Governance in the perspective of consent (3/3)

Published 17 July 2023, Last updated 18 July 2023

Hopefully, in order to have the stability in the governance, the architecture of politics which doesn’t much depend on the quality of the ruler and the ruled and systematically prevent the occurrence of negative sides is what needs to be considered.

When it comes to the negative aspects, think of the citizens gained power thanks to decentralisation, there could be a situation in which the masses go to the wrong direction which cannot be redirected into the right by a few; contrarily when power is centred to a few and when they are corrupt, it is difficult to get it right by the rest of people. Furthermore, if a platform is owned by a person in influence, the turnover has significant impact on its ecosystem. The stability of society may be maintained by the decentralisation of power into the edge which could prevent the sudden instability caused by the transfer of power from a person in power to another, and the empowerment of the citizens in society constantly.

The concept of consent requires the care about coercion. For example, submission and consent are different in the perspective that “both involve acceptance, but only the latter is valorized by free agency”(8). Forcing one to give his consent cannot be said free consent. The importance of free consent is that “Force cannot convince the mind of anything. We can enforce outward behaviour, but not inward conviction”(9). Making governance by consent could face the problem of coercion. It could cause social pressures to oppress one’s opinion.

In order to have resilience in governance as well as suitability to a wider variety of people, the flexibility might work better if it is incorporated. People are different as some are more inclined to individualism and others are not. If it could be flexibly changed depending on the characteristics of the people, it could be adaptable to wider range of citizens and situations. For example, those who prefer individualism would as much as they can represent their own ideas by themselves although, as a citizen, there is going to be a certain limit of self-representation. That is because without such limitation people would participate as in direct democracy. There’s certain sort of harmonization with the concept of indirect democracy in the consent governance as the latter chooses the representatives. In terms of practicing, there would be communities in any size for governance, otherwise complete individualism and complete direct democracy which go to unstable when the public is influenced in large scale to the wrong direction.

Another domain of importance is the rights of citizens. Even in terms of protecting the rights of citizens, the model of consent is supposed to work. In order to ensure the “unalienable Rights”(8) of citizens, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”(11). In the history of US context, it was argued that “the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty”(12). It doesn’t violate people’s liberty and rights. To incorporate these ideas is consentocracy which is a form of governance based on consent and puts the concept of consent to the front.

However, in the perspective of the rights, they are not limited to those of citizens’ end. Around 20th and 21st centuries, the rights of citizens and minorities have been often claimed. Due to that movement, society has progressed towards protecting them, which is a remarkable advancement. In this context, it often is talked from the perspective of citizens however, it may better to assume that rights are not limited to citizens, and it is what authority also can have. For the sake of maintaining the stability of a community, people are required to serve at least some portions to the community. If people are obliged to follow what authority orders which is for the benefits of community and its happiness, their duty could be ranged a variety of things. When they are at danger such as war, in order to preserve the existence of that state, they may be given the order to join the war for the sake of preservation. While one country takes action for their preservation against another, another would be also at danger. At the time, for instance, when facing war, the right of life and of death — its history dates back to patria potestas — can be exercised(13). One country to preserve their existence, they kill the people of another(14). The power which authority has could put the lives of person the end. It is that “those who are a sort of biological danger towards the others”(15) can be killed by the exercise of power(16).

Going back to the paradigm of consent, in order to be a member of a political community, consent model is used and it has the mechanism of justification of authority of a state. Without having a state mechanism, it could be chaotic that people of different interests often collide each other, even the danger of life may be caused. For the stability and safety of life, to create community and have a set of rules based on consent is an option. In the situation that states are established, states of different interests would be at war. When facing war with another state, their state is put at danger. For preserving their state, they have to be at war with another, otherwise they are defeated, that means that their members need to be had in war. If the reasons that members of a political community first gave their consent was to preserve the safety of their life, without it they are more likely to be in conflict one another, they will become under danger, even if they belonged to the community, at the time war broke out. This may be called dilemma. Without having balance of power among states, it is difficult to avoid war.

Compact could be a form of mutual understanding that lets society work. Based on the concept, people make agreement which would make the frequency of conflict less happen. The agreement given by their free consent makes a sort of paradigm that people rely on for the organisation of a state. Even in the technological context of the late 20th and the beginning of 21st century, the robust concept of compact has been influential and it is one of the key components in governance.

(8) Locke, J., 2016. Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. NewYork: Oxford University Press. p. xii.

(9) Locke, J., 2016. Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. NewYork: Oxford University Press. p. xxv.

(10) Lessig, L., 2019. Fidelity & Constraint: How the Suprime Court Has Read the American Constitution. NewYork: Oxford University Press. p.13. Lessig referred to Thomas Jefferson. The words come from what Jefferson had written.

(11) Lessig, L., 2019. Fidelity & Constraint: How the Suprime Court Has Read the American Constitution. NewYork: Oxford University Press. p.13. Lessig referred to Thomas Jefferson. The words come from what Jefferson had written.

(12) Hamilton, A., Madison, J. & Jay, J., 2008. The Federalist Papers. NewYork: Oxford University Press. p.13.

(13) Foucault, M., 1976. Histoire de la sexualité I: La volonté de savoir. Paris: Gallimard. pp.177-178.

(14) Foucault, M., 1976. Histoire de la sexualité I: La volonté de savoir. Paris: Gallimard. p.180.

(15) Foucault, M., 1976. Histoire de la sexualité I: La volonté de savoir. Paris: Gallimard. p.181. The original text is French.

(16) Foucault, M., 1976. Histoire de la sexualité I: La volonté de savoir. Paris: Gallimard. p.181.