Johannes Althusius, a seventeenth century French Calvinist, contributed to the concept of sovereignty by treating it as a defining element of the State. It may be mentioned that in early seventeenth-century France, Calvinists discussed anti-royalist theories and stressed the secular and human origins of government. Ironically, this was to lead to the Divine Right of Popes being given a unique place in the categories of ‘authorities’. Althusius ‘continued and elaborated the anti-royalist theory’9 Politica Methodice Digesta (1603).
Althusius developed a political theory based on the concept of a contract, without reference to religious authority. We have seen Bodin talking about social groupings and political bonds to distinguish between the realm of the private (families) and the public/sovereign (State). Althusius came up with a theory of social groupings based on contracts arising out of natural relationships and innate social propensity. He attributed the origin of various social groups to tacit agreements which underlay all associations, on account of which people became ‘dwellers together, sharers of goods, services and laws’, which the association created and sustained. He offered an elaborate classification of associations, which evolved from the simple to the complex. The five complex associations were the family, the voluntary corporations, the local community, the province and the state. In all these associations, individuals and associations agreed to stay together as a community—a social contract.
For Althusius, the state was a product of social contract and represented a political grouping in this series of associations. The state arose by the association of provinces or local communities and its differentiating characteristic was sovereign power (majestas). Unlike Bodin, Althusius made ‘sovereignty reside in the people as a corporate body’. This was because he believed that the people as a corporate body were incapable of parting with sovereignty as it was a characteristic of this specific kind of association (called the state). Sovereignty was never passed or alienated into the possession of any ruling class or family.
However, in order to extend the anti-royalist theory stressing the secular and human origins of government, Althusius spoke of a second contract. By this second contract, ‘power is bestowed upon the administrative officers of a state by the law of the state.’10 Thus, we see Althusius talking about two contracts—one explaining the origin of social groupings including the state, and the other attributing the existence of government to ‘an agreement by which a corporate body imparts power to its administrators to make the incorporation effective.’ This also implies that in case the holder of this power forfeits the reason to justify the agreement, it reverts to the people. This can be considered to be the clearest statement of popular sovereignty. We may compare this with Locke’s formulation of the social contract and the power of the government as trust. Though Locke did not explicitly mention this, the inference is posited by commentators like Sabine and Wayper, Locke tacitly assumed two contracts.11 By locating sovereignty in the people by virtue of their characteristic of being a corporate body, Althusius was able to provide the ground for legal limitations on executive power and the right to resist the tyrannical exercise of power.
Leave a Reply