In this blog post, we will examine the relationship between citizens and leaders from the perspective of thinkers and revisit the essence of representative government and democracy.
Edmund Burke, an 18th-century British thinker, became deeply skeptical of the general public while observing the French Revolution. He considered the general public to be ignorant and uneducated, and therefore untrustworthy in running the country. He thus conceived of representative government, a system in which competent representatives elected by contract govern the country on behalf of the people.
The representative government he envisioned was not simply a system of “representing” the people, but rather one of “acting on behalf of” the people. His thinking was that it was more efficient for a wealthy and educated class to make policy decisions on behalf of the uninformed majority. According to Burke, the people did not enter into a “divine contract” with their leaders, but rather a “fiduciary contract.” Therefore, leaders have a duty to promote the interests of the people as a whole through independent and discerning judgment, rather than reflecting the demands of individual citizens. He strongly criticized leaders who abandon their own judgment and are swayed by public opinion, saying that this is not serving the people, but betraying them.
On the other hand, Thomas Paine, who was born in England in the 18th century and was active in the United States, focused on the inalienable natural rights of the people. He argued that all human beings are born free and equal and that social discrimination can only be justified on the basis of the public interest.
Paine believed that the ultimate purpose of all political associations is to preserve the natural and indestructible rights of human beings.
He accepted a broad concept of rights that included not only freedom, property, and security, but also the right to resist oppression. Although somewhat radical at the time, this argument recognized the need for the state to guarantee rights, while emphasizing that the rights of the people take precedence over the state. According to him, the state is formed by the mutual agreement between the leaders and the people, each of whom has sovereignty.
However, this contract did not unilaterally delegate power to leaders, and he believed that if the state did not protect the rights of its citizens, it would lose its legitimacy. Therefore, he argued that there were principles that a just state or leader must uphold, and that these principles must be clearly stated in the constitution. The core of these principles was the protection of the sacred and inviolable rights of human beings.
In the 20th century, British philosopher Bertrand Russell focused on the ability of the people to choose good leaders rather than the absolute rights of each individual. He believed that even if the people voluntarily elected their leaders in a democratic country, a structure in which leaders give orders and the people obey them would inevitably lead to an imbalance of power, thereby undermining the ideal of equality in democracy.
Therefore, Russell emphasized that the maturity of the people is the most important factor for the success of democracy. He argued that both uncritical obedience to leaders and extreme opposition to even minority opinions must be avoided.
He also believed that even after electing a leader, the people must continue to offer reasonable criticism and approval of his policies and decisions, and that it is necessary to maintain independent thinking even within the democratic principle of majority rule. He added that when both leaders and the people are wary of falling into skepticism or extremism, a desirable relationship between leaders and the people can be formed in a democratic country.
