We could fairly say that political life started the
day two people had an opinion with regards kind of issue; therefore, almost at mankind’s
inset. However, we agree with Barker that the “[p]olitical thought begins with
the Greeks”. [1]
Indeed, it is with them when the notions and institutions are analysed, simple
and more complex concepts exposed and reviewed.
Specifically, they did not have a dedicated theory
about the idea of sovereignty but they developed the conceptualisation of State
and its implications so we in fact are able to at least have hints about their
thoughts in regards also to sovereignty.
Plato sets up the basis from where the Greek
philosophers and thinkers (even the modern ones) depart. Firstly, we will
mention his definition of one of the key concepts here. Plato understands that
we are in presence of a State “when we have got hold of enough people to
satisfy our many varied needs, we have assembled quite a large number of
partners and helpers together to live in one place […]”.[2]
He summarised with his conceptualisation all the
elements we consider nowadays essential for the existence of a State:
population, territory, government. Note that law is not mentioned but will be
present throughout his work.
From here on we will focus our attention on three
of his dialogues since they are the one related to the State, the law and
sovereignty: The Republic, Politicus
or Statesman and the Laws.
We agree with Baker again when he says: “[…]
starting from an ethical point of view, and from the conception of the State as
a moral association, Greek thought always postulated a solidarity which is
foreign to most modern thinking. […] To modern thinker the mission of the State
is negative: its function is the removal of hindrances (rather than the
application of a stimulus) to the moral life”.
[3]
It is a fact, in Ancient Greece the origin of the State is explained as a
necessity: “Men were ‘political animals’[…]”.[4]
They are still part of a species that need the others to fulfil their needs.
Plato starts from the idea of individuals living
alone and then congregated together in very small groups of three or four
people. As it could be easily foreseen, people have various necessities (food,
shelter, etc.). He observes here “[…] the origin of the state. It originates,
as we have seen, from our needs”. [5]
He goes even further with his theory proposing the idea of labour division: “[…]
no two of us are born exactly alike. We have different natural aptitudes, which
fit us for different jobs”. [6]
If we are still unsure whether he is using the concept as we
use it nowadays, he highlights it again: “So do we do better to exercise one
skill or to try to practise several? To stick to one, he said”. [7]
The next predictable consequences of these small
groups of people living together will be the procreation and the formation of
families. And having several families within a certain territory, they will
start having relationships of different nature with each other in order to
cover mutual needs, that is to say “[t]he next stage is when several families
amalgamate and form larger communities”. [8]
Larger communities will have to satisfy larger needs.
It would be inefficient for all people to perform the same tasks. The Ancient Greeks
had already found a solution: “[…] every man should fulfil a single specific
function already appears, in the shape of division of labour, in the first
rudiments of the State. […] The desires for food and warmth and shelter cannot
be properly satisfied, except by means of common action. The State first find
its binding force in human need […] until it reaches the measure of an adult
State”. [9]
They go even further and consider of absolute necessity for the foundation of
the new state the selection of the citizens and distributing the land. [10]
It results interesting indeed that they are
developing, even at theoretical level, what modern thinkers consider two of the
basic elements of any give State: population and territory. They are even
realistic and leaving behind an only theoretical approach think about second
class of needs any population may normally have: “Give them the ordinary
comforts, he replied. Let them recline in comfort on couches and eat off
tables, and have the sort of food we have today. That is when a simple group of families or
small and rudimentary society becomes a civilization. And that is the main
objective in Plato’s work: “[…] We are to study not only the origins of
society, but also society when it enjoys the luxuries of civilization”. [11]
More families, a larger community imply a larger
variety of needs to be covered. The Greek response is once again both,
practical and realistic: “We shall have to enlarge our state again. Our healthy
state is no longer big enough; its size must be enlarged to make room for a
multitude of occupations none of which is concerned with necessaries”. [12]
The notion of sovereignty is shaping. People have
dominium over a certain territory but “the territory which was formerly enough
to support [them] will now be too small”. [13]
Additionaly, “[m]en are not content with the supply of the merest “necessaries”:
they need satisfaction of their desires for refinement. […] a larger territory
is necessary to support the larger population”. [14]
Before reviewing the consequences of the necessity with
regards a larger territory, we will focus our attention next time on another element
that is part of a sovereign State and the Ancient Greeks considered too: the
government.
[1] Barker, Ernest, Greek political
theory: Plato and his predecessors, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1951, p. 1.
[3] Barker, Ernest, Greek political
theory: Plato and his predecessors, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1951, p. 7.
[4] Barker, Ernest, Greek political
theory: Plato and his predecessors, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1951, p. 17.
[8] Plato, The Laws,
translated by T. J. Saunders, Penguin Books, 1976, p. 124.
[9] Barker, Ernest, Greek political
theory: Plato and his predecessors, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1951, p. 165.
[10] Plato, The Laws,
translated by T. J. Saunders, Penguin Books, 1976, pp. 201/219.
[14] Barker, Ernest, Greek political
theory: Plato and his predecessors, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1951, p. 167.
No comments:
Post a Comment