Views and arguments put forward by some of the writers like Norman Angell and Graham Wallas have been grouped as emerging from ‘distrust of the power of the overdeveloped state’. Emergence of various groups and voluntary associations for economic and ethical purposes to which many of individual’s need could be met like trade unions, clubs, questions the exclusivity of the state. Further, due to various factors like war and ‘war-time psychology’ and also perceived tyranny of the majority rule, realization to secure the liberty of the individual has been felt. Some writers have expressed apprehension of the dangers of majority rule, spontaneity of mob mind, weight of public opinion, which may jeopardize individual liberty and minority opinion. Joad has formulated this reaction in these words:
It has become important, therefore, to evolve a political theory which would recognize in the first place that the transfer of legal sovereignty to the majority of the moment under the name of the State is no guarantee of universal happiness, and would endeavour in the second, by dispersing the powers and functions of the State over as wide an area as possible, to afford the individual some protection against the mass.122
Basically, modern individualism seeks to protect the individual from tyranny of the majority and public opinion, which results from representative governments. Legal sovereignty of the state, for all practical purposes, is expressed through the government and generally government is elected on a majority basis. Public opinion and spontaneous mass mind works in producing a government. If it is left to itself, individual liberty and minority opinion would get a setback. We may note here that J. S. Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville had expressed similar apprehension against majoritarian tyranny. Laski has also opposed sovereignty by saying that government is run by fallible men and leaving enormous power in the hands of government in the name of state sovereignty is inimical.
Norman Angell advocated that men are united by a ‘community of feeling based on economic interests … which transcends national and geographical boundaries’.123 This was against the call for patriotic feeling during war-time as it advocated para-national bond. He hoped that national state might get merged in an international order of society based on economic class basis. Graham Wallas argued that the territorially elected government might not be useful and representative of the society to administer the socially owned means of production in case of transference of means of production from private to social ownership. Geographical basis of election may not result in a representative government due to influence of the popular press, boosted by various interests etc. He advocated two Chambers, one for representing geographical basis and other for vocational basis. His objective is to safeguard the individual from the evils of the unrestricted majority rule.
Advocates of modern individualism argue that state power is not required for the development of individual. Two main reasons that emerge are common economic interests transcending state boundary and majority rule based on public opinion. State power and its sovereignty should not be pleaded for, lest it may result in government based on majority crushing the minority and the individual.
Leave a Reply