Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The concept of sovereignty, traditionally understood as the supreme and absolute power within a territory, has undergone significant re-evaluation in modern political thought. Historically, thinkers like Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes championed absolute sovereignty as essential for maintaining order and security. However, by the 20th century, this notion faced increasing scrutiny. Harold Laski, a prominent British political theorist, was a vocal critic of absolute sovereignty. He argued that the state is not the sole locus of power and authority in society, and that the absolute nature of sovereignty was not only impractical but also detrimental to individual liberty and social justice. His rejection stemmed from his commitment to pluralism and a belief in the importance of mediating institutions.
The Traditional Notion of Absolute Sovereignty
Traditionally, sovereignty was conceived as possessing four key attributes: absolute, permanent, indivisible, and exclusive. Absolute sovereignty meant the state was free from any internal or external constraints. It could make laws, wage war, and govern its people without interference. This view, solidified during the rise of nation-states in Europe, emphasized the state’s supreme authority. However, Laski challenged each of these attributes, arguing they were increasingly untenable in the modern world.
Laski’s Critique of Absolute Sovereignty
1. The State is Not the Only Association
Laski’s central argument rested on his pluralist philosophy. He believed that the state was not the only important association in society. Other associations – such as trade unions, religious organizations, professional bodies, and voluntary groups – also possessed inherent value and served crucial functions in fulfilling individual needs and aspirations. He argued that individuals derive their identity and sense of belonging from multiple associations, not solely from the state. To claim absolute sovereignty for the state was to ignore the legitimate claims of these other associations and to suppress individual freedom.
2. The Rise of Group Rights
Laski contended that rights are not merely granted by the state but are inherent to individuals as members of various groups. He argued that the state should protect these group rights, recognizing that individuals often achieve their full potential through participation in these associations. Absolute sovereignty, by prioritizing the state’s interests above all else, inevitably led to the suppression of group rights and the erosion of individual liberty. He believed that the state should be a facilitator of these groups, not their master.
3. Limitations Imposed by International Law and Organizations
The emergence of international law and organizations like the League of Nations (established 1920) and, later, the United Nations (1945) further undermined the notion of absolute sovereignty. Laski argued that states were increasingly bound by international treaties, conventions, and norms. The very existence of these international bodies demonstrated a willingness on the part of states to pool their sovereignty for the sake of collective security and cooperation. He pointed out that states could no longer act with complete impunity, as their actions were subject to scrutiny and potential sanctions from the international community.
4. The Welfare State and Positive Liberty
Laski’s concept of positive liberty – the capacity to realize one’s full potential – also informed his critique of absolute sovereignty. He believed that the state had a responsibility to create the conditions necessary for individuals to achieve positive liberty, including providing social and economic security. This required intervention in the economy and the regulation of private power, which were incompatible with the idea of absolute state non-interference. The rise of the welfare state, with its emphasis on social welfare programs, demonstrated a shift away from the traditional liberal notion of limited government and towards a more interventionist role for the state.
5. The Problem of Power and its Distribution
Laski was deeply concerned about the concentration of power in the state. He argued that absolute sovereignty provided a fertile ground for tyranny and abuse of power. He advocated for a more decentralized distribution of power, with checks and balances to prevent any single entity from becoming too dominant. He believed that power should be dispersed among various associations and institutions, ensuring that no one group could exercise unchecked authority.
Laski’s Vision of Limited Sovereignty
Laski did not advocate for the abolition of the state or the denial of its authority. Rather, he proposed a concept of ‘limited sovereignty,’ where the state’s power was constrained by the rights of individuals and associations, as well as by international law and obligations. He envisioned a state that was responsive to the needs of its citizens and committed to promoting social justice and equality. This required a fundamental shift in the understanding of sovereignty, from an absolute and unlimited power to a relative and constrained authority.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Laski’s rejection of absolute sovereignty was rooted in his pluralist philosophy and his commitment to individual liberty and social justice. He convincingly argued that the traditional notion of sovereignty was outdated and impractical in the modern world, given the rise of group rights, the limitations imposed by international law, and the changing role of the state in promoting social welfare. His ideas continue to be relevant today, as states grapple with the challenges of globalization, human rights, and the need for greater international cooperation. Laski’s legacy lies in his call for a more limited, accountable, and responsive state, one that recognizes the inherent value of individuals and associations beyond its own authority.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.