When, if ever, is it legitimate to overthrow a government? Flashcards
Introduction
Introduction:
1.) Hobbes
2.) Rosseau
3.) Locke
Criteria: where is the barrier to overthrowing a government should be (if any)?
Hobbes
We should only overthrow tyrannical regimes which harm the people.
- Hobbes – A government’s role is to protect its citizens from harm. If this is fulfilled, there is no reason to overthrow. (Therefore, only overthrowing in extreme circumstances).
- To Hobbes, his gov structure is a better alternative than others because when left to our own devices, life is “poor, nasty, brutish and short”.
An example of this happened 20 years in Iraq, where the assassination of Saddam Hussein led to a power vacuum which led to the emergence of ISIS and the Iraqi War (2003-2011)
- Hobbes would say that the example above gives insight into the chaos that may ensue if an authoritarian structure is overthrown.
- Therefore, for Hobbes the best way for humans to live is under his social contract —> Overthrowing these ‘tyrannical’ structures would only result in chaos.
Criticisms of Hobbes
- Does Hobbes overcomplicate the state of nature? —> Is it really as bad as he makes out to be?
- Strengthened by a study (called Nature) in 2017 in which it was found that 6-year-olds were willing to give their own resources to help others. Infants who saw a puppet struggling to reach a toy were more likely to help it.
- What if the people are not represented – why would they owe an obligation to a regime which does not even consider their opinions? real life examples: PARTYGATE SCANDAL (Do we truly gain more in this society??)
- Impacts? Hobbesian-style autocracy would allow for an inequality typical of authoritarian regimes.
- Evaluation: Hence this is too high a barrier for overthrowing Governments
Rosseau
We should overthrow regimes which do not represent our voices adequately enough
- Rousseau – A government, which is unrepresentative of the general will, is not legitimate, and MUST therefore be overthrown. Consequently, we can overthrow if generally dissatisfied with leadership.
- By general will, Rosseau means the will of the people as whole, which is based on the common good and the best long-term solution for the community
- Being an elected assembly mandate does not give mandate to act against the general will
- However, Rosseau emphasizes that the decision to overthrow the government should not be taken lightly —> Last resort
- “As soon as [the people] can decide upon the matter, the matter is already decided; and as soon as they can act, the time for action has already passed.”
Criticisms of Rosseau
- Are these requirements too lenient?
- Surely, we are obligated to allow those we elect to see out their terms (in a democracy).
- Is it not unrealistic and impractical to have every decision gain the universal assent of the people?
- Impacts? Such a system would be chaotic as there would be no political stability.
The general will changes all the time – initial calls for lockdown vs demands to come out of it.
The government cannot sustainably govern by changing policy constantly to suit public opinion.
Difficultdecisionsmust be made e.g. Lockdown, austerity, declarations of war. A good example of Rosseau’s gov failing is the Weimar Republic —> Had immense failures and arguably led to the rise of an even worse leader (Hitler).
Hence this is too low a barrier for overthrowing Governments.
Locke
We should only overthrow a government which fails to meet the NEEDs (natural rights) of the people.
- Locke – A government which adequately maintains the status of the liberty and the wellbeing of its people should be considered legitimate.
- It needs to generally act in the interests of the people, even if this is not apparent to the general will
- Therefore, Rebellion is a last resort and should be conserved for governments which fail to provide theconditionsunder which the people can enjoy their rights under natural law.
- Only then are we entitled to remove them, by force if necessary.
