This paper contributes to the understanding of the relationship between law and power. Premised on the Hobbesian conceptualization of law as the command of the sovereign, this paper traces the resilience of this conceptualization through to the modern democratic states. It looks at the change of the sovereign from an individual to an office and now the diffusion of power through different systems of checks and balances instituted by the modern political system of democracy.
In doing this, the paper answers the question; to what extent is law the reflection of the wishes of political elites in a society? It explores the sources of law and the role of law as an organizing agent with a view of exposing the resilience of the political elite’s interests in law and in the use of law. The paper finally concludes that despite the changing nature of political systems, political elites have been able to preserve the law as a tool at their service. They have used their law making power to express their wishes in the law as well as used the complex procedural nature of law with several actors involved to serve their interest.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The question of Power, the Law and Justice
2.1 Law as an order of the sovereign
2.2 Divine Power and the Law
2.3 Law as an empowering agent
2.4 Law as a reflection of the dominant class
3. Contemporary Political Elites and the Law
4. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines the enduring relationship between law and power, analyzing how the Hobbesian conceptualization of law as the sovereign's command persists in modern democratic states. It specifically investigates the extent to which law reflects the interests of political elites, exploring whether institutional checks and balances effectively prevent the manipulation of legal processes for elite gain.
- The historical and theoretical evolution of law as a tool of sovereign power.
- The role of law as an organizing and empowering agent within society.
- The tension between formal legal neutrality and the reproduction of structural inequalities.
- Empirical analysis of how political elites leverage legal procedures and security apparatus to serve their interests.
- The limitations of democratic institutions in curbing elite influence over legal outcomes.
Excerpt from the Book
Law as an order of the sovereign
John Austin just like Hobbes in his command theory of law has also conceptualized law as the order of the sovereign backed by a threat of sanction in the event of noncompliance (Austin, 1995). This blends closely with the Hobbesian contract theory which presents a case of a one-sided contract between the people and the sovereign without providing a counter contract between the sovereign and the people. The sanctions cannot be applied to the sovereign since it serves to ensure compliance with his orders akin to the nature of the contract presented by Hobbes. Consequently, the relationship between the law and the sovereign/power bearer leads to the question of justice and what is just and unjust. Justice is another philosophical concept that has raised more questions than answers. Many scholars and philosophers have attempted the conceptualization of justice but have ended up raising more questions than they have settled.
Thrasymachus for instance has proposed that, “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (Hourani, 1962). From this conceptualization of justice, it is evident that the ruling elites or the power bearers will always make laws that serve their interest. He opines that, “And they declare what they have made—what is to their own advantage—to be just for their subjects…. This, then, is what I say justice is, the same in all cities, the advantage of the established regime” (Chappell, 2000). To this end therefore, justice in any given community revolves around the dictates of the laws in that community which in essence means the whishes/interests of the ruling class. On the other hand, Thyrasymachus has stated that, “just action is obedience to the laws of one’s state” (Hourani, 1962). This consequently means that a just action is reverence to the wishes of the ruling elites.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This chapter introduces the controversy surrounding the relationship between law and power, framing the central research question regarding whether law serves as a reflection of the wishes of political elites.
The question of Power, the Law and Justice: This section explores various theoretical perspectives, including Hobbesian, Austinian, and natural law frameworks, to analyze how law functions as both a command of the sovereign and an empowering agent.
Contemporary Political Elites and the Law: This chapter provides empirical examples from different political systems to demonstrate how political elites navigate and manipulate institutional procedures to protect their interests.
Conclusion: This final chapter synthesizes the arguments, affirming that despite transitions to modern democratic systems, law continues to reflect the will of powerful elites who use it as a tool for their own purposes.
Keywords
Law, Power, Political Elites, Sovereignty, Justice, Hobbes, Legal Pluralism, State, Institutions, Social Order, Coercion, Consent, Elite Interests, Democracy, Jurisprudence
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this publication?
The work focuses on the relationship between law and power, specifically analyzing the extent to which the law reflects the interests of political elites rather than objective justice.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
Key themes include the Hobbesian theory of the sovereign, legal pluralism, the role of law as an ideological and social control instrument, and the resilience of elite interests in democratic legal systems.
What is the core research question?
The paper seeks to answer: To what extent is law the reflection of the wishes of political elites in a society?
Which theoretical and scientific methods are employed?
The research utilizes a qualitative, analytical approach, drawing on legal philosophy (Hobbes, Austin, Hart), Marxist theory, and sociological perspectives to evaluate the link between state power and legal outcomes.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body examines the history of sovereign command, the critique of legal neutrality, the role of legal professionals as "midwives of justice" for the powerful, and specific case studies of corruption and wiretapping.
Which keywords define this work?
The work is defined by terms such as Law, Power, Political Elites, Sovereignty, Justice, and Social Order.
How does the author characterize "Law as an empty vessel"?
The author describes law as an "empty vessel" in contemporary society, implying that it can be instrumentally filled and directed by those in power to serve specific, non-neutral political ends.
What role do legal institutions play in protecting political elites?
Legal institutions often facilitate elite interests by providing complex procedural barriers that favor those with financial resources and control over security apparatus, as highlighted by cases in Nigeria and the United States.
- Citar trabajo
- Calvince Omondi Barack (Autor), 2018, Power and the Law. A Question of Justice or Political Elites' Interests?, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/417985
