1

Name: Melit Jane R. Yu Section: B6 Submitted to: Dr. Enrique B. Batara

Subject: POS150–Introduction to Political Theory Date: December 13, 2019

I begin this essay with the conviction that how we understand the politics, the city, and

the society of today has to be coming from something. It is then important to take a step back,

look at the past and ask: What are the world’s very first works of political theory? What are the

basis upon which everything we know today is built? The knowledge of these matters will have

impacts on our assumptions about political life, normative beliefs about political policies and

actions, and our understanding and analysis of local and national political issues.

Theme 1: Why do we need a government?

They say people would better appreciate the value of something when it is no longer

there. So, when we think of a world without a government, what do we see? Is it chaos, anarchy,

or total liberation? Are men naturally good? Are men naturally evil? Without a government to

regulate our behavior, what do we “naturally” do? In the absence of a government, do we then

better appreciate its presence? Nevertheless, I am strongly convinced that something like this is

far from possible to happen. For as long as politics remain to be the essence of social existence;

for as long as there ought to be an authoritative allocation of values to avoid conflict; for as long

as the naturally ruling governs over the naturally ruled; and politics remain to be everywhere,

there will be a government. After all, the Greek philosopher and Father of Political Science,

Aristotle did assert that the state is a creation of nature and that “Man by nature is a political a

political animal.”

The question then to be answered by the theories we learned in out course on

Introduction to Political Theory is: Why do we need a government?

In the first day of class, one of our activities was be in groups. I was surrounded by

people I do not yet know. First, people would appear to be timid and collected but when

pressured by a time limit, one of few would take the lead. This is an implication that if we are to

get things done, one ought to stand up and lead over the others; or if the room is in a mess and
 2

there is a class going on in the other room, one or few would stand to tame the other’s behavior.

In simple social situations like these, we can observe how politics work. In a bigger context, the

government is this one of few classmates that leads the group. Moreover, usually it is these

classmates that would eventually run for student politics sooner or later. I better understood this

concept because of Aristotle’s idea that “One is by nature ruler, and the other a subject”.

For the political philosophers, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rosseau,

they believe in social contract theory. Hobbes and Lock have this similar concept of the “state of

nature” where there is no common power. This means there is no law, and where there is no law,

there is no injustice. Without injustice, there is no such thing as ownership. Here, each man and

woman has executive power over his life, liberty, and property. Without a common power or

civil authority to serve as mediator or arbiter, things can get messy. Without the government to

ensure protection, everyone can claim their natural right to defend themselves. We need a

government “to be able to defend from invasion, injuries of one another, to secure them by their

own industry, to nourish themselves,” says Hobbes. We need a government because man is “full

of fears and continual dangers…he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others… for

mutual preservation of life, liberties and property,” says Locke. Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics

asserts that the fear of punishment stops people form doing bad things.

For Hobbes, there is a “social contract” between ruler and ruled – a covenant between the

sovereign and the subjects or multitude, and that the only way to provide social order is for

everyone to acknowledge a perpetual sovereign power. For Locke, man can come “out of a state

of nature into that of a common-wealth”. For Rosseau, from the savage man, man evolved

because of man’s natural tendency to establish societies (conjugal, to families, to societies). All

these explain why human beings, as rational and social animals, inevitably forms societies

though interactions and socialization.

In the status quo, there are many issues that countries and societies struggle to face. There

are issues that threaten human life, liberty, and security. There is terrorism in the Middle East,

religious conflicts, migration issues, war on drugs in Latin America, kidnapping, extrajudicial

killings in the Philippines, and even minor conflicts and disputes among citizens on the local
 3

level. All these problems exists today even in the presence of a government, what more in its

absence? Which is why the government ought to make better policies and actions for fulfil their

duty to the people. Policies that answers how do we best protect our natural rights – the rights we

have simply because we are human beings.

Theme 2: Can government be justified? Do we have a duty to obey?

When is something justifiable? Something is justifiable when we feel the need for its

existence, when its being is something reasonable, well-grounded and does more good than

harm, or if it satisfies the greater good in the end. I used to believe that the government can be

justified just because it has long been here since time immemorial. I thought coercion was

enough reason to obey, or perhaps, as a Filipino, our strong sense of nationalism drives us loyal

to the government or the country. It was in our course on the Introduction to Political Theory that

I had a better grounding to the answers of these political questions.

For the political philosophers, John Locke and Jeremy Bentham who believes in consent

theory, the government can be justified when it has the consent of the governed. For Locke, it is

the consent of the governed that legitimizes governments, such as monarchies, making them

lawful. He is strongly against the idea of paternal sovereignty, asserting that while fathers have

natural rights over their children, kings do not have natural rights over their subjects, because if

that is the case, there is no more sense of consent from the governed. The transmission of

political power should not be based on the family line. In other words, it should not be

hereditary. This idea may be the basis of other forms of government that are not hereditary

monarchical in nature – such as democracy where people get to elect whoever.

Locke strongly opposes the claim that God had made all people naturally subject to a

monarch – especially an absolute monarch. He sees that a government without consent from the

governed is problematic. For one reason, our professor mentioned that kings have short-lived

reign because they get assassinated by people unwilling to be subject to their command. A

notable example in our discussion in class is in Thailand where the people revered the king but
 4

upon his death, his son succeeded the throne. Sadly, the people did not support the new king as

much as they did the previous one. Therefore, the new king’s legitimacy as a ruler lessens

because of the lack of support and consent from the people.

The next question would then be: how can one give his consent when you are already

born under that government? Locke answers this with his assertion that, “every one that is born

under the dominion of another may be so free too and may become a ruler, or subject, of a

distinct separate government.” In a sense, people have the right either to stay or to transfer from

one government to another. It may be in this idea that today’s concept of naturalization as a

voluntary method of acquiring citizenship is grounded whether we realize it or not. The 1987

Philippine Constitution, Article IV presents “Citizenship”. Naturalization is defined by De Leon

(2014) as the act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of the state and clothing

him with the rights and privileges of citizenship. It implies the renunciation of a former

nationality and the fact of entrance to a similar relation towards a new body politic. See, by

pledging your allegiance to the new state, you are giving your consent to that government.

For Bentham, Government can be justified because its power is limited, in a sense that

there is a room for resistance for those people who disagree with the actions of government. It is

also justifying because its duty does not merely refer to the creation of laws but to spread the

knowledge of whatever laws are made. The duty to obey applies only to the people who do not

wish to resist. If one chooses to resist, he does not have the duty to obey because he does not

consent in submitting his wills to the said supreme body (government). As a utilitarian, Bentham

believes that obeying is commendable as long as it satisfies the greater good in the end.

The next question is: for what extent are we bound to obey? For Locke, firstly, when one

gives his consent to a government, that consent only covers his life, and not the life of his

children. The latter are to have their decision whether or not to give consent to the government at

the “age of discretion”, as Locke puts it. He says, “…It is plain then that by the law of right

reason, that a child is born a subject of no country or government. He is under his father’s tuition

and authority, till he comes to age of discretion; and then he is a freeman, at liberty what

government he will put himself under.” The government has power over the land but not over the
 5

people within that land, unless the people gives their consent to the government. Secondly is the

idea of enjoyment. For as long as we enjoy the resources of the state, we are tacitly consenting to

be obedient to the government even we can express our dissent, as a way of exercising our

freedom of expression, but still we are obliging ourselves to be obedient.

In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte has been very controversial even

during the election period. Especially now that he wields power, there are emerging questions to

our president’s legitimacy. Since many people are no longer obedient, and are expressly

contradictory to his rule, can his administration still be justified? Do we still have a duty to obey?

Take for example the EDSA revolution of 1968, where the people were revolting, obviously

because they no longer consent the government to rule over them, or even the government did

not ask for the people’s consent in the first place. Here, the government lost its legitimacy and

therefore is no longer justifiable, and the people, unwilling, had no duty to obey. The people no

longer enjoy the resources (including their rights) of the state.

Additionally, for liberals, the government can be justified but political power is limited,

and freedom is valued over coercion, and lastly, for liberals, yes we have a duty to obey.

Theme 3: Who should rule? Who or what should be the government?

Democracy. A word I once believed to be so powerful, so benevolent, and what we

Filipinos call “makatao”. It is a system of government where the people have the authority to

choose government officials and governing legislators. This is derived from the Greeks words,

demos meaning “people” and kratos meaning “rule”. It literally means “rule by the people”. It is

where the majority gets to decide who rules – democracy best manifested through elections.

In the Philippines, as a developing country where most of the population are living below

the national poverty line, people will have a sense of “power” when they are allowed to

participate in government processes especially when they get to choose who sits in power. For

Aristotle, democracy is when the free (who are poor, and at the same time are the majority)

govern. They would, of course be against any form of exploitative governments, such as those
 6

ruled by the rich (being at the same time few in number) – the oligarchy. Democracy is very

ideal in its sense because it ideally allows anyone to run for political office. Anyone. But sadly, in

the reality of today, wealth appears to be a necessity to succeed. Mostly the rich wins in

elections. You need money to campaign, after all. Manny Pacquiao, for example, a person of a

once poor family background would not be able to win for senatorial office if he was unaided by

the wealth from his career. There are more out there who has the genuine values to represent the

oppressed, and there are more out there who has the competence, but just lacks the money.

Unlike today’s congress who are like a group of baboons showing off their tricks in their circus, I

call the congress.

Furthermore, the Filipinos’ fear of tyrants or dictators can be traced back in our history

when we consider the trauma the Marcos administration brought in the 1960s to 1980s. It was in

those times when the people, thirsty for their freedom, revered democracy even more when it

was retrieved and awoken once more by the revolutionary president, Corazon Aquino during the

EDSA revolution of 1986. As the latter was a very significant event to the lives of the Filipinos,

democracy as a form of government had also long been preserved and endeared by them even in

today’s status quo.

Nevertheless, it is not new that we can observe how problematic this country was and still

is. I just did not fully understand where the problem was coming from. When asked about what

the problem of the government is, the generic answer from the citizens would be “corruption”.

Yes, the latter may be conceded as a fact because of what we can see on the ground – the

tampering and buying of votes, electoral frauds, the people being persuaded by political

candidates dancing budots on national television, and other jokes to the Philippine electoral

process. Still, it has to be more than just that. It may be the system itself, the form and design of

our government, or the very person or people who governs it in the first place.

With our course on Introduction to Political Theory, particularly on Plato’s most famous

and widely read dialogue: The Republic, I then had a better comprehension on the matter at hand.

Here, the Greek philosopher and political thinker had ideas about who should rule and what the

government should be – an answer very new and different from our common conception of what
 7

democracy, as government system is. Plato postulated the first utopia, in which those with the

greatest power to reason were given the greatest power to rule, and that the government be ruled

by a philosopher king, and thus is grounded on wisdom and reason – Aristocracy.

The Marcoses, Aquinos, Estradas, Arroyos, Belmontes, Binays, Cayetanos, Dimaporos,

Dutertes – these are amongst the many powerful political names in the country. Based on 2019

official election results, there are at least 163 political families whose winning members include

senators, House representatives, or governors. The political dynasties in both the national and

local level, as a feature in the Philippine political landscape, is in complete contrary to Plato’s

idea of who should rule. In The Republic, the order of the just city-state are as follows: The best

become philosopher-kings(Guardians) or rulers who are born with a soul of gold. The next best

become soldiers (Auxiliaries), who maintain and defend the society and are born with a soul of

silver. The rest are ruled – artisans, merchants, farmers, etc. who are born with a soul of brass or

iron. A parent of gold soul can give birth to a silver or iron child. A parent of iron soul can give

birth to a gold child. Therefore, blood or family names do not matter, and should not be the basis

of the right to rule, but it must be the person’s nature.

In The Republic, Plato asserts, “I take it that our (ideal city-) state, having been founded

and built up on the right lines, is good in the complete sense of the word. Obviously, then, it is

wise, brave, temperate, and just.” I’d like to note wise and just. Wisdom because good counsel

cannot be due to ignorance and stupidity; and justice where everyone ought to perform the one

function in the community for which his nature best suited him. Supposedly government officials

are not allowed to hold any other positions, and prohibit government officials from having

businesses while in office. This is a provision in the 1973 constitution and was even strengthened

in the 1987 Constitution. But there are government officials do not only serve the public but also

are businessmen themselves. For example, in an article published by Rappler in 2018 about

columnist Rigoberto Tiglao’s piece arguing that Imelda Marcos should not have been convicted

by the Sandiganbayan, because they convicted her on the basis of a “law that doesn't exist.” He

wrote, “It must be emphasized that contrary to what many Filipinos think, there is no law that

makes it criminal for any Filipino citizen, not even a government official, to have overseas bank
 8

accounts or to set up foundations or businesses in Switzerland, Timbuktu or anywhere in the

world,” However, she was convicted based on the 1973 Constitution because she committed

crimes during the time when the 1973 Constitution was in effect. In the 1987 Constitution,

Article VII, Section 13, this provision was further strengthened. It now reads: “The President,

Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless

otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure.

They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate

in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special

privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,

including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly

avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office...”

Additionally, in The Republic, on the chapter about the Equality of Women, Plato

through Socrates’ persona asserts, “There is no occupation concerned with the management of

social affairs which belongs either to woman or to man; Natural gifts are to be found in both

creatures alike; every occupation is open to both, so far as their natures are concerned.” Hence, a

man and a woman who have the same nature for ruling ought to have the chance to rule and run

for government or political office. Despite this idea to be published since the c.375 BC, it wasn’t

until April 30, 1937, in a special plebiscite, when Filipino women won the right to vote after

447,725 (90%) of them voted in favor of the measure. The general elections held on Dec. 14,

1937 became the first balloting in the country in which Filipino women were allowed to vote and

run for public office.

Furthermore, unlike Aristotle who gives a more subjective answer, Plato, although very

idealistic, gives a strong one-line answer to the questions. The just man, fit to rule should rule,

and driven by his virtuousness, the form of government he rules should be the merit-based

Aristocracy. Yes, these ideals may be incomparable to Aristotle’s empiricism. But is it not in

great ideas that great plans are rooted? Are we not all after something ideal? I am convinced for a

fact that the democracy of today is not what it ought to be. It is a failed democracy, one that the

Greeks once feared – demagoguery.

Still, it is to be considered that Aristotle’s ideas are noteworthy as it is reflected in

today’s status quo; the design and form of the Philippine government, for example. Aristotle, in

the Politics asserts, “The reason why there are many forms of government is that every state

contains many element” and that “It is evident then that there must be many forms of

government, differing in kind, since the parts of which they are composed differ from each other

in kind”. Government, Aristotle says, must be in the hands of one, of a few, or of the many; and

governments may govern for the general good or for the good of the rulers. For each of these

forms, he asserts that there are good and bad forms of government. Government by a single

person for the general good is called “monarchy”; for private benefit, “tyranny.” Government by

a minority is “aristocracy” if it aims at the state’s best interest and “oligarchy” if it benefits only

the ruling minority. Popular government in the common interest Aristotle calls “polity”; he

reserves the word “democracy” for anarchic mob rule.

The Philippines manifests all three forms. We have a president (rule of one), a congress

(rule of few), and the people exercising political power through elections (rule of many). The

question then is, where is our government now leaning? On the good form or the bad form?