The modern political structure and the power relationships between the ruler and the subject become more complex when we consider current political situations and terms of governance (Grant 1987, p. 78). Investigations conducted over issues of leadership view the relationship between rulers and their subjects as a multi-dimensional phenomenon whose impacts revolve around complete power assumption and irresponsible use of power to create, cause or inflict pain to the innocent groups within the society (Grant 1987, p. 78). In majority of political systems, rulers are known to derive their power from the public through legal consents, either in a voting process or by nominations (Hampton 1990, p. 67). As stated by Aristotle, the power retained by a community in a political system is properly invested when the community decides to do good by making one of their own to represent them in decision making and in policy developments (Hampton 1990, p. 67).
As opposed to other systems where the position of leadership is hereditary, the statement by Aristotle focuses on a perceived democratic system and digs deeper into the general understanding of the sources of power retained by leaders and the roles leaders should undertake in order to avoid some of the conflicts that may arise between them and their subjects (Hampton 1990, p. 69). Power assumptions and unprecedented behaviors among political leaders towards their subjects illustrate a piece of complicated puzzle in identifying the distinctive roles of the legal community in relation to leader’s political position in the society (Rousseau & Cranston 1975, p. 45). At the extreme end, we observe instances of dictatorship, animosity between rulers and their subjects, acts of genocide, oppressions and constant wars within modern political systems. Even though the relationship between the ruler and the subject is only defined up to the point of selection, the subject has a vital role to play in providing solutions to the mentioned leadership challenges (Grant 1987, p. 78). The subject stands better chances of ensuring total control and better leadership by withdrawing the powers of the leader through similar consents (Hampton 1990, p. 69). As stated by Aristotle, the hands that put you into power are the same hands that will bring you down. This study focuses on the relationship between rulers and their subjects and how best a society can put to end modern challenges of dictatorship, genocide, wars and systems oppressions (Mencius, Ivanhoe & Bloom 2009, p. 47).
Democracy as a process of decision making
In a democratic system, the public has the right to make political decisions through voting processes. The decision making process in this case is the first priority that the public has and this describes the uniqueness in legal frameworks of the roles played by the community as a potential controller of the powers given to the political leader (Grant 1987, p. 79). Within the democratic environments, the control the subject has over government provisions of public goods and services must be in line with the communal demands and areas of interests which again is a show of power distribution and influence the society has on institutional decision making processes and performance outcomes (Hampton 1990, p. 69). Such powers are known to remain relevant as long as the public does not subject its political ruler to political convictions, and where the community is perceived a threat to power consolidation, political leaders have always remained in-built and driven by the urge to dominate in their political positions (Hampton 1990, p. 69). In this case, the subject has little role to play within the government in which case the position taken by the subject is only to follow the orders as given by the ruler. The outlaid result is oppression, power dominion and acts of defiance to every proposed policy (Hampton 1990, p. 69). Such instances make leaders and their political positions irrelevant to the society and the best the leaders can do is to either use force to get things done or to leave their positions and remain inferior. In either case, the price is high and most leaders might not be in a position to decide on the latter (Grant 1987, p. 79).
Proper channeling of institutional power signifies good leadership. In every aspect, the government has to ensure long term trends by involving the community in governance and policy development (Rousseau & Cranston 1975, p. 45). In recent years, political leaders have shown instances of power struggle with constant oppositions on development strategies proposed by existing leader and this in most cases have led to persistent and more complicated systems of governance (Mencius, Ivanhoe & Bloom 2009, p. 47). Leadership failures and poor development strategies are considered the main forces that inhibit development in majority of third world countries. There seem to be ideological differences between the ruling parties and the opposition groups (Rousseau & Cranston 1975, p. 48). The differences in ideology create a ridge in performance and those who are majorly affected are the minority groups in the leadership structure (Mencius, Ivanhoe & Bloom 2009, p. 49). The sole responsibility of the government and the ruler is to ensure equal distribution of public goods and services alongside giving equal opportunities without favoring a particular group for government positions (Grant 1987, p. 100). The societal objective of good governance and proper distribution of public goods and services may not be realistic following the kinds of leadership and governance some leaders use to accomplish their ego and political pride (Hampton 1990, p. 69). At the highest point of ruling, most leaders tend to delegate duties to their close allies, assuming that every action undertaken by the appointed members of the ruling group best fit the interest of the entire society. To some extent, delegation only worsens the formal relationships that would have thrived since majority of the delegate only work to please their leaders and not within the interests of the community (Mencius, Ivanhoe & Bloom 2009, p. 49).
As observed in various instances, leaders only make decisions that favor their political ambitions and remains inclined to fulfilling the needs of their political supporters promptly (Nowak 1991, p. 121). By virtue that the political system and the form of leadership offered are prime concerns of the society in ensuring growth and political stability, we observe increasing trends in oppositions and revolution groups (Hampton 1990, p. 70). The enhanced roles of the opposition groups and revolutionists aim at putting the government and its leadership under constant checks and possibly giving reasons for the importance of power distribution among member of the society. Leaders have opted to use force and brutality by involving the army and other security forces where trends in opposition are high (Grant 1987, p. 79). This form of leadership where people do not have the right to criticize, mention or question the roles played by the government put the public at the apex of resistance.
By definition, human beings are considered as political players and any person who refutes the role of statesman is by nature considered an alien or above humanity (Mencius, Ivanhoe & Bloom 2009, p. 51). The basics under human nature are that we are driven by the need to have an environment that supports our humanness and corresponds to what we consider good and safe (Rousseau & Cranston 1975, p. 59). The interplayed roles in political fields between the ruler and the subject best illustrate the political person in this case (Nowak 1991, p.121). Only at the verge of power assumption and infringement in people’s living conditions will you see the political roles played by the society, even the weakest of all (Rousseau & Cranston 1975, p. 47). This human attribute is a perfect illustration of community as the sole maker and provider of power to different kind of leaders, and such powers can easily be withdrawn from the leaders if it is not wisely applied to benefit the entire population (Mencius, Ivanhoe & Bloom 2009, p. 51). Individuals in the society decide to shape their leadership structure and put into power leaders recognized by majority of the people. Since the community has a hand in choosing the kind of leadership people prefer, then power is a dispensation of subjects and the leader is a social making.
Since we are concerned with issues of power bestowed on a leader through a consent generally termed under the political system, we significantly consider the best way to withdraw the same power from a leader who is discrete, non-grateful and hateful (Nowak 1991, p. 122). The best approach in this case is to refine the political system in a non-violent manner through the same political process. In this view, democracy tends to give a chance to each group: the politically oppressed who in this case are the subject and the oppressor who is the leader and his or her close allies (Grant 1987, p. 101). The terms of operation in this case put leaders at cross-roads to accept the democratic process and move out of power or to be arrogant and more defiant to the voice of the society (Rousseau & Cranston 1975, p. 53).
Power of the subject vs. the ruler’s political position
The power of the subject is restored in what scholars call liberty of the will which in most cases are considered misnamed when we cross examine the roles and behaviors of the society within the brackets of the interpreted doctrines of philosophical necessities (Mencius, Ivanhoe & Bloom 2009, p. 55). In response to the quests of legal community to have complete control over the responsibilities undertaken by leaders, the mismatch here is the proportions of civil and social liberty that proposes the nature of the political system and certain limits prevalent in controlling the powers that can be clearly exercised by the leader or any other person in the society (Hampton 1990, p. 70). The concepts of civil and social liberty evidently create an impact on communal versus individual rulings and seem to even have influence on controversies in leadership roles and distributive nature of communal power. The platforms within which the subjects operate are distinct and come in two facets: the remote ages and the new ages within the leadership structure (Nowak 1991, p. 122). The modern world is in the brackets of progress and divides humankind into a more civilized generation who requires distinct and more fundamental treatments (Grant 1987, p. 101).
As such, the observed character is a struggle between liberty and authority which is particular to the leadership structure presented by those in power. Recently, power contest is familiar between the subject, various classes of subjects and governments (Mencius, Ivanhoe & Bloom 2009, p.55). The political concerns and the reversed leadership roles are proposals that aim at protecting minority within the government from the tyranny of the rulers (Nowak 1991, p. 122). Here, the subjects conceive rulers as impediments towards growth and progress of the groups the leaders rule (Grant 1987, p. 102). The fact that rulers oppress the minority, use the minority groups as a ladder to move to greater heights compel the defiant groups to raise oppositions and through a retaliation process would want to eject a leader from his or her political position (Hampton 1990, p. 72).
In the past, the process of power withdrawal through consent was not easy since leadership was part of inheritance or one would be a leader through general conquest (Rousseau & Cranston 1975, p. 55). In the case of inheritance and conquest, rulers did not hold power at the pleasure of their subjects but through their own making and therefore any decision leaders would make whether bad or good would be taken predominantly and without any questions. This was total dictatorship and the oppressed opted to move into other locations in search of their own liberty (Lycos 1987, p. 88). The common term that was used during such periods was for the oppressed groups to either respond to the calls of leadership or purchase their freedom in exchange of their lives (Mencius, Ivanhoe & Bloom 2009, p. 56). The terms of leadership were considered important but at the same time dangerous since it limited general participation of the community in decision making. The subject had to look for ways to appease their leader to avoid the wrath of being expelled, forced in labor or even get killed (Lycos 1987, p. 88).
Even with various changes in governments and roles of leaders, some leaders find it worthwhile to use dictatorship, brutality and oppressions in their governance. This is because, even though such leaders understand best the leadership challenges the population is facing, they appear to remain hardened and use their powers against their subjects and against their external critics (Grant 1987, p. 102). Currently, some leaders work under the principle of conquest since they argue that in every social setup, there are those who must remain stronger and uncontrollable in order to leverage responsibility (Mencius, Ivanhoe & Bloom 2009, p. 57). The part of leveraging responsibility seem to not auger well with some members of the society who then find adaptive measures to perpetually dispense the bad attitudes of leadership experienced at either state levels or national levels (Rousseau & Cranston 1975, p. 53).
Non-violent actions in a process of consent withdrawal
Consent withdrawal is one of the strategies used by the oppressed to obtain their political freedom and rights to participate in various democratic processes (Lycos 1987, p. 89). The stance upon which the oppressed apply their non-violent actions to regain recognition and favor take a shift towards patriotism. The first attempt is to limit the powers vested upon leaders and this is done in two ways: obtaining proper recognition of high leveled immunities under the umbrella of political liberties or conducting expedient (Mencius, Ivanhoe & Bloom 2009, p. 56). Within the frame work of immunities for political liberty, the subjects apply series of breach to their assigned duties with the expectation that the ruler will fringe on the subjects rights, and if in case the ruler goes ahead to infringe any of his or her subjects, the entire group raises resistance or rebellion against the actions of the leader (Grant 1987, p. 99). This approach is identifiable in various governments across the world more especially where a particular group feels that the services of a particular leader are no longer viable for the proposed development plans (Lycos 1987, p. 89). The expedient approach on the other hand is an establishment of the constitutional checks. Within the framework of the constitutional checks, the consent of the subject or the entire community is supposed to present the interest of the people to the leader in which case societal demands are made conditional for fulfillment by the governing body (Mencius, Ivanhoe & Bloom 2009, p. 59). The limiting conditions of these approaches of consent withdrawal compel the leader in such a circumstance to submit to the opposing forces and allow for new structuring of the political system (Jordan 1997, p. 33).
The differences between the two methods retailed around the level of subjectivity and the agency of power change. The second approach, the expedient process, required a complete participation of lover of political freedom since where certain degrees of infringement already exists, the principality of expedient is flawed (Jordan 1997, p. 33). This is because, at times, the oppressed find it hard to face their leader on a constitutional platform due to fear of the outcome (Lycos 1987, p. 91). The constitutional relay must therefore be in the hands of a parallel institution for the subjects to obtain a legal favor. In cases where the governing body has a close connection with the legal bodies, the entire process of expedient is bound to fail (Grant 1987, p. 89).
In other instances, the subject may opt to use political movements which are only meant to enlighten people on the political advancements and challenges that arguably should not arise (Jordan 1997, p. 35). The rate at which the whole society will respond to the mentioned needs to create a change in the political system will depend on the observed challenges (Lycos 1987, p. 91). In other words, the people must be convinced that the mentioned challenges are realistic before engaging in any revolution movements. This approach becomes complicated where a section of the population stands by the leader and is not ready to follow the political pursuits of other members of the community (Lycos 1987, p. 92). At times, leaders find their strong support from the non-opposing groups who might be even willing to fight in favor of their leader. Organizing mass rebellion and revolution movements might not be the best solution to get out a powerful leader out of consent (Jordan 1997, p. 34). Currently, most governments use impeachment to keep non-ideological leaders out of the political system. The impeachment process is performed by members of the political system which are funded by the same government headed by the bad leader (Grant 1987, p. 96). The result of the impeachment process though might be there, the processes might only come once more damage is caused.
Importance of applying non-violent actions in consent withdrawal
As mentioned earlier, non-violent actions in consent withdrawal is the only way towards obtaining political liberty against an oppressed ruler without causing harm to any particular group involved in the process (Jordan 1997, p. 35). As much as the society is look for avenues of obtaining freedom form oppression, the members involved must understand that even the oppressors have a right to healthy living and therefore the lives of the leaders should not be comprised in the process (Jordan 1997, p. 35). The processes involved in non-violent power retention ensure that problems of leadership are solved fully with little compulsion and without possibly falling into conflict (Lycos 1987, p. 93). In every process, the concept of humanism and respect for other people’s rights remains paramount and therefore by applying the two non-violent mechanisms in consent withdrawal is a show of political maturity and transformation from errors of brutality.
On the same note, non-violent means of power control gives the opposing groups an opportunity to share on the best formula to use in order to regain the from the political setbacks and failures is other sectors of development. The subjects need to have regulatory measures in every approach they give as opposed to moving as a mass in their political quest. In other words, non-violent means in this case is a show of control and direction (Grant 1987, p. 99). And organized group in the revolutions processes has little to do with power wrangles but is driven by the urge to create a fully operational leadership system that takes into account the needs of the whole community (Jordan 1997, p. 35).
Even though political movements are best describe as the path towards political oppression, within the framework of non-violent actions, most leaders have taken advantage of the processes involved and are inclined towards building their base among the opposing groups. Leaders opt to bribe members of the public who are strongly involved in the revolution processes (Jordan 1997, p. 35). At times, bad leaders single out strong individuals within the opposing group and subject them to torture. On the same note, using the tyranny of numbers to get a political leader out of power might be unconstitutional and might keep good leaders from getting into power.
Grant, R. W. (1987). John Locke’s liberalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hampton, J. (1990). Hobbes and the social contract tradition. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Jordan, C. (1997). Shakespeare’s monarchies: Ruler and subject in the romances. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.
Lycos, K. (1987). Plato on justice and power: Reading Book I of Plato’s Republic. Albany, N.Y: State University of New York Press.
Mencius, Ivanhoe, P. J., & Bloom, I. (2009). Mencius. New York: Columbia University Press.
Nowak, L. (1991). Power and civil society: Toward a dynamic theory of real socialism. New York: Greenwood Press.
Rousseau, J.-J., & Cranston, M. (1975). The social contract. Harmondsworth: Penguin.