlsian formulation of a liberal theory of justice (Nozick 1974; Sandel
1982; Walzer 1983; Taylor 1985; Pogge 1989; Young 1990; Sen 1992;
Dworkin 2000; Young 2000), notably on the normative content of the
two principles of justice. However, all the criticism have amplified the
profound ideas that Rawls reflected upon.

Before we discuss John Rawls’ formulation of justice, you need to know

that his idea was worked out on some assumptions. First, to Rawls, the
subject of justice is the basic structure, or “the way in which the major
social institutions distribute the fundamental rights and duties and
determine the division of advantages from social cooperation” (Rawls
1999: 6). This means that the distribution of fundamental rights and
duties and the division of advantages in society are basic functions of
the state. In Rawls’ opinion of liberal justice, the dispensation of this
very important function rests on one important conceptual tool known as
the idea of impartiality.

Second, the notion of ‘impartiality’ is grounded in the reasoning that

‘just arrangements’ can be realised in an ‘initial position of equality’
(Rawls 1999). In this regards, the crucial point is the assertion that the
Rawlsian ‘veil of ignorance’ will ensure that the choice of principles
will favour nobody. According to Joshua Cohen, the initial position of
equality is designed in such a way “in order to reflect the idea that
citizens can cooperate among themselves on fair terms, to choose their

95
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

own ends and to pursue the ends that they have set for themselves”
(Cohen, 2004:115). For liberals, this starting point serves as the basis in
the establishment of a fair system of exchange and political interaction.

Rawls’ Theory of Justice

In this book A Theory of Justice, John Rawls writes that “justice is the
first virtue of the institution, as truth is in systems of thought” (Rawls,
1999:3). Like Plato, Rawls imagines a political society structured on
principles of Justice, a just society where nobody complains of injustice.
Like most other political theorists, John Rawls does by constructing a
hypothetical situation in which certain individuals are placed in What he
called an “Original position” behind a ‘veil of ignorance.’ In other
words, although, the Classical Social Contract theory philosophers-
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, began their
theories with “the state of nature”, but, John Rawls employs the concept
of ‘Original Position” as the situation of a group of people who are
about to form a political society. Rawls conceived the “Original
position” as a state of affair where no one knows, for example, whether
he is going to be a teacher, a medical doctor, a farmer, a carpenter, a
lawyer or whether they are stupid or clever, lazy or industrious, etc., but
given the limited knowledge of their socio-economic configuration of
the environment, and also about human psychology (Irele 1997,
Omoregbe 2007).

According to Irele (1997:104)., Rawls assumes that the individuals in

the original position are rational and at the same time devoid of any
altruism In this position, they are asked to choose the principles that
will operate in the proposed society, that is, the principle that will
govern their mutual interaction in the society. All of them must agree on
any principle before it is accepted as a principle that will be used in the
proposed society. If any of them objects to any principle (as unjust) it
will be rejected and will not be used in the proposed society.

Thus, all principles to be used in the proposed society will be principles

every member agree upon as just. And once the principles have been
agreed upon and the society is formed, they remain unchanged. By the
time everybody comes to know his position in the society, the work he is
going to do, his profession, etc., nobody can then object to any of the
principles that they had all agreed upon. If, for example, one of the
principles does not favour doctors (if for example one of the principles
says that doctors’ reward is in heaven or that any time a State is “broke”
it should always delay teacher’s salaries) and there was no objection to it
at “the original position” when they were” covered by the veil of
ignorance” and nobody knew whether or not he will become a teacher, it
will be too late now for any teacher to object to it. Why did he agree to it
from the beginning? Because he did not know that he will become a

96
PHL 253 MODULE 3

doctor to the society, he agreed to it. His objection would be considered

too late. That is why everybody must carefully examine the principles at
the beginning and be sure that they are all just to all professionals, and
all classes of people in the proposed society because nobody knows
which profession or class he is going to belong to when the society is
formed. If you notice that any principle will be unjust to a particular
profession or class in the society, object to it so that it will not be
accepted. What is unjust is unjust, whether it is going to affect you or
somebody else. And it should be rejected.

From the above, Rawls position simply suggests that in a well-ordered

society, two basic principles will be accepted as operational, namely (i.)
the greatest liberty for the individual, compatible with the similar degree
of liberty for all; and (ii) the arrangement of social and economic
inequalities such that they are to the benefits of the worst off and
attaches to offices and positions to facilitate equal opportunity.

The Two Principles

Let us examined the two principles: The two principles that will guide
the social arrangements, policies, rights, duties and distribution
proposed society having been formed, are as follows:-

First Principle
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system
of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for
all.

Second Principles
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are
both:
a. To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. Consistent with
the just saving principle.
b. Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of
fair equality of opportunity.

We can see from these working principles that the society proposed by
John Rawls is not socialist or communist. Rawls is contemplating the
idea of justice in a capitalist society. He does not believe that in order to
have justice, society must be transformed into a socialist or communist
society. His theory is a reformation of capitalism or how justice can be
accommodated in a capitalist’s society (Omoregbe 2007). Hence, the
two working principles presuppose that there is inequality in the society,
inequality in wealth, in position, in social status, etc. but the principles
insist on equality of opportunities and equal right to any position in the
society. Anybody can by dint of hard work, rise to the highest position
in the society. This is the focus of the first principle. The second

97
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

principle is aimed at correcting one of the evils in capitalism, i.e. the

unjust situation in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It is
opposed to any policy or social arrangement that would make the rich
richer at the expense of the poor whose positions are made worse off.
Any arrangement or policy in the society must be such as will at least
improve the situation of the poor society. If any privilege is to be
attached to any office in the society, that is all right, but the equality in
society is inevitable-all citizens cannot be equal in social status. In
education, in wealth, etc. even those who claim “all animals are equal”
had to admit eventually that “some are more equal than other”
(Omoregbe 2007: 53). Rawls in his theory attempted to make the
inequality work to favour the poor (the least advantaged) in order to
improve their plight. There is no doubt that these two working
principles if consistently applied, will go a long way in correcting the
ills in capitalism and improve the plight of the poor. They will help
narrow the wide gap between the rich and the poor and correct the
injustice that may be identified with it.

4.0 CONCLUSION

Although, John Rawls’ conception and his origin of justice are far
different from what we have studied in the philosophies of all
contractarianist before him. However, one of the achievements of
Rawls’ theory is that it answers two questions which any theory of
justice must be asked. These questions are: why should one accept the
theory and what makes the theory conception of justice? According to
Rawls, what commends the theory to us is that these principles would be
acceptable to any self-interested, but rational person and this fact of
impartiality of the principles make the theory just

5.0 SUMMARY

In this unit, we have discussed Rawls’ idea on how a just society

emerged from the original position’, which is a hypothetical situation,
where individual life was characterised by ignorance of his situation and
future position. We also learnt that only two basic principles will be
acceptable in a well-ordered society.

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Explain the following terms as noticed in John Rawls’ theory of

justice. (i) ‘Veil of ignorance, (ii) Impartiality, and ‘Original
position.’
2. How would you explain Rawls conception of justice?

98
PHL 253 MODULE 3

7.0 REFERENCES/ FURTHER READING

Chantal, M. (2009). “The Limits of John Rawls’s Pluralism,” Theoria, 4

Cohen, G. A. (2004). If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You are So

Rich? Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Kymlicka, W. (2007). Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Omoregbe, J. O. (2007). Social-Political Philosophy and International

Relations. Lagos: Joja Educational and research publications

Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University

Press.

Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. (Revised edition). Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

99
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

UNIT 2 IRIS MARION YOUNG’S CONCEPT OF

JUSTICE

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Irish Marion Young’s concept of justice
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This unit shall expose you to Iris Marion Young’s concept of justice.
Her criticism of the idea of distributive justice shall be examined. The
unit shall also discuss the alternative model of justice proposed by her.
We shall conclude the unit by examining her strategies in addressing
structural injustice in human society.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 explain Irish Young’s concept of justice

 explain the alternative model of justice proposed by her against
the idea of distributive justice
 discussed her argument against the distributive form of justice
 examine her strategies on how to address structural injustices in
society.

100
PHL 253 MODULE 3

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 The Idea of Justice in Iris Young’s Political Philosophy

Iris Marion Young was a feminist and political activist. She has written
various essays and through most of them, she expressed her idea of
justice, especially in her four books, namely, Justice and Politics of
Difference (1990), Inclusion and Democracy (2000), Global
Challenges: War, Self-Determination and Responsibility for Justice
(2007), and Responsibility for Justice (2011).

Young’s Critique of the Distributive Model of Justice

Young’s idea of justice could be viewed as reactions against the concept
of distributive justice. In her argument against it (distributive justice) she
believed that although distributive justice may be considered good and
acceptable, however, what is wrong with it (distributive justice) as a
model of justice is when it is been considered as absolute and could
address all issues concerning justice and social justice. To her, this is a
wrong perception being expressed by people generally and philosophers
in particular.

Young’s contention on the inadequacy of the distributive model of

justice can be summarised in two ways. The first contention is based on
her opinion that the understanding given to the distributive model of
justice would prevent or at least limit the discussion of it to the fair
allocation of material things and resources without given adequate
consideration to the more radical question of what are the social
structures and institutional contexts that are responsible for the unequal
distribution of such material goods and resources as being experienced
in the society. Her argument, therefore, is that the distributive model of
justice cannot produce lasting fairness. Her reason for this is that the so-
called distributive model of justice as it only concerns itself with the
present question of how to fairly distribute any given good, without due
consideration of the structure that will be responsible for the distribution
(Kelly, 2009).

The second contention of Young, in her attempt at proving the

inadequacies of the distributive model of justice is directed as an attack
against some theorists’ claim on the coverage of the distribution which
they restricted mainly to materials goods and then extends to something
that will include non-material goods and burdens, social rights, power,
opportunity and self-respect. Young pointed out that those non-material
goods should not be treated as if they are material goods, for doing so
will distort their very nature. Power, for example, cannot just be divided
and distributed as if it is a bundle of goods, because power, following
Michel Foucault’s idea, is something relational (Kelly, 2009).

101
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Irish Young, therefore, holds that, although the idea of a distributive

model of justice and social justice could be a desirable effort and a
worthwhile exercise, it, however, cannot be taken to have considered in
its entirety the whole and foundations of justice and social justice. She,
therefore, proposed an alternative model of justice that she considered to
be structural in nature.

Proposed Alternative Model

In the alternative model, Iris Young was particular about the various
questions that could be considered essential in the art of distributing
justice such that it will be to the benefit of all in the society. The idea of
structural justice which she proposed can be better understood and be
presented under five questions:
(1) who is the victim of structural injustice?
(2) What is the context where such structural injustice occurs?
(3) Who is the perpetrator of such structural injustice?
(4) How is structural injustice related to moral wrong and to specific
injustice?
(5) what are the main manifestations of structural injustice?

From these questions, it would be observed that Young approached the

principle of justice not by examining justice as the direct object of study,
rather, she focused on the opposite, injustice, hence all the above-
adumbrated questions tend toward the discharge, effect, place, situation
and beneficiaries of injustice and not justice. I think by answering these
type of questions on injustice, all about justice would have been
addressed.
1. Who is the victim of structural injustice? Young was aware of
Karl Marx idea of social class and the effect on society, thus, she
was not very keen to talk about it. Her interest was in the social
group and not the social class. Thus, her answer to the first
question on the victim(s) of structural injustice is the ‘social
group’. The social group according to her is “a collective of
persons differentiated at least from another group by cultural
forms, practice, or way of life” (Young, 1990:43) such as
“women and men, age groups, racial and ethnic groups, religious
groups, and so on” (ibid). Perhaps, you need to note that she
acknowledged the fact that individuals are the ultimate victims of
structural injustice, but this is because they are members of a
particular social group.
2. What is the context where such structural injustice occurs?
Young considers the context, or space, or area where structural
injustice occurs to be the ‘social structure’. This to her also
represents or means ‘socio-structural process’. Referring to the
context in this way is to enable her to emphasise the dynamism of
this context/space/field. Thus, she sees the social structure as:

102
PHL 253 MODULE 3

(a) Objective channels and constraints produced by past

actions and decisions in a given society.
(b) The initial position of a given agent/individual.
(c) Something that is produced, affirmed and re-affirmed
by action.
(d) The unintended effects of all individual actions.
It must also be noted that this idea of social structure or socio-
structural processes is central and germane to Young’s idea of
structural justice.
3. Who is the perpetrator of such structural injustice? To Young, the
perpetrator of structural injustice is the social structure or the
socio-structural processes. She considers the social structure, or
the socio-structural processes, not just to be a natural context but
also an active field that favours one social group at the
disadvantage of another social group. She believed that neither
the individual nor social groups should be considered or seen as
the perpetrators of structural injustices. Although, some
individuals and certain social groups also may benefit from a
given structural injustice, however, making them suffer or
eliminating them may not result in the eradication of the said
structural injustice.
4. How is structural injustice related to moral wrong and to specific
injustice? In her answer to this question, Young differentiate
structural injustice from an immoral action. To her, the two are
different and does not share resemblance of any sort. This is
because structural injustice could not identify specific agent or
agents as perpetrators of such action. It does not stand for the
same thing with, and equally different from specific notion or
policies of states or institutions the reason for this is because
structural injustice represents an effect of a network of such
actions or policies. However, Young does not foreclose the
possibility of structural injustice occurring simultaneously with
an immoral action or with another wrong foundation on a specific
questionable action or policy. But, then, since structural injustice
is systemic, the possibility of its recurring even if attendant
individual immoral actions are punished or questionable specific
actions or policies are rectified is certain.
5. What are the main manifestations, or examples, of structural
injustice? There are seven main manifestations of structural
injustice listed by Young. This list, however, is based on her
analysis of American society. The list is obviously not
exhaustive, but much can be learned about her idea of structural
injustice. (1) The exploitation of workers; (2) Marginalisation:
exclusion of some social groups from the pool of workers; (3)
Powerlessness of the non-professional workers; (4) Cultural
imperialism of the dominant social groups over the dominated

103
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

social groups (hegemony); (5) Physical and emotional violence;

(6) The over-administration of society: the colonisation of the
life-world; and (7) Biblical exclusivism. The essence of this list
and Young’s contention is that structural injustice is nothing but
the presence of domination and oppression in a social structure or
social-structural processes, which may prevent or deny any
particular social group from exercising its capacities and the
attainment of its possibilities.

Young’s Strategies in addressing Structural Injustice

Having identified the problem of structural injustice, Young proposed
five basic strategies by which structural injustice can be prevented,
tackled or overcome. First, the psychological roots of discrimination
should be exposed. To explain this strategy, Young used Julia Kristeva’s
idea of the ‘abject’ and exposed this abject with the man of colour, the
woman, the heterosexual, the aged, and the disabled (Kristeva, 1989).
The ‘abjects’ are capable of disrupting the dominant subject’s project of
self-construction as something pure (white), strong, heterosexual,
youthful/alive and able-bodied. The dominant subject, therefore, fears
and despises the abject, but after some time is fascinated by it. Irish
Young’s second strategy for combatting structural injustice is developed
from her support for affirmative action. To her, people should not be
consoled for past injustices, rather, they should be given enough capital
to make them ‘as powerful’ as the dominant classes.

The third strategy is her emphasis on the politics of difference. She

opposed the utopian view that democracy is all about an aggregate of
homogenous people. To her, democracy is all about looking for the good
of all, that is, the common good. Irish Young believes that society would
always be composed of different social groups and people with different
aspirations and desire for the good. Insisting on homogeneity and one
common good could mean violence on other groups. The fourth strategy
is to resist and challenge the tendency of the state to colonise more and
more aspects of the life-world. In her fifth strategy in combatting
structural evil, she suggested deliberative democracy wherein her faith
lies. For Young, deliberative democracy does not only happen in the
session halls of legislative assemblies but more so, on the streets where
ordinary citizens should voice out their sentiments and aspirations.
Young was not only a political philosopher; she was also a very
passionate political activist.

4.0 CONCLUSION

Irish Young’s idea of justice was a reaction to the idea of distributive

justice. Her contention against the consideration of distributive justice as
a model of justice was premised on the claim that this model of justice

104
PHL 253 MODULE 3

could address all issues concerning justice and social justice. Thus, she
proposed another model of justice called structural justice, which she
believes will be beneficial to all.

5.0 SUMMARY

In this unit, you have been introduced to Irish Young’s idea of justice.
You have learnt about her rejection of distributive justice as a model of
justice and her proposed model of justice which she called ‘structural
justice’. The unit also introduced to you Young’s strategies set up to
address structural inequalities that may be affecting the political society.

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Evaluate Irish Young’s model of justice.

2. Outline the steps involve in addressing structural injustice in
Young’s principle of justice.

7.0 REFERENCES/ FURTHER READING

Kelly, M. G. E. (2009). The Political Philosophy of Michel Foucault.

London: Routledge.

Kristeva, J. (1989). Black Sun: Depression and Melancholia. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton,

New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Young, I. M. (2002). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Young, I. M. (2007). Global Challenges: War, Self Determination and

Responsibility for Justice Cambridge: Polity.

105
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

UNIT 3 ROBERT NOZICK’S CONCEPT OF JUSTICE

Robert Nozick

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Robert Nozick Idea of Justice
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In this unit, you shall study Robert Nozick’s idea of justice. The unit
shall introduce you to Nozick’s argument against the left-wing anarchist,
his elementary theory of justice, a brief comparison between him, John
Rawls and other philosopher’s idea on the idea of distributive justice.
You shall also be introduced to his concept of a society, called ‘Utopian
or meta-utopian as well as his idea of the invisible hand in the theory of
justice.

106
PHL 253 MODULE 3

2.0 OBJECTIVES
By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 explain Robert Nozick’s idea of justice

 discuss his argument against the left-wing anarchist
 draw a comparison between his theory of justice and John Rawls’
theory of distributive justice
 know his ideas of a utopian society and ‘invisible hand.’

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 Robert Nozick’s Concept of Justice

Robert Nozick (1938-2002) was a renowned American political

philosopher and the author of the book Anarchy, State and Utopia. His
book generated a lot of reaction at the time he was published. His idea of
justice as contained in the book is in contrast to Rawls’ position which
he, Rawls explicated in his work A Theory of Justice. He defended a
conception of justice he calls “entitlement theory” which he claims
would protect the individual's rights against the intrusive authority of the
state.

The book is in three parts. The first part of the book defends a minimal
state by taking issue with the anarchist. The second part defends his
entitlement theory of justice, and the last part is devoted to the
conception of meta-utopia, though Nozick finds it justifiable to defend
the minimal state which he argues is an ideal worth fighting for.

Nozick’s arguments in part I of the work are against the left-wing

anarchist who objects to any form of the state organisation. Nozick does
not believe that a state is good and that we shall be better off with a state
than we would be without one. In fairness to Nozick, he does not claim
that a state is a good thing since this is foreign to his procedure of
dealing with the anarchist and would be subversive of his entire project.
What he maintains is that we can move from a state of nature to a
minimal state without violating anyone's rights, such that it will be
impossible for anyone to claim that the state has assumed authority
illegitimately.

From this position, Nozick discusses how a minimal state, or "state-like

entity" as he sometimes calls it, can emerge through some kind of
protection agency to which people in the state of nature pay a fee for
protection from assault, robbery, and so on. He argues that clients of
different agencies would surrender their rights to these agencies in other

107
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

to punish violators of their rights and that at a point one dominant

agency or federation of agencies combining would emerge through what
he calls "invisible hand" in one territory. Thus, without any express
agreement or overall intention on anyone's part, people in the state of
nature would find themselves with a body which satisfies two
fundamental conditions for being a state: it has a monopoly of coercion
in its territory and protects the rights of anyone in its territory. Although
“everyone may defend himself against unknown or unreliable
procedures and may punish those who use or attempt to use such
procedures against him” (Feser, 2014). only the dominant protective
agency will be able to enforce its clients' procedural rights:

…Its strength leads it to be the unique agent acting across the board to
endorse a particular right. It is not merely that it happens to be only the
exerciser of a right it grants that all possess: the nature of the right is
such that once a dominant power emerges, it alone will actually exercise
that right. For the right includes the right to stop others from wrongfully
exercising the right, and only the dominant power will be able to
exercise this right against all others. Here, if anywhere, is the place for
applying some notion of a de facto monopoly…(Nozick, 1974:109).
Although other agencies can exercise the right, only the dominant
agency can do so effectively because of their market advantage. (Galvin,
2010).

This discussion of the first part forms the main bulk of this part, though
Nozick grapples with other issues like violations of rights which he
contends should be adequately compensated. He contends that risk
procedures that can be legitimately prohibited by the dominant
protection agency must be compensated if:

i.) they tend to cause general fear

ii. either they violate the procedural rights of the members a
dominant protection agency to have their guilt fairly determined
or they are an illegitimate exercise by independents of their
Lockean natural rights. (Sterba, 1986)

The second part of the book is on what sort of justice a just society
should operate. Nozick's position on this is a radical departure from the
earlier theories of justice which are distributive in nature and justify the
extensive state which will distribute wealth to achieve justice in the
distribution of wealth. Nozick mounts an attack on this since it deprives
people of their rights. He uses the notion "holdings" to characterise the
goods, money and property of all kinds that people have. The question
is: what holdings people should have in a just society?

108
PHL 253 MODULE 3

Nozick contends that most theories of justice are patterned or end-state

ones. According to this conception of justice, holdings are just if they
correspond to some "natural dimension” (Nozick, 1974:109). A
principle of justice that states people are to be rewarded according to
their need, I.Q., labour, moral desert, etc. is a patterned principle. In any
existing society, Nozick argues, the distribution of wealth would not
conform to a pre-ordained pattern, so there will not be the need to
redistribute wealth following what we think is the right pattern.

Nozick's theory of justice is a historical, nonpattern theory. It is an

entitlement theory in which the holdings of an individual's property is
just if it is a consequence of fair acquisition (which does not involve
force or fraud) or transfer. The other aspect of justice is rectification,
that is, the principle which allows for past injustices, that is unfair
acquisitions, to be corrected. Nozick's position is that people have rights
to their holdings if they are got through fair acquisition and that there is
no moral justification for any redistribution of their holdings. He argues
that they can do anything with their holdings - trade them off, invest
them, gamble them off, give them as gifts etc. and the society has no
right to interfere with the holdings of the people, so long as their
holdings were justly acquired. The entitlement theory makes the justice
of any holding on the historical acquisition of it, and not on the
conformity to any preordained pattern. In short, the minimal state should
protect the rights to property and if it goes beyond this to bring about a
state of affairs which is not the consequence of free exchange it is a
breach of their rights.

Nozick argues that his entitlement theory fares better than patterned or
end-state theory because the problem with the latter is that their
application in a society entails an interference with people's rights.

Nozick's theory restricts fair acquisitions and fair exchanges by invoking

the "Lockean proviso.” (Irele, 1993) Any acquisition must not worsen
the positions of others. But this proviso is construed narrowly. For
other's position to be worsened someone must not appropriate the total
supply of good that is essential to life. A case in point is "a person may
not appropriate the only water hole in the desert and charge what he
will". (Irele, 1998). But this proviso will not debar someone who
discovers a cure for a fatal disease charging high price since he does not
appropriate to himself something essential to the lives of others or made
them be worse off. Nor has he prevented others physically from making
the discovery.

Nozick makes a devastating critique of Rawls' A Theory of Justice. But

Nozick's criticism of Rawls is that Rawls' theory of justice impairs the
requirement of an individual's inviolability by his incorporation of end-

109
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

state principle. Nozick seems attracted by Bernard Williams' The Idea of

Equality. In the course of his discussion of equality, Williams argues
that the proper ground of distribution of medical care is ill-health, and
that, therefore, it is irrational for the distribution of medical care to be
governed by the ability to pay. Although Nozick believes that the
plausibility of Williams' claim lies not in any supposed necessary truth
about the proper ground of distribution of medical care, rather in the
claim that a society should provide for the most important needs of its
members, he nevertheless rejects it as an inadequate distributive
principle because it neither furnishes a criterion for determining how
resources, in general, should be allocated nor takes account of the needs
and wishes of resources owner, including providers of labour,
concerning the disposition of their holdings and services.

The last part of Nozick's book is devoted to the Utopia idea. This part is
short but it is interesting. Although he says that the minimal state is not
Utopia, minimal state's defects could be shown if compared with the
utopian idea. "The utopian tradition is maximal (Ryan, 1979), the best of
all possible world but there are limiting conditions since all, possible
goods could not be realised simultaneously and there is no unique way
of life which is best for all, though there can be one for an individual
which is best for him. (Arthur and Shaw, 1978). Nozick believes that
there is human diversity and argues that the form which Utopia would
logically have to take won’t be free associations of men grounded on the
market model which allows free entry and exit to people. He contends
that this will constitute a "stable world" because each individual would
experiment until he establishes himself in a stable community which
also needed his contribution. He argues, that stable communities would
consist of people with diverse talents and they would compete with each
other and through this pleasure would be achieved through the full
development of diverse capacities. He asserts that "Utopia will consist
of Utopia . . . communities will wax and wane (Sterba, op. cit). Nozick's
conception of the minimal state is, therefore, a utopia, though a meta-
utopia - a framework for the birth of trial communities, with a minimal
central authority to protect the rights of individuals and arbitrate
between individuals. He argues that a minimal state is a form of utopia.

It is important to know that Nozick’s idea has been seriously attacked by

some other philosophers. For instance, some defenders of libertarian
justice have criticised Nozick's argument on the legitimate emergence of
a minimal state. Some have argued that his argument fails to justify a
minimal state while others contend that, his argument somehow justifies
much more than a minimal state.

Among those that have supported the first view are Robert Holmes and
Jeffrey Paul. Their position is that:

110
PHL 253 MODULE 3

1. Either the use of certain risky procedures is rights violating or it

is not

2. If rights-violating then its prohibition does not require

compensation
3. If not rights-violating then its prohibition would not be morally
justified.
4. So either the prohibition of the use of certain risky procedures
does not require compensation or that prohibition would not be
morally justified (ibid).

Murray Rothbard and Erick Mack have contended that the minimal state
if allowed to exercise the right to punish transgressors of rights be they
independents or other agencies, then the function of the minimal state
goes beyond that of a minimal state. In other words, since the minimal
state has enormous power it is like a state with all powers normally
associated with it (ibid).

Nozick's entitlement theory has been criticised on other grounds. It has

been contended that it offends our ordinary moral intuition because it
gives priority to market-forces which can result in an unjust situation. It
is argued that our moral intuition on social justice necessitates that there
should be a redistribution of holdings in order to help those who are in
need. Furthermore, market-forces might not necessarily be in accord
with fairness in that initial distribution of holdings might not be due to
one's ability or talent but due to chance.

Nozick's position is that we should not trade-off liberty with any other
value. But a pluralist might challenge the priority of liberty and argue
that the loss of liberty consequent on the increase of social justice is
perfectly justifiable. Furthermore, it could be argued that, though the
trade-off of liberty is coercive since it harms some for the benefit of
others, this would enhance the general well-being of many people rather
than the few. Again, it can be argued that market relationships, though
seemingly a free exchange, are equally coercive since they put
individuals at the mercy of those who have economic power.

There is also the fact that in a market relationship situation, the idea is
that everyone is free since exchanges are conducted under an
atmosphere that is supposed to be so but some people's freedom might
have been curtailed because they do not have the economic power. In a
capitalist society, there is the presumption that the market ensures
freedom but as G.A. Cohen has rightly pointed out it is the case that
some people (Proletarial) are unfree because the system makes
economic power the basic ingredient of freedom. In words, market

111
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

relationships make some to be free while others are not free (Cohen,
1979).
4.0 CONCLUSION

Nozick's work belongs to the libertarian tradition of justice. He defends

the tradition with compelling reasons which are rare in that tradition.
Although his position might offend our moral intuition if we believe in
an egalitarian society, his arguments compel us to follow him where
they lead to.

5.0 SUMMARY

So far in this unit, you have learnt about Robert Nozick’s conception of
distributive justice as discussed in his work Anarchy, State and Utopia.
You have studied his entitlement theory, libertarian justice and his idea
of a minimal state, which he regarded as utopia.

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Explain the role of the invisible hand in Robert Nozick’s

conception of justice.
2. Carefully explain Nozick’s idea of justice.

7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER AND REFERENCE

Cohen, G. A. (1978). "Robert Nozick and Wilt Chamberlain." In: C.J.

Arthur & W. Shaw (Eds.). Justice and Economics Distribution.
Englewood Cliffs.

Fezer, E. (2014). On Robert Nozick. htt:[Link]/Nozick/

accessed 17th September 2019.

Galvin, C. (2010). The Entitlement Theory of Distributive Justice. New

York: Brooklyn Books.

Irele, D. (1993). Introduction to Social and Political Thinkers. Ibadan:

New Horn Publishers.

Irele, D. (1993). Introduction to Political Philosophy. Ibadan: Ibadan

University Press.

Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books
Inc.

Ryan, A. (1979). The Idea of Freedom. Oxford: OUP.

112
PHL 253 MODULE 3

Sterba, J. P. (1986). "Recent Work on Alternative Conceptions of

Justice". American Philosophical Quarterly, 32(1).

113
PHL 253 MODULE 4

MODULE 4 SOME POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES

Unit 1 Communalism
Unit 2 Socialism
Unit 3 Democracy
Unit 4 Anarchism

UNIT 1 COMMUNALISM

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 The idea Communalism and Communitarianism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/ Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In this unit, we shall examine the ideas of communalism and

communitarianism. The unit will make you understand that although,
some scholars sometimes want to differentiate between the two, given the
different states of their practice, yet, the two concepts communalism and
communitarianism are the same.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 explain communalism and communitarianism as a political

ideology
 discuss the values that are inherent in the two concepts
 identify the reason why they are favoured by some society such
that they are adopted as an ideology in some state
 explain the limitations of these concepts in human society.

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

The Idea of Communalism

The word Communalism necessarily means the idea of a community.
From the etymological understanding of the term, ‘communalism’ is

113
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

derived from the adjective ‘communal’, which has its origin in the French
word ‘commune’ and the Latin word communitas. The Oxford Dictionary
describes it as the process of forming collective communities where
property and resources are owned by the community and not individuals.
It also means a principle of political organization based on federated
communes. Communalism can also be referred to as strong allegiance
limited to one’s own ethnic group, commonly based on shared history and
culture. It is characterised by cooperation and ownership by members of
a community.

If we critically analyse the various definitions of the doctrine of

communalism, it would be observed that it seems to have certain things
in common with communitarianism. The doctrines of the two concepts
affirm the relevance of the community in the formation of the individual’s
character and the validation and ascription of meaning to his personality.
It is important to point out here that communalism appeared as a socio-
political idea and it featured much in the works of African nationalists
who, as a result of their commitment to forging a new and radically
different beginning for their respective countries (Masolo, 2004).
Communitarianism, on the other hand, is a contemporary idea in western
scholarship. As a contemporary idea in western scholarship, it challenges
the libertarian claim about the primacy of the individual over the
community. Communalism on the other hand, as an idea in African
political thought, challenges the claims of individualist and capitalist
ethical orientation within the historical framework of the colonial
experience. In one sense, communalism, like communitarian ideas, seeks
to promote the values of collectivity as existed in pre-colonial African
social and political lives and practices. In another sense communalism,
from the African viewpoint is seen as a reaction against European
(colonial) description of Africans as a people lacking rationality,
invention, self-initiative and ambition as found in the works of scholars
such as Hegel, Hume, Kant, J.S. Mill, Levy Bruhl among others (Oyekan
2015).

Communalism is often seen as the main foundation of traditional African

society. This perception is premised on the claim that (a) traditional
African societies were largely communalistic and (b) that any
understanding of an African person, whether at the metaphysical level or
socio-political level, must be from the communalistic perspective
(Oyeshile, 2006: 108).

One of those who provided the theoretical framework for Communalism

is Edward Blyden when he used the principle of the extended family to
explain the communal organisation of social life in Africa. For this reason,
he is widely regarded as the father of Pan-Africanism (Ibid). His view was
corroborated by Leopold Senghor, who avers that Negro African society

114
PHL 253 MODULE 4

“is collectivist, or more exactly, communal because it is rather a

communion of souls than an aggregate of individuals” (Senghor, 1968:
29).

The idea of communalism was given a descriptive meaning in John

Mbiti’s book, African Religions and Philosophy (1969). In his description
of the idea, he talks about the ‘I’ in relation to ‘We’. According to Mbiti,
the traditional African believes that,

The individual owes his existence to other people. ... He is simply part of
a whole. ... Whatever happens to the individual happens to the whole
group, and whatever happens to the whole group happens to the
individual. The individual can only say; ‘I am, because we are; and since
we are therefore I am’ (1969: 108).

From the above Mbiti’s excerpts, the individual’s life is only meaningful
to the extent that the community attains the same and vice versa. The idea
must be noted thus connotes a symmetrical situation in which the
relevance of one to the other is mutual.

It suffices to say that Nyerere's philosophy of Ujamaa was also rooted in

traditional African values and had as its core the emphasis on family
togetherness and communalism of traditional African societies (Ibhawoh
and Dibua, 2003). Ujamaa (translated as brotherhood), which was more
of a socio-political idea, embodies the cultural principles and practices in
the extended families in traditional Africa. According to Nyerere:

An African does not look at one class of men as his brethren and another
as his natural enemy, [that] he does not ally with the ‘brethren’ for the
extermination of the ‘non-brethren’ [and that] an African regards all men
as his brethren – as members of his extended family (Nyerere, 1977: 11-
12).

Thus, Nyerere perceives people in traditional African societies as caring

for one another. The idea of oppression or subjugation of one another has
no basis in traditional African society. No class structure, every member
is treated equally. Aside, Nyerere equally posits that “in traditional Africa,
everybody was a worker” (Ibid: 4), meaning that in traditional African
society, every member of society – barring only the children and the
infirm – contributed his fair share of effort towards the production of its
wealth and the wealth created are shared among the members of the
society. No one could hoard wealth or accumulate it for the sake of
gaining power and prestige. (Ibid: 5). Since everyone contributed to the
wealth of the community, there were no “loiters, or idlers who accept the
hospitality of society as their ‘right’ but gives nothing in return” (Ibid).

115
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

For Kwame Nkrumah, the African personality is defined by the cluster of

humanist principles which underlie the traditional African society
(Bamikole, 2012). According to him, in Africa, man is regarded as
primarily a spiritual being imbued with inherent dignity. This inherent
dignity he said, underpins African communalism which expresses a
socialist attitude (1964: 69).

Kwame Gyekye opined that it is well known, that the social order of any
African community is communal, though he felt that it is more of an
amphibious relationship which manifests features of individuality and
communality. He used the Akan concept of humanism to explain the
nature of African communalism. He defined communalism as the doctrine
that the group (that is, the society) constitutes the focus of the activities
of the individual members of the society (Gyekye, 1987: 155). He saw
this doctrine as that which emphasises the activity and success of the
wider society rather than, though not necessarily at the expense of, or to
the detriment, of the individual.

Although communalism presupposes collectivism, Gyekye argued that

there is still a place for individuality. This he explained with the Akan
concept where individuality is seen not as a negation of commonality, but
rather as the recognition of the limited character of the possibilities of the
individual. He wrote: “Communalism, as conceived in Akan thought, is
not a negation of individualism; rather it is the recognition of the limited
character of the possibilities of the individual, which limited possibilities
whittle away the individual’s self-sufficiency” (1987: 156).
Gyekye (1987: 156) illustrated the rationale behind this system with the
following proverb:

One finger cannot lift a thing. If one man scrapes the bark of a tree for
medicine, the pieces fall. The left-arm washes the right-arm and the right-
arm washes the left-arm

This proverb shows the value of collectivism and interdependence, as

opposed to individualism in traditional African societies. Despite this
distinction, Gyekye argued that due recognition must be given to the
claims of both the community and individuality, for, after all, a society is
a community of individuals and individuals are individuals in the society
(1987: 162).

3.2 Communitarianism

As mentioned earlier, most of the ideas in communalism discussed by

scholars are very similar to what have also been saying about
communitarianism in the West. Although, some African scholars are of
the view that African communalism is different from communitarianism

116
PHL 253 MODULE 4

in Western thought. Wiredu, for instance, seemed to believe that

communalism and communitarianism embody the same values, as he
used both interchangeably (2008, 334). Still, he felt that one major
difference between the African conception and its Western variant is that
the latter shares some characteristics with certain forms of cultural
individualism while the former does not. In other words, while Western
communitarianism is a theoretical approach to the political organisation
within an individualistic culture, African communalism (or
communitarianism) is first and foremost a “social formation founded on
kinship relations”, which later became a theory developed by nationalist
philosophers. He further aversed that communalism is a way of life as
actually lived, while communitarianism is the theoretical articulation of
the values of communal life.

Nature and Scope of Western Communitarianism

In its contemporary sense, communitarian thoughts represent a body of
critical reaction to John Rawls' book, A Theory of Justice (Rawls 1971).
Drawing primarily upon the insights of Aristotle and Hegel, political
philosophers such as Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor
and Michael Walzer contend Rawls' claim that the principal task of
government is to secure and distribute fairly the liberties and economic
resources individuals need to leave freely chosen lives. These critics of
liberal theory did not identify themselves with the communitarian
movement. Rather, the communitarian label was pinned on them by
others, usually their critics (Bell, 2012: 5).

The contentions of the communitarians are numerous. One of such, for

instance, is the communitarian’s contention of the claim to universality
by libertarian theorists who often advance abstract bases they consider
impartial as the take-off point of their claims. An instance is Rawls’
description of the original position as an ‘Archimedean point’ from which
the structure of a social system can be appraised, a position whose special
virtue is that it allows us to regard the human condition ‘from the
perspective of eternity’ from all social and temporal points of view (Ibid).
Whereas Rawls seemed to present his theory of justice as universally true,
communitarians counter that standards of justice are embedded in forms
of life and traditions of particular societies and hence can vary from
context to context. For instance, Alasdair MacIntyre (1978) and Charles
Taylor (1985) contend that moral and political judgment are products of
the language of reasons and the interpretive framework within which
agents view their world, thus requiring contextual understanding rather
than engaging in abstractions that have little or nothing in common with
reality.

Communitarian philosophers also challenge the idea that the individual

can sustain himself outside the society. They maintain that the self is

117
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

defined by various communal attachments (e.g., ties to the family or a

religious tradition) and that it is through them that it finds not only
expression but meaning and fulfilment (Oyekan 2015). For Taylor, not
only is man a political animal in the Aristotelian sense, but he is also a
social animal to the extent that he is not self-sufficient alone, and in an
important sense is not self-sufficient outside a polis (Taylor 1985, 190).

Of course, John Rawls in his idea of justice portrays individuals as

participants in a scheme of mutual cooperation which offers advantages
that self-efforts cannot attain, but not grounded with fellow individuals by
bond whose severance or alteration would change their identity as
persons. Libertarians defend this reasoning by pointing out that there exist
a plurality of individual ends and notions of the good life. Grounding all
of them in a communal telos amounts to a failure to recognize these
differences and the rights of individuals to hold them.

This challenge receives the tacit support of some communitarians. They

have sought to find a middle ground which accommodates individual
rights while retaining the salience of the community. Corroborating this
stand, Philip Selznick, in The Idea of a Communitarian Morality (1987),
contends that there is room for individual rights within a communitarian
morality. He contends that communitarian philosophy's central value is
belonging and he interprets this claim to mean that "personhood is best
served in and through social participation." The result in
communitarianism is the priority of duty over right (Etzioni, 1990: 221).
"Duty is what roles are about and what membership is about." Thus, as he
points out, when we accept membership in, for example, the academic
community, we think first of our responsibilities, not our rights. Surely, a
moral community must recognize natural rights, which derive from our
understanding of what personhood requires. Yet rights are not central to
the communitarian project, for "rights do not define the community," nor
do they provide reasons for acting. Duties, to the contrary, "stimulate us
to action".

4.0 CONCLUSION

The ideas of both communism and communitarianism as presented in this

unit and the positions of scholars and philosophers generally leaves us to
understand the two concepts as twin concepts. Both shared salient issues
revolving the community and the individual. No doubt, many issues
arising from the communal position were not exhaustively discussed.
Such a task is nigh impossible, especially when it is considered that the
contentious issues between libertarians on one hand and
communalists/communitarians on the other revolve around the most
important question in political philosophy, which is the nature of the
relationship between the individual and the society.

118
PHL 253 MODULE 4

5.0 SUMMARY

In this unit, we have been examining the idea of communalism and

communitarianism. We have also pointed out the similarities between
communalism and communitarianism by showing how they both embody
values that defend the importance of the community in relation to the
individuals.

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. What is communalism?
2. Are there any similarities or differences between communalism
and communitarianism?

7.0 REFERENCES/ FURTHER READING

Bamikole, L. O. (2012). “Nkrumah and the Triple Heritage Thesis and

Development in Africana Societies.” International Journal of
Business, Humanities and Technology. Vol. 2 No. 2.

Bell, D. (2012). “Communitarianism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Retrieved from [Link]. [Link]/entry/
communitarianism on 17/08 2014.

Etzioni, A. (1990). “Liberals and Communitarians.” Partisan Review.

Vol, 57 no 2.

Gyekye, Kwame (1987). An essay on African Philosophical Thought.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ibhawoh, B. & Dibua, J. I. (2003). “Deconstructing Ujamaa: The Legacy

of Julius Nyerere in the Quest for Social and Economic
Development in Africa”. African Journal of Political Science. Vol.
8 no 1.

MacIntyre, A. (1978). Against the Self-Images of the Age. Notre Dame:

University of Notre Dame Press.

Masolo, D.A. (2004). “Western and African Communitarianism”. In: K.

Wiredu (Ed.). A Companion to African Philosophy. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.

Mbiti, J. (1969). African Religion and Philosophy. Nairobi: East African

Publishing House.

119
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Menkiti, I.A. (2004). “On the Normative Conception of a Person”. In:

K. Wiredu (Ed.). A Companion to African Philosophy. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.

Nkrumah, K. (1964). Consciencism: Philosophy and Ideology for

Decolonization. London: Panaf Books Ltd.

Nyerere, J. K. (1977). Ujamaa: Essays on Socialism. Dar-es-salaam:

Oxford University Press.

Oyekan, O. A. (2015). “Communalism.” In: O.O. Adegboyega (Ed.).

Readings in socio-political Philosophy Vol. 1, Ibadan: Julisco
Nigeria Ltd.

Oyeshile, O. (2006). “The Individual-Community Relationship as an

Issue in Social and Political Philosophy”. In: O. Oladipo (Ed.).
Core Issues in African Philosophy. Ibadan: Hope Publications.

Senghor, Leopold S. (1968). On African Socialism. Trans. with an

introduction by Mercer Cook. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.

Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical

Papers 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice. New York: Basic Books.

Wiredu, K. (2008). “Social Philosophy in Postcolonial Africa: Some

Preliminaries Concerning Communalism and
Communitarianism”. South African Journal of Philosophy. Vol 27
(4).

120
PHL 253 MODULE 4

UNIT 2 SOCIALISM

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 The idea of Socialism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This unit discusses socialism. Thus, you shall learn about the meaning or
definition of socialism, its aims and why it is considered the best socio-
political cum economic system as opposed to other systems, such as
capitalism. At the end of the unit, you would have had a clearer
knowledge about socialism and all that it stands for.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 define Socialism as a political ideology

 discuss the aims and objectives of socialism as a political concept
 explain the values and features of Socialism
 identify the reasons why Socialism is a preferred political ideology
in some society
 identify the various brands of Socialism in human political history
 explain the limitations of Socialism as a concept in the human
political history of any society.

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 Meaning of Socialism

There are various perceptions and definitions of the term socialism as

there are various thinkers and schools of thought who have with keen
interest understudy the term and probably because of the perceived good
values of the term. The Oxford English Dictionary defines socialism as
“a theory or policy which aims at or advocates the ownership of control
of the means of production- capital, land property, etc. – by the
community as a whole and their administration in the interests of all”.
This definition, though not very comprehensive, indicates the chief

121
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

method and goal of socialism. It has also been defined as “that

organization of society in which the means of production are controlled,
and the decisions on how and what to produce and on who is to get what,
are made by public authority instead of privately-owned and privately-
managed firms” (Gauba, 1995:361). According to Gauba, many other
definitions and descriptions of socialism more or less embrace these and
similar ideas. He (Gauba, 1995:361) stresses further that socialism aims
at that economic organization and social recognition, by suitable political
means, under which the major instruments of production are under the
ownership and control of the public authority in order to ensure that they
are properly utilized to secure the public interest. It is based on the view
that liberty and equality granted to citizens in the political sphere will be
empty unless they are accompanied by a reorganization of the economic
life of the society, to convert them into substantive rights for citizens.

It is also a condition of group-living in which the means of production are

owned and controlled by the state (Azikwe, 1980:18). To Elliott and
Summerskill, (1957:56) it is “a political and economic theory according
to which the means of production, distribution and exchange should be
owned and controlled by the people, in which everyone should be given
an equal opportunity to develop his or her talents, and the wealth of the
community should be fairly distributed.

The case for socialism

Socialism is characterised by four major principles, which are: promotion
of public welfare, fair distribution of wealth, nationalization of public
utilities, and the need for scientific planning.
Let us attempt an explanation of each of these principles.

Promotion of public welfare

This principle presents socialism as a system in which the society is
organised in such a way that no individual member of the society can own
private property. It also stands for a condition of group-living in which
the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

Fair distribution of wealth

This principle of the socialists regard the state as a fraternal, co-operative
commonwealth and not a paternal and patronising source of power. Thus,
socialism hopes to remedy the injustice and wastefulness that feature in
the capitalist system. It is believed that under scientific and rational
control, the economic needs of society could be accurately estimated, and
the available land and capital fairly apportioned. Its advocates argue that
unnecessary competition and duplication could be prevented under a
socialist system. It is also argued, that, inequalities of wealth are a source
of grievances that gives rise to a sense of injustice, because it is one of the
root causes of poverty.

122
PHL 253 MODULE 4

Nationalisation of public utilities

One fundamental merit of socialism is the focus on the need to reform the
capitalist system. In this regard nationalisation of public utilities and
municipality of transport services and other services is a major goal of the
socialist. Today, many capitalist states have nationalised and enacted laws
vesting the state with ownership of mineral rights.

Need for scientific planning

One other important aspect of socialism that should not be overlooked is
economic planning. Any country that adopts socialism needs scientific
planning to enable the success of the principles of such socialized
economy, otherwise, such a socialist state would fail.

Types or brands of socialism

Socialism is of different types and these are, evolutionary, revolutionary,
utopian, scientific, fabian, guild and democratic socialism. These brands
of socialism shall now be briefly explained.

Evolutionary and revolutionary socialism

Generally speaking, the term socialism is usually applied to indicate
‘evolutionary socialism’, that is the kind of socialism achieved by the
evolutionary process, not by one swoop transformation of society in a
single stroke. Evolutionary socialism is not the same thing as
revolutionary socialism. Unlike evolutionary, revolutionary socialism
seeks to introduce socialism in its totality so as to replace the capitalist
system with the socialist system. In other words, revolutionary socialism
seeks to transform the social system thoroughly instead of accepting small
concessions for the underprivileged sections. In fact, evolutionary
socialism admits an attitude of ‘compromise’ – a compromise between
capitalism and socialism, so that the capitalist system is allowed to
continue with some changes here and there in the socialist direction; it,
therefore, belongs to the liberal tradition. On the other hand, revolutionary
socialism makes a direct attack on the prevailing contradictions of the
social order; it belongs to the Marxist tradition.

Utopian socialism
In the first decades of the 18th century, numerous philosophers and
humanitarians proceeded to draw pictures of an ideal commonwealth
which needed to be perceived to become acceptable to society. They are
called ‘utopian’ because they created extremely fascinating pictures of an
ideal social and political order, far removed from the hard realities of life.

123
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Scientific socialism
Here it must be pointed out that the Marxian approach to socialism is
based on a scientific understanding of the process of history and the role
of the working class in bringing about socialism.

Fabian socialism
The term ‘Fabian’ was adopted after the name of a great Roman General,
Quintus Fabius, whose tactics in the fight against Hannibal served as a
guide for the society. Thus, its motto read: ‘For the right moment you
must wait, as Fabius did, most patiently, when warring against Hannibal,
though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must
strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain and fruitless’.
As a matter of fact, the Fabian socialists addressed themselves to the task
of making the democratic state an instrument of systematic social reform
(Adefarasin 2015).

Guild socialism
Guild socialism originated as a trend in the British labour movement
which enjoyed great ideological success in the period from 1916 to 1926.
It tries to combine the good points of socialism with those of the ancient
guild system. In short, it upheld the Marxian emphasis on class struggle,
it stood for the abolition of the wage system and demanded representation
of the workers in industrial control, it sought to modify syndicalism by
introducing the importance of consumer side by side with the worker and
it sought to abolish the old state which was an instrument of exploitation.

Democratic socialism
Democratic socialism is a modern version of Fabian socialism. The
supporters of democratic socialism pay equal importance to democracy
and socialism. They believe that the goals of democracy and socialism are
not separable from each other; both stand for the amelioration of the
ordinary man. In effect, democratic socialism signifies the use of the
democratic method for achieving the socialist goal. It seeks to modify
Marxian socialism in some important details (Adefarasin 2015).

Features of Socialism
The features of socialism can be analysed as follows:
The first feature of socialism is ‘Altruistic’. Socialism strives to cater for
the welfare of everybody in society rather than the welfare of just a few
as in the capitalist system. According to Awolowo (1968:190), it may be
said that the overriding aim of socialism is to bring about an economic
commonwealth in which the needs of all, regardless of birth and station
in life, as opposed to and distinct from the profit-making desires of some,
will be satisfied. In other words, under socialism, the aim is that capacity
shall have its adequate reward, but also that those who, for any cause, are

124
PHL 253 MODULE 4

incapacitated from, or have not yet grown up enough to participate in

productive activities shall not, on that account, suffer misery.

The second feature of socialism is ‘Labour’. Human dignity stems from

man’s obedience to God’s command at creation to subjugate and explore
the earth and use it for its good. Hence, for Awolowo, socialism
emphasizes the value of human labour. This is against the feature of
capitalism, which puts a premium on the individual accumulation of
capital through the exploitation and manipulation of the law of supply and
demand. Socialism, as a corrective system, recognizes the necessity of
capital for the continuous survival of economic production and
development in society. But it emphasises the indispensable role of
human labour as the only mechanism of economic wealth as well as social
justice in the distribution and sharing of profits.

Another vital feature of socialism is ‘public ownership’. Socialism

obtains its full meaning from the mechanism through which it works. For
the welfare and good of all, it becomes necessary that the means of
economic production, distribution, exchange, among others be transferred
from the hands of individuals to those of the public. Awolowo (1981:187)
maintains that negatively, socialism is opposed to capitalism. But
positively, it is firmly rooted in the principles of public ownership of the
means of production, distribution and exchange and economic planning.
The state, through its government, becomes the sole employer of labour
in society, and all citizens, employees” (Ogunmodode 1986:199).

Economic planning and social discipline are two other features of the
socialist system. The onus is on the socialists to plan meticulously in order
to obtain efficiency in the execution of the state’s economic policies. In
short, Awolowo (1976:65), says “it is difficult to affect public ownership
of the means of production. But it requires meticulous planning to operate
them efficiently”.

Production, being under government, is controlled and not just left to the
capricious hand of the blind forces of supply and demand. Labour, unlike
in the capitalist system, becomes a joint enterprise and venture between
the employer and the employed. Since it is the objective of the state to
cater for the welfare of all, the salary structure to be given by it cannot but
be such that will be just and adequate to live a normal life.

125
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

4.0 CONCLUSION

It can be agreed that the goal of socialism is the welfare and happiness of
every person in the state. Socialism is altruistic in its content in that it
desires expansion of state activities not for aggrandizement, but in order
to ensure freedom and justice to the individual, it seeks to eliminate
injustice by eliminating social inequality which is the root of poverty.
When one looks at it critically, the basic problem we are facing in Africa
is leadership. Some of our leaders are selfish and extremely corrupt. Their
attitudes to governance is a total reflection of the cum political system and
economic ideology – capitalism that is in operation, which makes the
leaders pursue private interest at the detriment of the lives of the citizens.
However, if the principles of socialism can be embraced, African
countries will develop and join the comity of Nations, since we have all
it takes to develop our natural and human resources. But the irony of it all
is that Africa has remained a “sleeping giant” because of the nature of our
leaders that has been characterized by egoism and corrupt practices. They
would rather want the status quo under capitalism to endure.

5.0 SUMMARY

In this unit, you have been exposed to the meaning of socialism. Different
definitions were discussed as well as the various principles of socialism.
Also, the various types or brands of socialism were explained and the
features of socialism discussed. The unit in a way also attempts some
basic differences between socialism and capitalism. The unit concluded
by pointing out the aims of socialism at ensuring collective benefits to all
members of the society and that the African society is suffering today
because the system of administration both politically and economically is
capitalism and not socialism.

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Explain the term socialism.

2. Outline the bands of socialism that you have studied.
3. What are the features of socialism known to you?

7.0 REFERENCES/ FURTHER READING

Adefarasin, V.O. (2015). “An Analysis of Socialism.” In: O.O.

Adegboyega (Ed.). Readings in Socio-Political Philosophy, Vol.
1. Ibadan: Julisco Nigeria Ltd.

Awolowo, O. (1968). The People’s Republic. Ibadan: Oxford

University Press.

126
PHL 253 MODULE 4

Awolowo, O. (1976). The problems of Africa. London: Macmillan

Education Ltd.

Awolowo O. (1981). Voice of Reason. Akure: Fagbamigbe Publishers.

Elliot, F. & Summerskill, M. (1957). A Dictionary of Politics. Penguin

Harmondsworth

Guaba, O.P. (1995). An Introduction to Political Theory. India:

Macmillan India Ltd.

Azikwe, N. (1980). Ideology for Nigeria: Capitalism, Socialism or

Welfarism? Lagos: Macmillan Nigerian Publishers Ltd.

Ogundowole, E.K. (Ed.). (2002). Philosophy and Logic: A Student

Companion. Lagos: Obaroh & Ogbinaka Publishers Ltd.

Ogunmodede F. (1986). Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s Socio-Political

Philosophy: A Critical Interpretation. Ibadan: Intec Printers Ltd.

Onigbinde, O. (2009). What is Philosophy? A Reader's Digest in

Philosophy Inquiry. Ibadan: Frontline Books.

127
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

UNIT 3 DEMOCRACY

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Origin and Meaning of Democracy
3.2 Forms of Democracy
3.3 The Values of Democracy
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Democracy as a political ideology and system of government has over the

years become the most heralded, most spoken about and acceptable and
that perhaps, turns out to be a household terminology in the political
space. It was once noted by Kukah (2000:1) “so much has been written
about democracy that it really may not be necessary for us to start a
process of seeking definitions”. However, in this unit, we shall consider
some definitions to arrive at the meaning of the concept. We shall discuss
the origin of democracy, the forms of democracy and also examine its
values. Efforts shall be made in this unit to examine the merits and
demerits of democracy.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 define democracy
 explain democracy as a system of governance
 trace the origin of democracy
 discuss the values democracy
 identify the various forms of democracy that there are in human
society
 explain the merits and demerits of democracy.

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 Origin and Meaning of Democracy

128
PHL 253 MODULE 4

The term democracy originated in Greek writings around the fifth century
B.C. The word is comprised of two Greek words – ‘Demos’ which refers
to the common people, the masses; and the ‘Kratos’ that stands for rule,
power or government. Thus, democracy literally means the rule of the
people. Democracy was designed to allow all citizens (excluding women
and slaves) to have a voice in decisions that would have an impact on all.
This right was often exercised at a mass meeting or what can be called a
town hall meeting.

Since the days of ancient Greek, the concept of democracy has been
variously subjected to re-definition by philosophers, scholars, politicians,
students and practitioners of democratic governance. For instance, the
most popular and common definition of the term was the one credited to
Abraham Lincoln, which made most people conceive democracy as the
“government of the people, for the people and by the people”.
Interestingly, this definition has generated a lot of debates amongst
students of politics. This is on the ground of content analysis particularly
on the phrases –“for the people” and “by the people”. Upon critical
analysis, it is observed that the claim “for the people” in the definition
actually represents the bourgeoises and the elite rather than the popular
rule and mass participation. Similarly, “by the people” also reflects the
elite who govern, rule, and some select individuals who are in positions
of power to define or redefine and shape the policies of the state in such
a way to favour them and their cronies.

Democracy according to Schumpeter (1976), is an institutional

arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals
acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the
people’s votes, by this definition, an elite emerges inevitably to organise
and run the state. This may be practicable where a large number of people
are illiterate and indifferent to political practice. Schumpeter used the
definition to attack what he called the classical theory of democracy or
the classical theory of collective action by which he meant a theory of
how the people could act collectively so as to be sovereign, a theory that
had, itself motivated collective political action (Weingast 1997).

In Robert Dahl’s (1956:131) understanding, the majority rarely rule and

democracy itself are characterised by the rule of minorities in a state,
though membership to the governing minority changes periodically. In
Michel’s (1959) thinking, it is an inescapable social fact that a ruling
minority exists in society so that the majority cannot rule. Michel’s
thought would, therefore, implies that in the fast-moving and advancing
democracies, size, time and complexity tend to combine to make elitism
inevitable. In order words, the volume of decisions which modern states
have to grapple with, coupled with their complex and technical nature is

129
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

not such that the unorganised masses would have the knowledge to
withstand (Grahams 1986).
To Appadorai (1968), democracy is a system of government under which
the people exercise the governing power either directly or through
representatives periodically elected by themselves. It suffices to say,
however, that in the context of advanced democracies such as Western
Europe, the British Commonwealth and the United States, democracy is
based on the theory of the separation of power. This implies that
legislation is being carried out by a freely elected parliament and
executive power being vested either in a government responsible to the
legislature (as in the United Kingdom) or in a President responsible to the
people (as in the United States of America).

In a dimension different to various definitions discussed above, Janda et

al (1992:40-41), identified two major schools of thought as constituents
of democracy. The first school of thought conceives democracy as a form
of government which stresses the procedures that enable the people to
govern, meeting to discuss issues, voting in elections and running for
public offices.

The second school expresses its understanding of democracy from the

prism of the substance of government policies expressed in freedom of
religion and providing for human needs. Thus, for this school of thought,
every democratic government must exhibit certain principles that must be
seen in government policies and must operate on basic criterion such as
guaranteeing civil liberties.

Furthermore, Andrain and Apter (1995:155-156) noted Huntington’s,

understanding of democracy as, “a political system in which voters
choose key decision-makers in competitive free and honest elections”.
This to him, will not only depend largely on extensive electoral
participation, procedural guarantee, and elite accommodation of
conflicting interests, but also by extension facilitate in security beneficial
outcomes: stability of the polity, minimal violence, individual liberty,
gradual social change, and international peace.

Dye and Zeigler (1975:2) hold that the irony of democracy is that it is the
government ‘by the people’, but the responsibility for the survival of such
democracy rest on the shoulders of the elite. The elite must govern wisely
if the government ‘by the people’ is to survive. Drawing instances from
the American political system, Dye and Ziegler contend that the American
masses do not lead, rather they follow and respond to the sentiments,
attitudes, proposals and behaviour of the elite. Dye and Zeigler’s position
was properly captured by Key (1961:558) when he asserts,

130
PHL 253 MODULE 4

The critical elements for the health of the democratic order consist of the
beliefs, standards, and competence of those who constitute the influential,
the political activists, in the order. That group, as has been made plain,
refuses to define itself with great clarity in the American system; yet,
analysis after analysis points to its existence. If democracy tends
indecision and disaster, the responsibility rests with the elite, not with the
mass of people.

Democracy is a political ideology that is celebrated as a method of giving

all citizens an equal share in political decision making. The phenomenon
can be applied in numerous senses. For instance, it emphasizes the need
for members of the population to have an opportunity to participate in the
government of the state through voting. Democracy also stresses the need
for a democratic state to reflect the true interests of the people even
though, sometimes, the people may be ignorant of where their true interest
lie. This, in turn, makes many of them succumb to the whims and caprices
of the elite.

The point we attempt to make is that democracy prescribes that

government be: responsive to the people – ready, able, and willing to
listen to and meet their needs and reasonable demands, and again, be
responsible to the people, that is, be formally accountable to their
authoritative judgments of its performance. In turn, the responsive and
responsible government does not necessarily require or suggest that the
people must rule, but that they exercise a relatively high degree of control
over their rulers (Christenson et al, 1972:199).

3.2 Forms of Democracy

There are different forms of democracy, however, we shall identify and

discuss a few of them. They include:

i. Classical or direct democracy

ii. Indirect or representative democracy
iii. Social-democratic democracy
iv. Constitutional democracy
v. Liberal democracy

Classical/ direct democracy

This was the very first kind of democracy in ancient Greece. It occurs
where all the citizens can meet together in an open place to deliberate on
issues that bother on the collective interest. In this form of democracy, the
people as a whole vote directly on issues that are under consideration.
This was practised in the ancient Greek city-states and it was made
possible because the population was not so large. In Athens, citizens were
entitled to participate directly in the government of the city by voting in

131
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

the assembly of all citizens or serving on a jury. Selection for office was
very democratic. Perhaps, it should be noted here that although, the
Athenians valued their democracy and citizenship highly, yet, only a
minority of the inhabitants were bonafide citizens, women and slaves
were accepted as natural (Winter and Bellows, 1992).

Classical democracy has been criticised on the ground that the citizens
then had a low level of political knowledge, interest and participation
(Medeans 1997). In view of this, Schumpeter adopted what he termed “a
democratic method” that embodies the ways that elite groups and parties
may be able to preside over a formally democratic institutional
arrangement, providing some measure of political competition, but
certainly not fulfilling the values of equality and participation (cited in
Medearis 1997). Pateman corroborated the argument when he contends,
low levels of knowledge, interest, and participation among voters
plausibly could be explained as a product of the undemocratic
organization of certain formative institutions and hence, they could be
incorporated into a critical participatory theory of democracy (cited in
Medearis 1997:820).

Indirect/ representative democracy

This is the modern or contemporary notion of democracy. It developed as
a result of the increase in population and the size of the area to be
governed. In the contemporary time, government activities have become
so complex, and much more than what used to be in the ancient Greek
city-states. To this effect, the people are better governed through
representatives who are periodically elected by the society. It is indirectly
democratic when people vote for representatives who decide on their
behalf.

Example of countries that practice representative democracy are; the

United States, the United Kingdom and Nigeria. However, occasionally,
the United Kingdom holds a referendum on a particular issue, where the
matter is felt to be sufficiently important or controversial to require a
direct mandate from the people as a whole for the decision to be
legitimate. Decisions made by a referendum where the people’s will is
expressed directly are in an obvious sense more “democratic” than those
made by representatives, though, that is not, of course, to say that such
step is better in any way (Swift 2006:184-185).

The indirectness of a decision lessens the extent to which the present will
of the majority of the voters controls political outcomes. In other words,
the more levels of mediation between the people themselves and the
decisions that emerge, the less directly democratic, and the less
democratic the system (Swift, 2006). One major process of actualising
representative democracy is through the periodic election. It is a method

132
PHL 253 MODULE 4

of selecting a few individuals from a large group to represent various

segments of the population. The few elected are seen as the mirror image
of their electors in terms of political programmes, policies and beliefs.
This is pertinent because the representatives are believed to have the
mandate of the people, and the mandate is both the authorization of
representation and also the kernel of responsive and responsible
governance (Ayoade, 1999; Kurfi, 1989).

An examination of the Nigerian society shows that representative

democracy is not yielding enough good fruits because those elected by
the masses to represent them in varying political spheres are rather
pursuing their private interest and not the public interest or the common
good. This has led to various agitations, such as resource control,
restructuring among others and at various levels.

Social democracy
Although, the term social democracy various interpretations. However,
we need to recall that the concept was developed in the late 19th century
in reaction to the excesses of the industrial revolutionary Marxism. Social
democracy always aims at the attainment of, in addition to political
democracy, a high defence of economic and social equality (Winter and
Bellows, 1992). Sweden can serve as a good example of a social
democratic state. Social democracy emphasizes humanistic values and
aimed at improving the conditions of the working class which is found
lacking in capitalism. According to Gombert (2013:79), “though, a
specific social-democratic conception of humanity is rather elusive, it,
however, refers to the freedom of the individual, like liberalism and in
common with a Marxist approach, analyses the social obstacles hindering
the realization of basic rights.”

Social democracy attempts to strike a balance of legitimate interests to

bring self-interest and the common good into accord. A social democrat
emphasizes not government by the people, nor government by the people,
but essentially whether any policy is carried out in the interest of the
people, in the interest of the overwhelming majority or minority.
Freedom, equality/justice and solidarity are core values of social
democracy. It rejects, both in theory and practice, the legitimacy of a
violent assumption of power by a minority. Social democracy does share
some theoretical conceptions commonly associated with commission.
While it supports public ownership of major national industries, it has a
long history of distaste and hatred for the profit system and for the
competitive spirit which underlies capitalism (Christenson, et al. 1972).

Liberal democracy
The proponents of liberal democracy were John Locke, Jean Jacques
Rousseau and Adam Smith. Their ideas laid the base for liberal and

133
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Western democracy particularly in Britain and the United States.

Specifically, Locke’s theoretical underpinning centres on government by
consent of the citizenry and government by the constitution. He argues
that the government has an obligation to protect the natural rights and the
property of citizens. To Rousseau, the ‘general will’ of the community
should prevail. That is, the individual agrees to be ruled as well as to rule,
all are made free. Though the general will is an expression of what the
common requires, it is the expression of the private interests and the
minority views underplayed (Winter and Bellows 1992:66)

Adam Smith, who was a political economist believed that a laissez-faire

type of economy, where individuals pursue their economic interests
freely, unhampered and unencumbered by governmental regulations
would be the best system to, promoting wealth for individuals as well as
that country. In other words, free competition would enhance and promote
a high level of economic and social harmony (Winter and Bellow, 1992).
Typically, the principles of liberal democracy include provisions of
broad-based citizen involvement in the public decision-making process;
the significance of a high degree of freedom or liberty (freedom of the
press, religion, speech, movement, and from arbitrary treatment by the
government).

Liberal democracy characterised the political life of the United States,

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Western European, voluntary
associations, individuals operate independently from direct state control.
It operates on certain principles and mechanisms. These include
government by consent, public accountability, majority rule, recognition
of minority rights, and constitutional government.

Democracy is government by the consent of the people. Rational consent

can be got by persuasion for which an atmosphere of free discussion is
essential. Any regime where the consent of the people is sought to be got
without freedom of expression of divergent opinions does not qualify to
be called a democracy even if it maintains certain democratic institutions.
Similarly, liberal democracy based on the consent of the people must
remain answerable to the people who ensure that rule of the land prevail
in accordance with the constitution (Garuba, 2003).

Constitutional democracy
‘Constitution’ is a document that has a special legal sanctity and which
spells out the purpose or framework of government in a given country,
organisational body etc. It also serves as a collection of norms or set
standards by which a country is governed. It contains statements intended
to define the relations between the rulers and the ruled, the basic
institutional guidelines of the government, the rights and duties of citizens
and many other important procedures to be followed in streamlining the

134
PHL 253 MODULE 4

affairs of the state. It, therefore, follows that in a democracy, a

government is popularly elected under a constitution. The concept of
constitutional democracy expresses the notion of limited government, that
is, the government limited by the constitution in relation to its powers and
the method of exercising them (International IDEPS, 2000: 15).

Constitutional democracy does not only underscore the significance of

ensuring that individuals fundamental rights and separation of the powers
are sacrosanct, but also that it is a democratic culture that regards the
constitution as an inviolable element and above the political struggle for
power, a culture that values fair playing, mutual tolerance and rules which
promote acceptance and respect for the wishes of the people as the
ultimate authority for the government (International IDEA, 2000:16).

3.3 The Values of Democracy

At the beginning of this unit, it was mentioned that there are so many
values of democracy, thus, we shall identify and explain some of the
salient values of democracy. The values of democracy may vary from one
society to another or from one individual to another, but, those that appeal
to many societies include: freedom, self-realisation, equality, good or
correct decisions, and the intellectual and moral development of citizens.

1. Freedom
People living under laws that they have made for themselves enjoy
a kind of freedom – the kind one can refer to as ‘autonomy’, ‘self-
rule’ which is quite different from laws made by others.

Today, the Nigerian citizens are clamouring for a new brand of the
constitution that will be made by themselves (Civilian and not the
1999 constitution that was hurriedly put together by the military).
In other words, democracy is valued as a means to the end of
freedom – as – non-interference. That is where the general will
propagated by Rousseau finds expression.

2. Self-realisation
Self-realisation consists, in parts, the involvement in the life of
one’s polity. The capacity of people attempting to put their acts
together in order to decide the law they want to address a social
problem that threatens the collective interesting of the society is a
good sign of self-realization. It is mainly in a democratic
environment do many citizens get to participate fully in such
political activity, realising creature capable of political creation.

135
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

3. Equality
Equality in relation to democracy emphasizes giving equal
opportunity cum condition to everyone in any given circumstance.
In any decision-making process, there is bound to be
disagreements amongst the stakeholders but the spirit of
democracy makes provision for everyone to express one’s feeling
and sentiment even though such opinions may be unpopular.
Democracy is all about collective deliberation. Though, the
process of democratic debate, argument, reflection, hearing other
people’s point of views and responding to objections, democracy
can be a very good platform for changing and improving people’s
views, that is, if a level playing ground is provided for the parties.

4. Good or correct decisions

This suggests that democracy is instrumental to and also a good
procedure for making good decisions. For instance, policy
formulation requires wide consultation in order to arrive at a better
policy that can stand the test of time. Thus, democracy is good just
because the laws of large numbers mean that many good headers
are better than one or few. Democracy is a deliberative procedure,
hence, through discussion, reflection and debate, citizens who are
initially uninformed and possibly holding selfish views are made
to change for the better.

5. The intellectual and moral development of citizens

The analysis of good or correct decisions dove-tails into the
intellectual and moral development of citizens. The former
crystallizes and streamlines the latter. In a system where some
citizens are denied the privilege of participating in decision
making, such citizens are being directly or indirectly denied mental
or intellectual development as well as achieving their self-
realization. This takes us to the various forms of political cultural-
parochial, subject and participant that exist in the society.
Parochial and subject culture citizens experience a low level of
awareness and expectation while the participant culture citizen
experiences a high level of both awareness and expectation
because he involves himself in a participatory democracy which in
turn, widens his intellectual horizon and moral development.

136
PHL 253 MODULE 4

4.0 CONCLUSION

The various values that democracy entails makes it to be adorable by most

societies. These values place it at a better advantage when compared to
other political ideology. More importantly, the mode of transition from
one government to another in any democratic system of government is
always devoid of crisis if the set rules for the process is strictly adhered
to. However, this is not to say that the system is devoid of some
disadvantages, but it still remains a preferred system of government given
the benefits accruable to society that practice it. The legitimacy comes
from an acceptance of the fairness and transparency of its procedure for
arriving at any socio-political activity such as policy formulation and
implementation. Democracy reveals the extent to which actual political
power to determine people’s social destiny lies in the hand of the vast
majority of citizens who constitute the people as opposed to a ruling
oligarchy or class.

5.0 SUMMARY

In this unit, you have been exposed to the evolution of democracy, but
placing premium or importance on its forms (natures, degrees) and values.
As a matter of fact, there is no way the concept of democracy can be
exhausted in a piece of this nature, given its complexity and degree of
interpretations and analysis.

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Identify the forms of democracy that you have studied.

2. Explain the values of democracy.
3. Define and explain the term democracy.

7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Andrain, C. F. & Apter, D. E. (1995). Political Protestant Social Change.

Analysing Politics. London: Macmillan Press Limited.

Appadorai, A. (1968). The Substance of Politics. India: Oxford University

Press.

Ayoade, J. A. A. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of Election Monitoring in

Nigeria. Ibadan: Vantage Publishers.

Christenson, R. M. et al. (1972). Ideologies and Modern Politics. Great

Britain: Nelson University Paperbacks.

137
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Dye, T. R & Zeigler, L. H. (1975). The Irony of Democracy, An

Uncommon Introduction to American Politics. (3rd ed.). Belmont,
California: Duxbury Press.

Gauba, O. P. (2003). An Introduction to Political Theory. (4th ed.). India:

Macmillan.

Gombert, T. (2013). Social Democracy Reader I: Foundations of Social

Democracy. Berlin.

International IDEA, (2000). “Democracy in Nigeria: Continuing

Dialogue(s) for Nation-Building.” Capacity-Building Series 10.

Janda, K, et al (1992). The Challenge of Democracy. Government in

America. (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Key, V. O. (1961). Public Opinion and American Democracy. New York:

Alfred A. Knopf.

Kukah, M. H. (2000) Democracy and Civil Society in Nigeria. Ibadan:

Spectrum Books Limited

Kurfi, A. (1989). Election Contest: Candidates Companions. Ibadan:

Spectrum Books Limited.

Medearis, J. (1997). “Schumpeter, the New Deal, and Democracy.”

American Political Science Review Vol. 91, No 4, December.

Stumpf, S. E. & Fieser, J. (2003). Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A

History of Philosophy. (7th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.

Swift, A. (2006). Political Philosophy A Beginners’ Guide for Students

and Politicians. United Kingdom: Polity Press.

Weingast, B. B. (1997). “The Political Foundations of Democracy and the

Rule of Law.” American Political Science Review Vol. 91, No 2,
June.

Winter, H. R. & Bellows, T. J. (1992). Conflict and Compromise An

Introduction to Political Science. New York: Harper Collins
Publishers.

Warburton, N. (2004). Philosophy, The Basis. London and New York:

Routledge.

138
PHL 253 MODULE 4

UNIT 4 ANARCHISM

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Anarchism: Conceptual Clarification
3.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Anarchists
3.3 Schools of Thought in Anarchism
3.4 A Critical Evaluation of Anarchism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/ Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This unit will introduce you to the conceptual analysis of the idea of
anarchism as a political ideology that can enhance the utopian state. In the
unit, you shall be exposed to the conceptual clarification of anarchism,
the purpose of the anarchist as well as the various schools of thought in
anarchism. And at the end of the unit, an analysis of the various forms and
objectives of anarchism shall be discussed and attempt shall also be made
to examine some arguments against the anarchist’s position.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 define anarchism
 explain the features of anarchism as a political ideology
 discuss the objectives and purpose of the anarchist
 identify the various forms of anarchism that we have in human
society
 provide arguments for and against anarchism as a political concept.

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 Anarchism: Conceptual Clarification

The word anarchy is as old as the world. It is derived from two Greek
words: ‘av’ (an) and ‘apxn’ (arkhe), meaning the absence of authority or
government, but, it has come to be understood in a pejorative sense as a
synonym for disorder, chaos and disorganization (Guerin, 1970).

139
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Anarchy refers to a society without a central political authority and it is

also used to refer to disorder or chaos, but, this is not the true reflection
of anarchism. Anarchism is a term that is used to “describe the political
and socio-political doctrines which have the purpose of establishing
justice, equality and fraternity in the society” (lrele, 1998: 89). It achieves
this by abolishing the state and other social forms of authority which they
believe destroy any form of governmental organization. According to
Irele, “Anarchism detests all forms of authority which they believe
destroy individual freedom. They contend that all forms of authority are
detrimental to social and economic equality. The position here is that
anarchist denies any claim to legitimate authority by one man over
another” (Ibid).

Anarchism has developed as a result of social and current issues, which

aimed at freedom and happiness during the 19th century. The word
anarchism literally means without rulers, without masters or leaders.
Anarchism, according to Berkman, is a “liberation front. A liberation
front is a group of people determined to help others attain a life of
freedom” (Berkman, 1929:23).

In defending anarchism, Rudolph Rocker posits:

Anarchism is not a fixed, self-enclosed social system but rather a definite
trend in the historic development of mankind, which, in contrast with the
intellectual guardianship of all clerical and government institutions, strive
for the free unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in
life. Even freedom is only a relative, not an absolute concept since it tends
constantly to become broader and to affect a wider circle in a more
manifold way. For the anarchist, freedom is not an abstract philosophical
concept, but the vital concrete possibility for every human being to bring
to full development all the powers capacities and talents with which
nature has endowed him, and turn them to social account. The less this
natural development of man is influenced by ecclesiastical or political
guardianship, the more efficient and harmonious will human personality
become; the more will it become the measure of the intellectual culture of
the society in which it has grown (Rudolf, 1938:71).

Resulting from this is the view that any form of authority and oppression
should be dismantled. Freedom is also a necessary impetus for achieving
this goal but not absolute because of its likely negative effect on the wider
society). Anarchism literally means “no rule”. Its central thesis is
establishing any organized institution with the authority to use force is
evil (or less morally inefficient).

According to Onigbinde (2009: 225), the anarchists base their argument

on the idea that each person is a free, rational, morally responsible agent,
thus it is immoral for anyone to order anyone else to do anything.

140
PHL 253 MODULE 4

Submitting to the authority itself is wrong. To do so is to try to renounce

namely, one’s moral autonomy (Onigbinde 2009 225). It is to choose to
be what one is not, that is, a subservient, dependent creature. “To delegate
(to the government) the responsibility for defending oneself against
aggressors is impossible. One cannot make another person one’s moral
agent” (Onigbinde 2009: 225). To the anarchist, government exists by
unjustified force and it is responsible for the disorderliness in the society.
The anarchists also hold that only a society without a government could
restore the natural order and re-create social harmony(Onigbinde 2009).

3.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Anarchists

The anarchist regard the state as the most deadly of the preconceptions
which have blinded men through the ages. Government, according to
Proudhon, “has always presented itself to man’s mind as the natural organ
of justice and the protocol of the weak” (Proudhon, 1963:91). The
argument of anarchism, therefore, is the rejection of all forms of authority.
The anarchist argues that the state is evil because its activities restrict or
limits the freedom of the individuals. According to Godwin (1793: 24),

Government lays its hands upon the spring that is in the society and puts
a stop to its motion. It gives substance and permanence to our errors. It
reverses the genuine propensities of mind and instead of suffering to look
forward, teaches it to look backwards for perfection.

What can be inferred from Godwin’s assertion is that, the state applies
pressure on the individual and that political, social and economic interests
only serve to keep a man in ignorance of his true interests and perpetuate
his vices. But then, you must note that Godwin’s position is only
corroborating Proudhon’s initial attack on the government in support of
anarchism when he asserts:

To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed,

legislated, regimented, closed in, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled,
asserted, evaluated, censored, commanded; all by creatures that have
neither the right, nor wisdom, nor virtue…. To be governed means that
every move, operation, or transaction one is noted, registered, entered in
a consensus, taxed, stamped, priced, assessed, patented, licensed,
authorized, recommended… all in the name of public utility and the
general good. Then at the first sign of resistance or complaint, one is
repressed, fined, despised, vexed, pursued, hustled, beaten up, judged,
sentenced, deported, sold, betrayed and to cap it all ridiculed, mocked
outraged and dishonoured (Proudhon, 1970:23).

From Proudhon’s assertion, therefore, the simple meaning we can deduce

from Anarchism is freedom. In other words, it stands against being

141
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

enslaved, coerced by the so-called authority or against any form of

imposition upon man. It means that one should be free to do the things
one wishes to do. It means a condition or society where all men and
women are free and where all enjoy equally the benefits of an ordered and
sensible life. According to Berkman (1929: 20),

Law and government stand for robbery and murder. It permits and
helps this robbery by ruling that the land which no man created
belongs to the landlords; the railroads which the workers built
belong to railroad magnates; the warehouse, grain elevators and
storehouses erected by the workers belong to the capitalist, while
the police and soldiers who are also poor men are paid to protect
the very system that keeps them poor.

The view of the anarchists is that man should be able to live in a society
where there is no compulsion of any kind. It, therefore, seeks for the
abolishing of government wage slavery and capitalism because they
cannot exist without the support and protection of the government. The
anarchist then conceives of a society in which all the mutual relations of
the members are regulated not by law but by mutual agreements between
members. Kropotkin (1912:64) substantiate this thus:

The anarchist concerns of the society in which all the mutual relations of
its members are regulated not by laws, not by authorities whether self-
imposed or elected but by mutual agreements between members of that
society and by a sum of social customs and habits-not petrified by law…
no ruling authorities, then, no government of man by man; no
crystallisation and immobility brought about by state authority.

Every state is a tyranny, be it the tyranny of a single man or a group. Every

state is necessarily what we call totalitarian. Kropotkin further
corroborates this position when he posits:

the state has always one purpose; to limit, control, subordinate the
individual and subject him to the general-purpose.., through its
censorship, its supervision and its police, the state tries to obstruct all free
authorizes and sees this repression as its duty because its instincts of sole
preservation demand it (Stirner 2006: 64).

Thus to him and for other anarchists, all forms of state authority are
inimical to individual freedom. The anarchist sees the state as an
abstraction that devours people’s lives and on the basis of which the real
aspirations and living forces of a country generously and blissfully allow
themselves to be buried. According to Guerin (1974: 24). “Far from
creating energy, government by its method, wastes, paralyses and
destroys enormous potentials”.

142
PHL 253 MODULE 4

Democracy is seen by the anarchist as tyranny. The people are tricked to

declare their sovereign. The people rule but do not govern and delegate
their sovereignty through the periodic exercise of universal suffrage. The
very theory of sovereignty of the people contains its own negation. If the
entire people were truly sovereign,

there would no longer be either government or governed; the sovereign

would be reduced to nothing; the state would have no ransom d’tre, would
be identical with society and disappear into the industrial organisation”
(Guerin 1974: 24).

The implication of the above is that representative democracy only creates

and safeguards the continued existence of governmental aristocracy
against the people. To this end, the anarchist frowns at any form of
government.

3.3 Schools of Thought in Anarchism

Anarchist schools of thought differ fundamentally from extreme

individualism to complete collectivism. These strains of anarchism have
often been divided into categories of social and individual anarchism. We
shall consider some of these schools of thought in anarchism:

- Philosophical Anarchism: This was propounded by William

Godwin. He developed what could be considered as Modern
anarchist thought. Philosophical anarchism contends that the state
lacks moral legitimacy; that there is no individual obligation or
duty to obey the state and that the state has no right to command
individuals, but it does not advocate revolution to abolish the state.
According to Godwin (2014: 3), “Philosophical anarchism
requires individuals to act in accordance with their own judgments
and to allow every other individual the same liberty” The existence
of a minimal state according to him, is a “necessary evil, that
gradual spread of knowledge” (Godwin 2014: 3). He advocated
extreme individualism, proposing that all cooperation on labour be
eliminated.

- Mutualism Anarchism: This began in the 18th century and

associated with Pierre Joseph Proudhon in France. Mutualist
anarchism is concerned with reciprocity, free association,
voluntary contract, federation and credit and currency reform. As
pointed out by Kelvin (1840: 241), “A market without government
intervention drives prices down to labour theory of value; firms
will be forced to compete over workers just as workers compete
with firms, raising wages. Proudhon develops a concept of liberty

143
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

which is the dialectical synthesis of communism and property.

Mutualism is the synthesis of three philosophies, namely,
communism, capitalism and socialism.

- Social Anarchism: This is an umbrella term used to identify a

broad category of anarchism independent of individualist
anarchism. Where individual forms emphasize “personal
autonomy and the rational nature of human beings, social
anarchism sees individual freedom as conceptually connected with
social equality and emphasize community mutual understanding
(Judith, 2001: 627). Social anarchist includes collective anarchist,
anarcho-communism and anarchist syndication.
i. Collective anarchism is propounded by Mikhail Bakunim and
Johann Most. It opposes all private ownership of the means of
production instead of advocating that ownership be collective.
ii. Anarcho-communism is a theory in anarchism which advocates the
abolition of the state, markets, money, private properties (while
retaining respect for personal property) and capitalism in favour of
common ownership of the means of production.
iii. Anarcho-syndicalism: Led by Rudolph Rocker is a distinct school
of thought within anarchism. It focused heavily on the labour
movement than other forms of anarchism. Anarcho-syndicalists
seek to abolish the wage system and private ownership of the
means of production, which they believe lead to class division.

- Individualist Anarchism: This refers to several traditions of

thoughts ‘will’ over any kinds of external determinants such as
groups. It comprises of egoist anarchism and individual anarchism.
- Egoist Anarchism: This is a school of thought that originated in
the philosophy of Max Stirner. Stirner’s philosophy is usually
called ‘egoism’. He says that egoist rejects devotion to “a great
idea, a good cause, a doctrine, a system, a lofty calling. The egoists
have no political calling but rather live themselves out without
regard to how well or ill humanity may fare thereby” (Stirner,
2006: 4). He proposes that most commonly accepted social
institutions – including the notion of society-were mere spooks in
the mind. He, therefore, wanted to abolish not only the state but
also society as an institution responsible for its members (Ulirike,
1994: 90).

- Individualist Anarchism: Individualist anarchism advocated free

love and women’s right. Proudhon was an early pioneer of
anarchism as well as individualist anarchism through the
publication of his seminal work “The Ego and its Own” which is
considered to be a founding text in the tradition of individualist
anarchism (Stirner, 2006: 41).

144
PHL 253 MODULE 4

- Religious Anarchism: This refers to a set of related anarchist

ideologies that are inspired by the teachings of organised religions.
Many different religions have served as inspirations for religious
forms of anarchism, most notably Christianity and Islam. Christian
anarchists believe that biblical teachings give credence to anarchist
philosophy while the Islamic anarchists also believe that Quranic
teachings give credence to anarchist philosophy. Others include
Buddhist, Jewish and most recently, Neopaganism anarchism.

- Green Anarchism: This is also referred to as eco-anarchism

(Pepper, 1990). It is a school of thought within anarchism which
emphasises environmental issues. An early influence was the
thought of the American anarchist, Henry David, as well as Leo
Tolstoy.

- Anarcho - Feminism: is a form of anarchism that synthesizes

radical feminism and anarchism that views patriarch (male
domination over women) as a fundamental manifestation of
involuntary hierarchy which anarchists often oppose. Anarcho-
feminism was inspired in the late 19th century by the writings of
feminist anarchists such as Lucy Parsons, Emma Goldman and
Voltairine de Cleyre. Anarcho-feminists criticize and advocate the
abolition of traditional conceptions of family, education and
gender roles. They frown at marriage. For instance, Goldman
(2014: 205) argues that “Marriage is a purely economic
arrangement … (woman) pays for it with her name, her privacy,
her self-respect and her very life”.

- Left-Wing Market Anarchism: This is associated with scholars

like Kelvin Carson, Roderick, T Long, Charles Johnson, Bray
Spangler, etc. They stress the value of the radically free market,
termed free markets to distinguish them from the common
understanding.

Despite the differences in the positions of the various forms of anarchism

that we have discussed, it is imperative to say, there are common
denominators that unite all kinds of anarchist opposition to authority,
opposition to states, and opposition to any form of conceptualism. Apart
from syndicalism, anarchism is marked by a very middle-class focus on
the freedom and authority of individuals which the libertarians believe to
be riddled with the statist and capitalist privileges (William, 2011:19-21).
Those who move this approach strongly affirm the classical liberal ideas
of self-ownership and free markets.

145
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

3.4 A Critical Evaluation of Anarchism

It has been argued that one way of bringing order to a society is to give to
some people in the society the exclusive power to create and coercively
enforce rules, which all members of society must follow; that is, to create
a government. Another way to ensure order in society is, to allow people
to follow rules that spontaneously evolve through human interaction with
no guiding intelligence. Although, anarchist contended that government
is not a necessity in the state because it is evil and so must be abolished.
However, some defenders of government have also argued that certain
goods and services that are essential to human life in society can be
supplied only by the government. They contend that without government
to create the rule of law, human beings will be unable to banish violence
and coordinate their actions sufficiently. Aside, to ensure a peaceful and
prosperous society will not only be impossible but it will also lead to
Hobbesian existence of the state of nature. In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes
argues, “Social order in the absence of an effective government would
devolve into a war of all against all and life would be nasty, solitary,
brutish and short” (Hobbes, 1839: 57). In the same vein, John Locke
argues in favour of government when he opines, “A society without a state
would not be as effectively organised as a society governed” (Locke,
1690:21). Adam Smith further strengthens this position when he says,
“Commerce and manufacturing could not flourish outside a state of just
government” (Adam, 1976: 17).

There is no doubt that government structure matters for economic

interaction. A state structure which aligns incentives to minimize
predation economically outperforms one that provides incentives for the
predation by the powerful over the weak. But it is also the case that
government by its very nature is predatory and thus will be used by some
to exploit others wherever and whenever the coercive power of the
government is established. Fundamentally, the government can only be
constrained if the people, the government is established to govern can
coordinate around the norms of governance
which are self-enforcing (Harden, 1999:112).

Defenders of the government claim that government is necessary to

produce public goods; goods that are important for human well-being
that may either be produced or will be under-produced by the market. This
position could be derived by the anarchist that government has lost grip
on the provision of public goods since private people are now more
involved in the provision of public goods. The question is where does the
private get the money used in setting up private institutions for public
consumption?

146
PHL 253 MODULE 4

The anarchist largely believe that social order could be maintained if all
sources of social disruption and all temptations to disobedience are
removed. To the anarchist, the major cause of social evil is private
property which induces all sorts of destructive sentiments and desires.
They contend that private property brings about social, economic and
political inequalities and if an egalitarian society is to be achieved; all
social inequalities must be removed (Dipo, 1980: 99).

4.0 CONCLUSION

Man was conceived by Aristotle as a rational animal. He identifies human

being’s ability to reason as their essential defining characteristics. Truly,
human beings not only have the ability to reason but they also have the
ability to imagine that the world is different from what it is and this is a
far more powerful force than the latter. However, human nature is an
important factor to consider as man is ambivalent in nature, thereby
making an egalitarian society difficult to attain. The cry of the anarchists
must be commented but they have failed to understand that a state without
government is a lawless state. In this state of anarchy, the stronger will
overpower the weaker and take over his possession but the government
still protects this misuse of power, though the government itself is
anarchy.

5.0 SUMMARY

So far in the unit, you have been introduced to the philosophical thought
of the anarchist. You have studied the various schools of thought in
anarchism and the anarchist conception of democracy. The unit concludes
with some argument against the anarchist philosophical thought.

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. Outline the various schools of thought in anarchism.

2. Define anarchism and explain their main objectives.
3. Do you think anarchism as a philosophy can be defended?

147
PHL 253 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Adam, S. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Berkman, A. (1929). What Is Communist Anarchism? New York:

Vanguard Press.

Godwin, W. (1973). Enquiry Concerning Political Justice. London:

Routledge Press.

Godwin, W. (2014). “Anarchist Schools of Thought”. Accessed on

15/06/2014.

Goldman, E. (2014). “Marriage and Love”. Accessed from

[Link] on 14/06/2014.

Guerin, D. (1970). Anarchism: From Practice to Theory, New York:

Monthly Review Press. Accessed from [Link]
com/capitolhill/1931/guerin/[Link], on 11/06/2014.

Hardin, R. (1999). Liberalism, Constitutionalism and Democracy. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Irele, D. (1998). Introduction to Political Philosophy. Ibadan: Ibadan

University Press.

Judith, S. (2001). “Anarchism: Utopias and Philosophy of Education.”

Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35 (4).

Kelvin, C. (2014). Accessed from [Link]

on 16/06/2014.

Kropotkin, P. (1912). Modern Science and Anarchism. London:

Macmillan, p64.

Locke, J. (1690). “Treastise on Civil Government.” In: T. Hobbes. De

Corpore Politico. London: Molesworth.

Onigbinde, A. (2009). What Is Philosophy? Ibadan: Frontline Resources

Ltd.

Pepper, D. (1990). Modern Environmentalism. London: Routledge.

Proudhon, J. S. (1970). What Is Property? In: D. Guerin (Ed.). Anarchism:

From Practice to Theory.

148
PHL 253 MODULE 4

Rudolf, R. (1938). Anarchosyndicalism. London: Seeker & Warburg.

Ryner, H. (2014). Anarchism, State and Individual Liberty. Accessed

from https:// [Link] .org/193/html, on 15/06/2014.

Stirner, M. (2006). “The Ego and Its Own.” in the Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy.

Ulrike, H. (1994). Anarchism Left, Right and Green. San Francisco: City
Lights Books.

William, G. (2011). “The Freed Market.” In: C. Gary & Johnson (Eds.)
Markets Not Capitalism. New York: Minor Composition
/Automodia.

149