In an unprecedented popular movement, Egypt was able to rid itself of the 30 year autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak. Thousands filled the capital's Tahrir square, protesting the corruption of the government and demanding their rights, their freedom. Men and women, youth and elderly, all stood side by side, with only one thing on their minds, the downfall of a regime that had never guaranteed or answered to their rights as individuals and citizens, and the hope of freedom and democracy.
The happenings in Egypt, and in fact, throughout the entire Middle East, demonstrate a people's ability to take back the power from its leader, and lead us to question the origins of power (in terms of a government's power, and state sovereignty) and whom it truly belongs to. Two political treatises can be applied when answering the question: those of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. I personally believe that the ideas propagated in Locke's Two Treatises of Government (1690) are most accurate, as it places rights at the centre of the entire problematic.
Whilst Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) entertained tye idea that human beings needed to be restrained from pursuing selfish ends by authority, as stated in his Leviathan (1651), John Locke believed in a contract between the people and the government, which was bilateral.
Both political philosophers believe that the power of the higher authority is the result of man giving up his right of governing himself (Leviathan) or in other words, 'puts on the bonds of Civil Society' (Two Treatises of Government). However while both believe in the same origin of power, they differ on whom holds the power.
Hobbes expressed the idea of the reduction of man's will, by plurality of voices, unto one will, in which case, the multitude so united in one person is called a commonwealth and this authority has absolute use of all power and strength conferred on him (Leviathan). What this propagates, of course, is dictatorships and autocratic governments in which the rights of the citizens are given up entirely to the State, for it to do with them as it sees fit.
On the other hand, Locke believes that upon putting on the bonds of Civil Society, man gives up all his power, necessary to the ends for which they unite into Society, to the majority of the Community (Two Treatises of Government). Hence, the power allotted to the government truly belongs to the majority, to the people, and is only held by the State as long as it protects the rights of its people.
This opposition in the ideas of Locke and Hobbes become more pronounced as we apply them to the context of the uprising in Egypt.
During the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, the Egyptian citizens were growing fatigued of the corruption of their government, the lack of services available to them, etc. Their rights and needs were not being met by the State and hence, in terms of Locke's ideas, the Legislators had but themselves into a state of War with the People, who were thereupon absolved from any farther obedience (Two Treatises of Government). Hobbe's theory of power belonging to one person, and society being in a state of peace only under the supreme authority of a leading power, are thus proven incorrect, as the Egyptians were revolting, and in fact, installing a state of war, because of those conditions.
As Locke explained, if a government does not tend to the rights, freedom and equality of the people, then 'it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty and, by the establishment of a new Legislative provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in Society' (Two Treatises of Government).
Hence, what occurred in Egypt starting January 25th and ending with the overturning of the autocratic government and the beginning of a new democratic regime (preparations for votes) is a perfect example of Lockian ideals.
No comments:
Post a Comment