Suchergebnisse

The author initiates the article with the theory that the concept of sovereignty significantly differs in the late Middle Ages & the early modern age. Bodin gave to the sovereign the competency to both legislate & command, thus creating a significant shift forward from the medieval monarchical competency. Although he connected the two competencies, he was still unable to make the sovereign master of law but only master of statutes, with some limitations. The modern age recognizes two types of sovereignty: sovereignty of the sovereign & sovereignty of the people. The first case deals with absolute monarchies, while the second is concerned with democracies. Today, only the latter case is politically relevant. The author differentiates between 'the people' as a group of autonomous individuals, & 'the people' as an organic entity. The first form of political unity comes from autonomous individuals, & sees in the government only limiting power, while the second sees the basis for political unity in the whole of the ethnic body, culture, language, religion, history, etc. The second form has its roots in the romanticism of the 19th century; since the fall of socialist systems, it is again dominant in political thought & practice. The author warns of the dangers of one-sided use of organic unity in the creation of political communities & considers a combination of national & individual elements (democratic & liberal) the only successful basis for sovereignty. Adapted from the source document.

Mixed government, which is commonly regarded as a distinctly medieval form of government, is relevant also to contemporary constitutional states. It is the best form of government, since the aristocratic element is a continuous source of virtue, especially of justice, & a check not only on the executive, as the monarchical element which is the seat of political power, & the legislature, as the democratic element which expresses the will of the majority, but also groups & institutions that have the might & will to impose themselves as oligarchies. Mixed government is also the form of government that is practiced by most developed contemporary constitutional states: US, UK, France, Switzerland, Germany, etc. European nobility is the original aristocratic institution, by virtue of the fact that it was a system for the transfer of both virtue & general conditions of life. Three institutions that emerged in the late Middle Ages assumed structures & functions of the nobility. The first is the clergy. When, as a result of the differentiation of feudal society ethical & intellectual virtues of the nobility could no longer maintain general conditions of life, the clergy, by virtue of their abstract knowledge that ranged from philosophy & theology to law & medicine, became a class of new experts in generalities & thereby a new aristocracy. The second modern aristocratic institution is the judiciary, which has a structure & function similar to earlier aristocracies. The task of judges is to establish the highest virtue of constitutionalism. It is justice by law, which regulates general conditions of life in the state & society. What qualifies judges for the task is expertise in the new generality. The expertise includes not only education & experience in law but also impeccable private life & demonstrated professional ethics. The third modern aristocratic institution is the profession, whose most important instance is the legal profession. It shares its structure & function partly with the judiciary & partly with other professions. It seems that modern professions are degenerating. In the key area of data processing, due to rapid changes of technology, professions as systems of the transfer of virtue do not even seem to be possible. Professional aristocracies are replaced increasingly by oligarchies of capitalists & technocrats. Adapted from the source document.