Description
– The essay to be edited is titled “Essay”. – Stick to the question at all parts of the paper. – Use sources from the provided material as much as possible. It is alright not to use all of them. – External sources are allowed. – All references made to the materials provided or external sources must be cited in both the footnotes and bibliography. A bibliography must be added at the end of the paper. – Adhere to the instructions in the Formatting Guide provided. – Follow my writing style provided in the “Sample” document as much as possible. Specific editing requirements will be communicated via chat.
A Basic Guide to Formatting, Grammar, Syntax, and Style
Headings
Center main headings.
Insert a return before/after a heading.
Don’t ident the first para. after a heading/title. Indent subsequent paras.
Distinguish headings such as titles: making headings bold, centered, and underlined is typical
Don’t ‘orphan’ headings (leaving them stranded at the bottom of a page with no body text below)
Do use the actual the prompt/title. Stick to the script; unless you’re given a free choice of title, just use the one provided.
Titles, italics, and fonts
Titles of books, journals, newspapers, films, TV shows, etc. should always be italicised
Titles of individual articles, book chapters, scenes, or episodes go in single quotation marks [‘ . . . ’]
Don’t use italics for titles, headings, or quotations unless they are part of the original; use italics only for emphasis or titles of books, journals, newspapers etc.
Names of firms and websites are not typically italicised. Apple not Apple; YouTube not YouTube.
Use italics to highlight words or short phrases in other languages
Capital letters are typically reserved for proper names, titles, and official positions. In a philosophical context they are sometimes used to distinguish a universal term, e.g. a Platonic Form or the Hegelian Absolute Idea.
Use a single font throughout unless you have a good reason to do otherwise. For example, you don’t normally put main text in one font and footnotes in another.
Don’t bold body text. Bold is for emphasis when italics are not enough, but whole passages should not typically be placed in bold.
Footnotes
Footnote markers should normally come at the end of the sentence. They may be placed elsewhere, typically at the end of a clause, if there is a reason to draw attention to the particular place at which they occur, but they are always the last item of punctuation (excepting dashes), so never put them before a comma or a stop.
For a first footnote for a book, include author, title (place: publisher, year), pp. range.
e.g. F. Bloggs, My Very Important Book (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 50
For a first footnote for an article, include author, ‘title’, journal, vol. # (year), pp. range.
e.g. F. Bloggs, ‘My Even More Important Article’, Journal of Rubbish Studies, 34 (2006), pp. 102–38.
Use a short form for second and subsequent references.
e.g. Bloggs, Book, p. 9, or Bloggs, ‘Article’, p. 119.
Use first name, family name in the footnote, unless the family name standardly comes first by the convention of that author’s culture. Place family name first in bibliography regardless.
Avoid using more than one footnote marker per sentence. Combine the contents into a single note, using appropriate punctuation like semi-colons or full stops.
Don’t indent footnotes.
Either simply give the page number, or give the number preceded by the ‘p.’ abbreviation. If you use the abbreviation ‘p’, then use p. for a single page and pp. for a range.
There should be a ‘.’ after ‘p’ as with any abbreviation. Always p., never just p by iself.
There should be a space between p./pp. and the actual page number.
Use a shortened version of the note for second and subsequent references.
Quotations and quotation marks
Use single quotation marks for direct quotation or emphasis or titles of articles, which then allows you to reserve double quotation marks for quotations within quotations. (This is British English practice; American English does the reverse. I prefer the former but pick one and stick to it.)
When using a quotation, always make sure to preserve the grammar of the sentence. If you need to replace material in the quotation, use square brackets like this [my text goes here] to indicate an insertion or substitution.
Use square brackets like this [my text goes here] to indicate an insertion or substitution.
Short quotations (fewer than five lines) should be treated as body text, not presented separately
Present block quotations (no fewer than five lines) without using quotation marks, in a smaller font size, and inset, but not centered
References and citations
A reference isn’t part of the quotation, so shouldn’t come within the quotation marks.
Always give a page number. Where does your author say this? Directing the reader to the book or article as a whole is not helpful; tell them exactly where to look. Be precise. If using in-line citations and the link is to an online source, note this so the reader doesn’t expect a page reference.
For second and subsequent references, use a short form of the note.
As a general rule, avoid internet sources unless they also appear in another medium and are fact-checked, or are professionally peer-reviewed. So, publications of record (The New York Times; The Financial Times; The Economist, etc.) are acceptable as they have been fact-checked. So is the online-only Stanford Encyc. of Philosophy. Social media postings however may be useful evidence in some contexts. While Wikipedia is a good starting point for research and informal guidance, you do need to find separate confirmation in an academic source i.e. a scholarly article or monograph.
If you need to include a link to an online source that is particularly long (more than one line of text), use tinyurl.com or bitly.com to create a short version.
Paragraphs
Paragraphs shouldn’t be too long. Presenting large blocks of text on the page tends to mean the reader’s eye gets lost. Paragraphs also help to indicate steps in the argument. Aim for at least one break per page; two or three is usually better (depending partly on font size).
Paragraphs also shouldn’t be too short. One or two sentences is not typically enough to constitute a separate paragraph.
Regular paras should not be centered. Justify left.
Punctuation
Use an en rule (–) NOT a hyphen (-) or a dash (—) to separate number ranges (dates, pages, etc.)
Do not insert spacing between the en rule and the numbers it separates
Use a dash (—) NOT a hyphen (-) to indicate a break or sub-clause in a sentence
Only use ellipsis (. . .) to signify omission from the middle of a passage, not at the start or end of a sentence
Commas or dashes typically come in pairs when you are using sub-clauses. Don’t switch between commas and dashes in the same sub-clause.
Never separate subject and verb with a comma
Use semi-colons (;) not commas to separate lists where the items require whole clauses of description
Don’t use the apostrophe (’) with a plural or a main subject. It is either a possessive, to show that something belongs to someone, as in ‘Jane’s essay’, or a contraction (‘it’s’ for ‘it is’).
An adjectival phrase (‘Russian-controlled’; ‘inner-city’; ‘post-1945’) should be hyphenated.
Don’t double up punctuation. The full stop inside the quotation marks already serves to close the sentence.
Abbreviations
Write out cardinal and ordinal numbers =/< 100 in full when writing in continuous prose.
Write out dates: e.g. twentieth not ‘20th’ when writing in continuous prose.
Syntax and semantics
Don’t change tenses in the middle of a paragraph
Always check meanings of terms you don’t use regularly.
Check whether a verb is transitive and requires an object: e.g. you can’t just ‘express that’, you have to ‘express the view/idea etc. that’.
Prepositions can depend on whether the word is being used as a verb or a noun: you ‘advocate’ something, but are an ‘advocate for’ something. You don’t ‘advocate for’ something.
Use of the definite article (‘the’) implies a particular group, but when speaking generally, it is omitted. ‘People are lazy’ not ‘the people are lazy’—this invites the question ‘which people’?
Use the proper name rather than a pronoun at the start of a new para. Often it’s clear who is being referred to, but in principle it’s a good way to avoid confusion
Make sure the referent of the pronoun is clear, otherwise the subject of the sentence becomes ambiguous
Make sure you are using the correct preposition (‘in’, ‘on’, ‘at’, ‘to’ etc.)
Agreement: if you begin by using a plural noun (e.g. ‘movies’) don’t change to a singular pronoun (‘its’) in the next sentence.
Agreement: a plural subject needs a plural verb, and a singular subject a singular verb
Use ‘fewer’ for countable items, ‘less’ for uncountable ones. ‘Less’ water, but ‘fewer’ ponds.
Style
Paragraphs shouldn’t be too long. Presenting large blocks of text on the page tends to mean the reader’s eye gets lost. Paragraphs also help to indicate steps in the argument. Aim for at least one break per page; two or three is usually better (depending partly on font size).
Paragraphs shouldn’t be too short. One or two sentences is typically not enough to constitute a paragraph, which should account for a distinct step in the argument.
By default, use basic English grammatical order: subject, verb, object.
Don’t let sentences get too long. One sentence should contain one thought.
Be sparing with sub-clauses. When about to use a comma or conjunction (‘and’), consider if a full stop would be better instead.
Avoid redundant introductory material. Always consider your audience. This might be a suitable way to begin a piece for the general public who know nothing about the subject, but in your term papers you can assume a reader with some prior knowledge
Strive for compression. When writing with a word limit, it’s important that you convey your meaning with as few words as possible; then you have space to say more.
Avoid slang and colloquialisms. Academic writing should be conversational but still in a formal register.
Repetition of words or phrases is not advisable unless intentional, because it has a jarring effect on the reader. We all have some stock vocabulary we tend to repeat, so learn to notice when you are doing this.
Avoid sentences that read awkwardly. Try reading a sentence out loud to yourself to test it if in doubt. If you can’t say it easily, don’t write it.
Structure
A strong opening paragraph sets out the argument very clearly by itemising the steps that that it is going to involve and the conclusion that it is going to reach.
Bibliography
Bibliography should begin on a fresh page
No need to note first edition by default; only note second and subsequent editions.
Present works in alphabetical order by author, last name first
Proofing
Make sure you proof-read carefully. Always pay extra attention to proper names and titles.
This list of stylistic, grammatical, and presentational considerations is by no means exhaustive. For queries unanswered here see also:
The Chicago Manual of Style, seventeenth edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017)
- Bringhurst, The Elements of Typographic Style, fourth edition (British Columbia: Hartley and Marks, 2012)
- Strunk and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, fourth edition (SI: Longman, 2000)
How does a republic differ from a democracy
An analysis of democracy and republic systems of government
Name
Course
Professor
Date
The terms republic and democracy have, throughout history, been used either as synonyms or as antonyms to each other. This has led to a state of rather widespread confusion as to the meaning of each of these words, and how they apply to the USA. This is apparent given the Republican and Democratic political parties that dominate the politics of the nation and how their values have drastically changed over time. Interestingly enough one of the founding fathers’ concerns was that of political parties forming and disrupting the system they were trying to establish. However, to understand the nuance and significance of democracies and republics, an analysis of both must be undertaken. Dissecting the meaning of a democracy, analyzing its features and its failings, and understanding the rationale of the founding fathers when establishing the USA government system.
Definition and analysis of democracy
A democracy is defined as a system of governance where the general populace decides on matters of governance[1]. While there is no consensus on the proper definition of the term, the general form is that the people of a given territory get to have a direct say in the issues of governance of the territory. This would include creating legislation, decisions on the application of said legislation, as well as the execution of state actions. Such a system has several requirements. That sovereignty lies within the lowest levels of authority i.e., the regular populace, the idea of political equality i.e., the voice and opinion of one individual have the same value as those of another, and a set of social norms that define acceptable acts to guide the application of political equality and sovereignty[2].
Democracies have been rare occurrences throughout history, with most forms of rule having been monarchies or oligarchies[3]. However, examples do exist including Athens and Sparta In Athens, a random selection of regular citizens was selected into the few administrative and judicial offices that existed. there was a general assembly of all Athenian citizens, where eligible citizens were allowed to speak and vote. Citizenship was determined by the laws of the city which excluded women, men under twenty years, foreigners, and slaves. This was tied to who could fight during wars. In Sparta, an assembly of people was used to elect leaders and vote on issues. Membership was comprised of males over the age of thirty and the voting methods were either shouting, where the loudest crowd shout for a particular issue decided the vote, and range voting, where members would give scores to issues and the one with the highest total score wins[4].
These systems while empowering the citizens, had shortcomings. As noted by Madison in the federalist papers number ten, is the tyranny of the majority. This is a situation where the majority faction of a given democracy exclusively pursue their own goals and objectives to the exclusion of those of minority factions[5]. He notes that in a given assembly of people, there would always form a majority of ideas and passions, and in a majority-rule situation, the considerations of the minority are ignored. The second issue is that of fit. The level of knowledge of a given population would determine how effective the governance is. If the deciding authority cannot grasp the issues at hand then decisions would not be made based on merit but rather by populism. In recent times, populism has been shown to be a dangerous and destructive force to the integrity and of nations all over the world.
The rationale of the founding fathers
It was an opportunity for a novel system of government. The formation of the United States represents a unique challenge for a system of government. Due to it being a continent without a lineage of ruling dynasties, kingdoms, or clans, it provided a platform for the creation of a completely new way of governing a nation. From the onset, the idea was to create a system of government governed by a well-appointed constitution, which would be representative of the will of the population, but also be able to mitigate the negative impacts of factions. Madison defines a faction as a number of citizens, whether the majority or minority, who are united by a common interest that is contrary to the rights of other citizens or the collective interests of the community. in the Federalist papers: No. 10, the root of factions is indivisible from the nature of humans to seek self-interests. Hence the need to create a system whereby the effects of factions can be controlled to the extent that they are unable to enact schemes of oppressing other factions[6].
Here is where the distinction between a republic and a democracy exists. In a direct pure democracy, the factions can not be prevented from enacting their schemes to the population of the nation. A republic, on the other hand, is where there is a scheme of representation. A small group of representatives is elected by the population to administer the functions of government. This has the function of delegating the duties of government from a part-time endeavor for the entire citizenry, to the full-time occupation of a given group. As with any office, this would increase the competence of the individuals in these representative positions. It also has the effect of being scalable to whatever the size of the nation. Be it large or small, the number of representatives will be balanced in such a way that it guards against cabals of the few but also against the confusion of the multitudes[7]. The larger the size of a republic, provided there are fit individuals in the populace to represent them, the more likely the elected would more closely be suitable for the role. Through representatives, the public voice would be more effectively represented.
The founding fathers while illustrating the merits of a republic, they also acknowledged that it wasn’t a foolproof system. It was always a possibility that those in power would not always be acting in the interest of the public good or be the most competent to hold office. Certain factions could manage to gain influence and power in a certain state and enact improper agendas on the population.
Formation of a republic
In the formation of the republic, there was a need for the separation of different roles among the different branches of governing authority. If this was not the case, and all the powers of the executive, legislative, and judiciary were all concentrated in the hands of one body, then tyranny would be the immediate result, and the whole point of a constitutional republic is to eliminate tyranny. For a republic, it follows a certain axiom. Those that make the laws cannot enforce them, those that enforce the law do not make them, and those that interpret the law can neither enforce nor make them[8]. These departments cannot, however, be explicitly separate from each other, as their functions are interrelated in many ways e.g., the appointment of legislature members, impeachment of the executive, and pardons.
Thus, there exists a need for checks and balances between the branches to ensure that they do not overstep their shared or individual authority. As noted in the federalist papers: No. 51, when the people give the power of rule to the government, first they must enable it to govern them and to also govern itself[9]. While the government is dependent on the people to give it power, there is a need to have supplemental controls on the government. In the American republic, the power of the people is divided into two distinct governments, the state and the federal. Both control each other while exercising individual control over themselves. This ensures that it is very unlikely that any one faction would gather enough steam to subjugate the entire republic to its own agenda. While possible to take over one level i.e., the federal, getting sufficient faction support in all the states would be akin to impossible. Hence the validity of splitting the power of the people into two governments.
Analysis of other republics and democracies
With the distinction between a democracy and a republic, it is desirable to examine the different variations that exist within the framework of both. To do this the democratic government systems of three nations will be examined due to their unique elements. These will be Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada.
Germany is defined as a parliamentary and federal republic. The government is made up of the traditional executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The executive is made up of the head of state, head of government, cabinet, and agencies. The legislative branch is divided into the Bundestag and the Bundesrat[10]. The Bundestag is the federal parliament and is the only government entity directly elected by the people, comparable to the house of representatives, The Bundesrat, the federal council, represents the federal states of Germany. Membership is based on the parliamentary composition of each state. In this way, even smaller parties can have a say in the national legislative process. The judiciary is divided into ordinary, constitutional, and specialized courts e.g., labor
The United Kingdom is a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy[11]. Being a unitary state the central government exercises complete power over the nation as compared to a federal system. At the top of there is the queen who is the head of state, followed by the prime minister who is the head of government. The executive comprises the prime minister and the ministers of the cabinet. Legislative power is exercised by the house of commons and the house of lords. The house of commons is comprised of elected officials known as members of parliament or MPs. The house of lords is comprised of members of the peerage, a system of hereditary and lifetime titles. The judiciary is an independent body.
Canada is a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy. The executive branch is made up of the queen, the prime minister, and the cabinet. The legislature is made up of the house of commons and the senate[12]. The judiciary consists of all the nation’s court systems. The people elect the members of parliament in the house of commons as is the case with the UK system. Senate members are appointed to the position.
Conclusion
The difference between a democracy and a republic is not clear-cut. This is due to the arbitrary nature of how democracy is defined by different entities. However, the main element of a democracy is that the people have the power to govern themselves and they do so. A republic is where the power of governance originates from the governed but is exercised by elected representatives. Republics are formed when the territory to be governed becomes too large to be governed through pure democracy. The founding fathers envisioned a republic where the process of governance would be free from the tyranny of the majority, which was a major flaw of previous democratic systems. By splitting the power of the people across two governments and further into three departments each, they created a system of government that self-governed and exercised its mandate to the people without falling into factious actions.
Bibliography
Birch, Anthony Harold. The British System of Government. Psychology Press, 1998.
Daniel J. McDevitt, Carl F. Smith, Angus L. Scully, and W. Matthew Christison. Canada Today. Pearson Education Canada, 1995.
Encyclopedia Britannica. “Democracy – Democracy or Republic?” Accessed March 12, 2021. https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy.
Facts about Germany. “Federal State.” Accessed March 12, 2021. https://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/politics-germany/federal-state.
Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. “The Federalist Papers No. 10.” Text, December 29, 1998. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp.
———. “The Federalist Papers No. 47,” December 29, 1998. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed47.asp.
———. “The Federalist Papers No. 51,” December 29, 1998. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp.
Stasavage, David. The Decline and Rise of Democracy: A Global History from Antiquity to Today. Princeton University Press, 2020.
[1] “Democracy – Democracy or Republic?,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed March 12, 2021, https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy.
[2] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, “The Federalist Papers No. 10,” Text, December 29, 1998, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp.
[3] David Stasavage, The Decline and Rise of Democracy: A Global History from Antiquity to Today (Princeton University Press, 2020).
[4] Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, “The Federalist Papers No. 10.”
[5] Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.
[6] Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.
[7] Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.
[8] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, “The Federalist Papers No. 47,” December 29, 1998, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed47.asp.
[9] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, “The Federalist Papers No. 51,” December 29, 1998, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp.
[10] “Federal State,” Facts about Germany, accessed March 12, 2021, https://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/politics-germany/federal-state.
[11] Anthony Harold Birch, The British System of Government (Psychology Press, 1998).
[12] Daniel J. McDevitt et al., Canada Today (Pearson Education Canada, 1995).
Answer one of the following questions:
- Why were Ireton, Montesquieu, Madison, and Mill afraid of politically empowering the masses? In response to these fears, what measures did they propose for limiting what the masses could do in politics? [1500 words]
Final word count: 1342
- Sieyes, de Gouges, Mill, Douglass, and Marx argued for the emancipation of certain groups: the Third Estate, women, black Americans, and workers. Compare and contrast their arguments for why these groups ought to be free and empowered. [1500 words]
Final word count: 1311
For Ireton, he feared that empowering the masses politically may provide them with a means to threaten the elite’s property.[1] In agreement with Ireton, Colonel Rich argued that if both the wealthy and poor were equal before the ballot, then the poor will be voted in with a majority as they outnumbered the wealthy elite. With a parliamentary majority, a law could be passed through parliament to seize property for themselves.[2] Ireton justifies his argument further by corroborating Maximilian Petty’s point that people fall into Government in order to preserve their property. As a result, Ireton argues, the Government cannot be against property since it would go against the purpose of Government. [3]
Ireton also believed that the masses do not possess a permanent fixed interest in English affairs. He defines “permanent fixed interest” to be the property and trade wealth owned by the wealthy elite, as he views those two as being factors that behold landowners and merchants to England since they cannot move their property overseas or enjoy the same freedom of trade that merchants enjoy in England.[4] Since the masses lacked both, Ireton thus views them as not possessing the permanent fixed interest in English affairs, and should not be granted the right to debate on matters that do not concern them, such as taxation. [5]
For Montesquieu, he believed that the public are incompetent enough to serve in public office despite their ability to judge[6] and therefore ought to elect representatives to govern in their stead. Montesquieu also voices his worry that the multitude will outvote the nobles if both groups were placed on equal political standing[7] in a unicameral democratic republic.
To achieve his end of political liberty, Montesquieu promoted the idea of a mixed constitution as practiced by the British. Within the mixed constitution, the institution of a bicameral legislature with a popularly elected house and a house reserved for the aristocracy.[8] Under Montesquieu’s ideal system, the aristocracy would be hereditary to safeguard against their eroding rights within a democracy.[9] Laws would have to be passed by both houses before it can be enforced by the monarch, who acts as the executive, instituting the need for both houses to work towards compromises.
Montesquieu also advocated for the separation of powers within the government, namely the legislature, executive and judiciary branches. From the paragraph above, the legislature would be jointly held by both the people and the aristocracy whereas the executive branch will be held by the monarch. This arrangement allows both the people and aristocracy to check each other[10] while a monarchic executive serves as a paragon of decisiveness in times of crises.[11] The judiciary, according to Montesquieu, ought to consist of citizen juries, who possess good judgement in electing their legislative representatives, who serve on a non-permanent basis.[12] This ensures that the judiciary powers do not concentrate on a small group of people.
Madison was afraid to politically empower the masses as he viewed people to be inherently self-interested, which would impair the institution of rule by the people.[13] Madison was also aware that since everyone thinks differently by nature, people will begin to form factions to promote a collective self-interest. As factions form, they will begin to compete with other faction, resulting in social animosity.[14] Madison also raises a concern similar to that by Ireton, where Madison fears that the poor, as a majority, will seek to seize the property of the wealthy elite to improve their condition.[15]
In his Federalist papers, Madison first rebuts the idea that man can be made virtuous through education. To this, he reasserts his belief that man is always self-interested and claims that they cannot be educated regardless of their moral and religious education.[16]
On the issue of factionalism, Madison dismisses the idea of imposing conformity on the population as he argues that by virtue of the differences between people, differences in opinions are bound to rise as long as liberty is present in society. As the Constitution seeks to guarantee liberty for Americans, eliminating it in order to resolve factionalism renders the Constitution pointless.[17]
Madison’s proposed idea to his problems draw heavily from Montesquieu’s idea of the mixed constitution and the separation of powers. As such, institutional design became the central idea to Madison’s solution to ensure that no one faction can seek to dominate other minor factions through the power of the state. Despite that all governmental roles are popularly elected, the US government achieves that of a mixed constitution by having each role answerable to a different constituency. The President, who serves as the executive, is answerable to the entire electorate, whereas within the two legislatives houses of Congress, senators and congressmen are chosen from within the state and district respectively. However, the judiciary, headed by the Supreme Court, is accountable to none due to the life appointment of justices.[18]
Further checks and balances are instituted in the government structure, such as the bicameral structure of Congress, which was necessitated as the legislative branch was deemed to be too powerful.[19] The President, on the executive branch, is also accorded veto powers against the Congress[20] in order to strengthen the executive in relation to the legislative branch. Owing to the federal structure of government, state legislatures are also afforded the autonomy of establishing their own laws so long as they remain in line with federal legislation.
For Mill, he was concerned with how majority factions affect the individual’s ideas and thoughts. Compared to the previous thinkers, Mill differs from Madison in that Mill favours a principle-based approach to change the masses’ mind-sets whereas Madison believed that man’s self-interested nature cannot be helped.
Mill’s proposed principle was “The Harm Principle”, which defines that no intervention into one’s thoughts, acts and speeches is justified unless it harms another person directly physically or financially.[21] Mill also specifies that his principle only pertains to one’s private actions, including one’s own thoughts, feelings, opinions, so long as they do not cause harm.[22]
The impact of social tyranny in shaping the masses’ ideas and thoughts was also one of Mill’s fears. He contends that society poses a greater threat to the individual than other forms of oppression from the state as social relations constitute one’s day-to-day interactions and shapes people to who they are.[23] As such, Mill argues that there needs to be safeguards instituted against social tyranny for free speech to thrive.[24]
To ensure free speech, Mill explores three methods in which free speech can be of benefit to society. Firstly, Mill argues that free speech provides society with an opportunity to exchange error for truth.[25] Mill cautions us that what we believe to be true cannot be considered to be so unless these ideas are tested by alternate expressions,[26] as evident in how past generations held true to beliefs that we now find to be false, [27] and notes that the same process will occur among future generations as our ideas are evaluated. Hence, Mill argues for free speech as it enables people to question our accepted truths and identify the falsehoods within.
Secondly, Mill contends that enabling free speech liberates genius as they contribute to human progress by discovering new knowledge, on top of challenging our pre-existing beliefs.[28] Within a conservative society, these geniuses are unable to make their voices heard as societal pressures will force them to conform with societal norms.[29] Mill also asserts that the act of introducing society to new ideas and replacing archaic traditions is one of the greatest contributions that one can give to society,[30] and society should, therefore, welcome the differing opinions from the small pool of radicals.
Lastly, Mill posits that enabling free speech can aid mankind in one’s quest for self-development.[31] From the previous point, as Mill sees it, will constitute an acceptance of the Harm Principle. As people are exposed to various perspectives, they will develop their thinking in the meanwhile, and be more accepting to radical ideas themselves. This increased tolerance allows people to be more encouraging of others who wish to do so, thus counteracting the societal tendency to censure geniuses.
Sieyes argues for the emancipation of the Third Estate through a merit-based argument. Similar to the radical soldiers fighting for their right to vote during the Putney debate, he believed that the Third Estate should not be excluded from government after having built France to the nation she is up to 1789. This line of thought is evident in his belief that the Third Estate is everything as they provided France with food, services, manufactured products and trade.[32]
However, despite their contributions, Sieyes allege that the Third Estate remains nothing in France’s political scene, as political power predominantly rests with the nobility and clergy. Using his merit-based approach, Sieyes comes to the conclusion that despite their political power, these two classes are idle classes as they contribute nothing to society.[33]
Sieyes also notes that within the Estates General, the Third Estate had always been represented by the “nobility”. This is due to the wide definition of the Third Estate as ranging from farmers to lawyers and merchants. Sieyes call the latter group the “new nobles” due to their ability to wield influence over the people.[34] As Sieyes considers these new noblemen as excluded from the Third Estate, his view that the Third Estate never had a true representative remains valid.
Sieyes’ arguments are similar to that of the radical soldiers in Putney as both parties argued for their rights on the basis of merit. For Sieyes, he believed that the Third Estate had earned the right to be a part of government for having built and maintained France; for the soldiers, they desired for suffrage as a recognition for their efforts in fighting for the Parliamentarian cause.
De Gouges and Mill both advocate for women to be granted equal rights but through different lines of thought. De Gouges does so through the idea that women should be granted equal rights as men given that both sexes are treated similarly under the law, a perspective that Douglass would echo as well. Mill, however, argues for women’s rights through a utilitarian approach.
To argue her case, de Gouges brings up the status quo faced by women in France after the Revolution. She laments that women are reduced to mere objects of beauty who are only considered for her sexuality in the prevailing social order,[35] which de Gouges reminds us that a woman’s beauty is temporary due to aging. Moreover, men are also subjected to the constant allure of other younger women, who may see fit to abandon his wife, if any, in pursuit of new love. [36] As men are not obliged to share his wealth with his wife, the abandonment may leave them in financial ruin, leading to de Gouges to call for a law that women be due half of the family’s wealth. [37]
De Gouges contends that for women to gain any form of agency, she would be forced to turn to treachery as women are unable to do so through legal means as afforded to men, which paints women in a negative light as they are portrayed as constantly resorting to immoral means to their own ends.[38]
For Mill, he refutes the social order set for women from four perspectives. Firstly, Mill likens the treatment of women as being worse off than slaves.[39] He explains that just like slaves, women are taught to be totally submissive to their husbands or masters whom they cannot leave.[40] Furthermore, women are taught that submission to men is the ideal social order, which makes women willingly accept their predicament of male domination. What makes women worse off than slaves, Mill explains, is the fact that women have to work after hours.[41]
Secondly, Mill also likens men as despots over women. Just as the tyrant kings of old, Mill explains that some husbands can be tyrannous over their wives as well.[42] By extension, as Great Britain has abolished despotism prior to Mill’s writing, Mill’s comparison of despotism in a household to that in a kingdom seeks to make the English realise the immorality of non-equal treatment of women.
Thirdly, Mill contends that the supposed natural order of women submission to men is built on flawed premises.[43] He argues that since women were discriminated against men throughout history, there is thus no way that society would know the true capabilities of women since women were never given the same opportunities that men had access to. Hence, the supposed natural order in question is fundamentally flawed since no other societal relationship between men and women existed.
Lastly, Mill posits that there is a direct relationship between how social relationships work at home and in society. He argues that homes serve as a school where people receive their moral and social education and also practice them.[44] As people interact with other members of society, they will apply what they have learnt at home in the real life. As such, Mill argues if homes propagate hierarchical rules of men over women, then society will grow into one where women are expected to be submissive towards men. [837]
For Douglass, he adopts an approach similar to de Gouges when arguing for the emancipation of black slaves. In response to US Senator Calhoun’s point that American citizens and black slaves are not due the same liberties, Douglass counters him with the fact that slaves are punishable under the same law as American citizens,[45] the law has tacitly acknowledged that slaves are capable of morality, intelligence and criminal culpability. Douglass goes on further to cite that the presence of laws against educating black slaves implied that slaves were as capable of learning as American citizens;[46] that the ability of other black people to take up jobs afforded to white Americans hinted at the equality between the two races since both races are equally up to the task.[47]
Douglass hints further at the injustice faced by the black population despite the tacit recognition of the equality of both races under the law by painting a contrast between Calhoun’s depiction of Americans care for slaves[48] and Douglass’ own eyewitness accounts of the forced internal migration of slaves.[49]
For Marx, he details his support for the emancipation of workers through highlighting the failings of the capitalist system. Firstly, Marx argues that capitalist societies alienate both workers and capitalist societies from their human selves. From the worker’s perspective, as they are assigned to only manage a narrow segment of production by capitalists, their work becomes repetitive in nature. While the worker is able to specialise and thus increase the production efficiency of the factory, Marx laments that this narrow specialisation dulls the worker’s sense of creativity, which Marx views as the element that makes one human.[50]
As workers work on specialised tasks, Marx warns, the wages received by the worker can devaluate due to the ease of replacement by other workers or machinery. As a result, workers’ wages are suppressed under the capitalist system as more labourers are able to take on the same job,[51] leading to wages becoming the deciding factor of who gets hired. Since capitalists would hire those with lower wage requirements first, the wages that the capitalist system can provide will thus fail to meet the needs of the workers. The end result, Marx concludes, would result in a proletariat that is unable to sustain itself under the capitalist system, and arrive at the conclusion that the capitalist system under the bourgeoisie will no longer work out for them.[52]
For the capitalists, Marx contends that they are not spared from ruin by the capitalist system itself as the capitalists may occasionally arrive at situations whereby they are forced to sacrifice their personal values for the sake of the capitalist system. The need to sacrifice one’s own individual values in the face of the capitalist state, in Marx’s terms, makes one lose control over their own decisions, thereby slowly losing their individuality doing so.[53]
[1] Putney debates, p.108-109, 123
[2] Putney debates, p.114
[3] Putney debates, p.113
[4] Putney debates, p.108
[5] Putney debates, p.103-104
[6] Montesquieu, p.159
[7] Montesquieu, p.160
[8] Montesquieu, p.160-161
[9] Montesquieu, p.160
[10] Montesquieu, p.160
[11] Montesquieu, p.161
[12] Montesquieu, p.158
[13] Madison, p.252
[14] Madison, p.41
[15] Madison, p.41
[16] Madison, p.43
[17] Madison, p.41
[18] Madison, p.252
[19] Madison, p.253
[20] Madison, p.253
[21] Mill, On Liberty, p.13
[22] Mill, On Liberty, p.15
[23] Mill, On Liberty, p.8
[24] Mill, On Liberty, p.8
[25] Mill, On Liberty, p.19
[26] Mill, On Liberty, p.23
[27] Mill, On Liberty, p.20
[28] Mill, On Liberty, p.63
[29] Mill, On Liberty, p.64
[30] Mill, On Liberty, p.29
[31] Mill, On Liberty, p.68
[32] Sieyes, p.155
[33] Sieyes, p.156-157
[34] Sieyes, p.158
[35] De Gouges, p.266
[36] De Gouges, p.266
[37] De Gouges, p.267
[38] De Gouges, p.265
[39] Mill, The Subjection of Women, p.437
[40] Mill, The Subjection of Women, p.422
[41] Mill, The Subjection of Women, p.438
[42] Mill, The Subjection of Women, p.440
[43] Mill, The Subjection of Women, p.428
[44] Mill, The Subjection of Women, p.450
[45] Douglass, p.117
[46] Douglass, p.117
[47] Douglass, p.118
[48] Calhoun, p.59
[49] Douglass, p.120-121
[50] Marx, The Communist Manifesto, p.80
[51] Marx, The Communist Manifesto, p.81
[52] Marx, The Communist Manifesto, p.84
[53] Marx, The Communist Manifesto, p.86