Liberal democracy consists of a fundamental duality, dialecticism or dichotomy.
The Public Sphere, in the bourgeois sense, consists of and is derived from a particular notion that private persons come together for a common purpose; and, in so doing – within the context of a civil society – this becomes the public, Society written large.
Within this sphere, men, guided by reason, strive to free themselves of seemingly arbitrary laws and regulations imposed upon by a dominant class. Tyranny is perceived as being the imposition of unwarranted (or unnecessary) restraints on private citizens who engage in commodity and services exchange freely among them-self. This, however, is but one of the biggest weakness of feudalistic society. Even the name conjures up images of winners and losers.
Using reason, “ …. Estates had negotiated agreements with the princes in which from case to case the conflicting power claims involved in the demarcation of estate liberties from the prince’s overlordship or sovereignty were brought into balance. … this practice resulted in a dualism of the ruling estates and of the prince …. The territorial estates represented the land over which stood the territorial ruler.” (pg27)
The emergence of a legislative class (informed by free capitalistic or mercantile modes of production) results in a shift in the balance of political power, clout and social status.
Shifts that come about as lawmakers (legislators and lawyers as executive branches of the state’s body and institutions) become indispensable or necessary to the functioning of the state apparatus as mediators and/or proxy representatives of commercial interests and private interests.
That is, competitive self-interests interjects itself as a variable to the smooth functioning of society, changing the social dynamics and brings about a liberalizing of society based on and underscored by a view of a liberal market economy. This, in turn, then becomes the basis by which a dominant political (ruling class) is able to legitimize its position within an association or group.
The emergence of capitalist and mercantile modes of production brought about a realignment of political and social structures that helped to transform and replace previous forms of government and its underlying social classes. Social or political status, therefore, can be seen as the shuffling of seats or transference of power from one group to another – the noble aristocrats giving way to the middle class or Bourgeoisie.
This transformation plays a key role as a society becomes increasingly dependent on capitalization and industrialization of the means of production, capital, wealth accumulation and exchange of good and services – the measures by which political clout is then measured and how social status is obtained.
The legislative class rose to prominence under conditions in which, as the modes of production became particularly specialised in nature, individuals who were educated became well suited or situated to specialise in skills necessary to mediating the redistribution of wealth and power.
Public service requires that public officials be privy to information that is generally private or available only to a select few – that is, known or available among ‘private individuals’.
The free flow of information and ideas among the educated or bureaucratic middle-class solidifies itself as a necessary extension to the state’s economic and political well-being; and the fortunes of the educated, specialised middle-class, rises or falls or acquires dominance of social institutions as a concurrent and corresponding consequence to the changes that take place in the means of productions, wealth accumulation, exchange and social status.
The emergence of the press brought fundamental changes to the relationship between the rulers and the ruled – each of which sought to achieve or secure some balance or equality of political power. As information regarding the activities of private individuals becomes widely known or disseminated overall underlying social relationships alter as well.
Commercial economy alters the power/political relationships of individuals supposedly brought together by reason of common interests that arose from an existence characterized as being in a State of Nature.
The divine right of kings or other forms of nobility and social dominance is publicly brought into question – indicative of ‘discontent about the power structure of society’ among the natives. A consequence is that, a class or group of individuals arise and asserts their right to a ‘fair share’ or equal rights – as ordained by Natural Law
The removal of divine rights from the equation, naturally, negates its claims to legitimacy. If so, then ‘all men are king or queen of his or her domain’ – the private spheres of their lives where they are free to exercise their inalienable rights, derived from Nature, to freely pursue life, liberty and happiness – unencumbered or unrestrained.
This, naturally, evolves as a natural consequence of belief in the notion that ‘all men are born equal’ and sovereign. Thus, a monarch or a noble can only be a legitimate ruler if and when ‘free men’ have willingly or voluntarily given some or all of their natural (subjective) rights over to another equally sovereign person.
The act of transferring of such rights is simply a symbolic gesture; and the State itself is representative of the social wishes or desires (Public Will) of private citizens within the constraints or bounds of civil society.
Sovereignty, in and of itself, implies that there can be no equals or equality; and so, in a civil society sovereignty of the individual (subjective) – based on a notion of ‘natural or civil rights’ derived from property or possession – incurs a paradox in execution. One that falls prey to subjectivity (negativity) in that it seeks to subtract or chip away from the broader notion that modern society itself is based on Constitutions and Laws designed to protect the civil and natural rights of all men (positive laws).
Laws of contradictions
The commercial economic basis of society pre-supposes that the accumulation of capital or wealth depends on having or being in control of one’s own property or possessions(s). This is further validated through Common laws, Statutes or Regulations (all derivatives of Civil Law) and which, in civil society, is expressed as constitutional or civil rights – guarantees under a legal constitution and system of Law..
Capitalism (as a socializing form of political dominance) requires a civility that is responsive to aggregate appeals to personal self-interests. It is dependent upon market forces comprised of self-interests that contain the means and power to dictate the terms and conditions of the marketplace. It is not, however, solely bound to the dictates of the market for orientation towards political objectives as it is for economic ones.
Opposition to a ruling or dominant class has the potential to effect changes when it is properly directed at the seat(s) of Power – especially one that appears to be fractured or divided. Its purpose should be the reshaping or transformation of the basis by which previous or existing rules, regulation and statutes were derived and came about to be dominant ones. Equality is, after all, only a guiding principle of liberally constituted and democratic states.
The application of reason as a standard by which civil laws are deemed constitutional highlights recognition by the middle-class that it is private citizens, with common or similar private interests and acting in public manner, that gives legitimacy and impetus to public discourses – social issues.
It is the introduction or airing of private interests in the public realms of society that removes any claims to purely private matters or a private sphere within civil society. It is, in fact, more of a social convention than a reality.
This is further complicated by the introduction of socialized forms of labour and commodity exchange. Commercialisation of the processes serves to co-mingle and create dependencies between the domain of the household economy and that of the State. A codependent relationship of social reproduction that is dependent on the participation of the private citizens.
The state as a political embodiment (Public) is a subset of collective (private citizens) that tacitly agrees to be governed by laws and constitutions. In the absence of a citizenry with property, goods or services or the means to engage in exchange – freely or for reciprocal value, the states become a mere fiction.
It is by means of this combining of varied self-interests (Private and intimate) with the common interests (general will) of the State that commercial enterprise was able to gain a foothold and become representative of public or general interests of the State, in relation to its citizens. And, it by the combination of such means that the political function and purpose of the state shifted away from the private to a public sphere – by virtue of the fact that the representatives of the Public either owned or managed the commercial means of production.
With commercialisation, civil society (public and private spheres) underwent a transformation that rests primarily on the need for, or access to, previously ‘private’ information. News and media became inseparable twins indispensable to the defining the public or civil realms of society. The marketplace (or workplace) provides venues or become forums in which citizens interact and engage in critical social discourses about society in general or a particular senses.
31/01/2022 17:07:11 -0500