The governance of community has been a central topic for civilisation. With the change of social surrounding such as advancement of technology, the ways in which community is governed has repeatedly been appearing in the discussion.

For example, in the US context, the difference of democratic and republic governance was focused. A democracy and a republic are different: “first, the delegation of government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens and greater sphere of country over which the latter may be extended”(1). In other words, “It is that in a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region” (2).

Later days, look at the technological context, in the early days of web1.0 and web2.0, the notion of emergence and decentralisation were focused. Some believed it makes the political sphere better, contrarily the negative aspects appeared too influential than predicted. The web3 poses the concept of Decentralised Autonomous Organisation (DAO) as one of the key concepts and some try to improve governance again.

When it comes to governance, the notion of consent-based governance has been powerful and a key concept in political theory. Citizens give their consent to become member of the community, and it creates the solidarity as a nation. However as time passes, it seems that people, except intellectuals and political theory scholars, do not so much consciously think of governance from the perspective of consent. This essay puts the notion of consent to the front in considering the form of governance. Thinking of governance in terms of consent demonstrates the robustness of the concept. Also, putting that concept in centre of organisation of a community seems causing less trouble and enhance efficiency as well as protection of rights and liberty, that is the reason that this essay rethinks about the governance from that perspective.

Politics is required as people have different interests. Without somewhat of organisation among them, they would be in conflict each other for their own interests. In order to have safety of life and stability in their life without having war or conflict with others, people give their consent to a state, by which the stability in where they live in would be maintained. The compact is a form of paradigm which can maintain the stability. Even having said that, one cannot say that no conflict occurs. It is less probability of conflict. When internal conflict took place, authority intervenes for the sake of the people and the community in which people of different interests live.

As for authority, the authority authorised by the consent of its people intervenes in the conflicts taking place in the community. Consent from the people makes legitimacy of government(3). Giving consent is similar to admitting it as authority, by which authority can keep themselves. Since they are given consent from the people, they are authorised and have legitimacy to exercise their power over the community and people. Importantly, persons “are not obliged unless they so sanction by their free consent”(4). From another perspective, consent and trust is interrelated as without trust people would not like to give one’s trust to them. Plus, respect may work similarly towards authority.

On the consent which people give, it needs to be a variety of types, not just the explicit consent to make it work. It is because merely explicit consent cannot deal with the reality fully in detail. One of the aspects that is difficult to cope with is the mortality. The same people cannot live perpetually, the generation changes from one to another over time, and people do not share the concept in the same intensity. To make the political community work based on the notion for a longer period of time, the paradigm has to be kept in force even if the generation changes from one to another successively. Meeting this requirement could not be fulfilled with just explicit consent. Considering the situation that the people of a political community is not so much conscious of consent after having passed a long time since the implementation, the indirect consent or logic in  paradigm of consent is required if it wants to sustain.

(1) Hamilton, A., Madison, J. & Jay, J., 2008. The Federalist Papers. New York: Oxford University Press. p.52.

(2) Hamilton, A., Madison, J. & Jay, J., 2008. The Federalist Papers. New York: Oxford University Press. p.68.

(3) Locke, J., 2016. Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. New York: Oxford University Press. p. viii.

(4) Locke, J., 2016. Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. New York: Oxford University Press. p. xvi.