Grounds and Limits of Political Obligation
Chapter 11
(OP Gauba | Political Theory)
POLITICAL SCIENCE
Language
Choose your preferred language
Grounds and Limits of Political Obligation
🎨 Reading Colors
Background
Text Color
Table of Contents
- THEORIES OF UNLIMITED OBLIGATION
- THE DOCTRINE OF FORCE MAJEURE
- DIVINE RIGHT THEORY
- CONSERVATIVE VIEW
- THEORIES OF LIMITED OBLIGATION
- PRINCIPLE OF LIMITED CONSENT
- MORALIST VIEW
- IDEALIST VIEW
- THEORIES AGAINST POLITICAL OBLIGATION
- MARXIST VIEW
- ANARCHIST VIEW
- GANDHIAN PERSPECTIVE
- CONCLUSION
- The problem of political obligation is a central issue in political philosophy.
- It deals with the question: how far, when, and why an individual is obliged to obey law and political authority.
- This obligation often extends to duties such as payment of taxes, political participation, voting, jury service, and military duty.
- These duties are seen as necessary for the maintenance of political institutions.
- Political philosophy examines the logical and moral grounds for political obligation.
- The inquiry seeks to determine the scope and limits of political obligation.
- The question is complex, and there is no universally acceptable answer.
- However, examining different viewpoints on political obligation can help provide context-specific answers.
THEORIES OF UNLIMITED OBLIGATION
THE DOCTRINE OF FORCE MAJEURE
- Force Majeure refers to superior strength, an irresistible compulsion or coercion.
- The doctrine of force majeure sees the superior strength of the state as the source of political obligation.
- According to this view, the state is so powerful that the individual has no choice but to obey its laws and commands.
- Political obligation is thus based on the fear of punishment or other unpleasant consequences for disobedience.
- This theory identifies the state or government as the embodiment of political authority, with its invincible power as the source of that authority.
- The individual is considered too weak to challenge the state's authority, leading to an unlimited political obligation.
- The theory faces criticism for being morally unjustifiable.
- It relies on the "might is right" rule, disregarding whether a law is right or wrong.
- It does not seek to secure willing obedience and prevents the individual from resisting potentially wrong laws.
- The obligation is akin to surrender under threat, rather than voluntary compliance for the individual's well-being.
- Due to these characteristics, this theory is not considered a sound theory of political obligation.
DIVINE RIGHT THEORY
- The theory of divine right of kings holds that the authority of the sovereign is derived from God.
- Obedience to the state is considered as imperative as obedience to God.
- Early hints of this theory are found in ancient Indian political thought.
- The theory was developed during the rise of monarchy in Europe, with Robert Filmer as its chief exponent.
- This theory was also upheld in pre-communist Tibet and some tribal kingdoms, but is seldom invoked in modern states.
- The theory supports unlimited political obligation based on religious rather than moral grounds.
- If a king is a tyrant, people must still obey him as punishment for their sin.
- James I of England used this justification for his tyrannical rule.
- Some writers mistakenly equate divine right with charismatic authority, which is based on personal qualities of leaders.
- Charismatic authority is personal and may vanish with the leader, whereas divine right is inherited.
- Divine right is closer to traditional authority than charismatic authority.
- This theory denies individuals the right to exercise their judgment about right and wrong or resist any wrong law or command.
- Therefore, this theory cannot be considered a genuine theory of political obligation.
Members-only content
Unlock this section
Required Membership:Political Science Book Notes OR All Subject Book Notes OR UGC NET + Book Notes OR CUET PG + Book Notes
Membership access will unlock this section automatically.
