Property:Contents
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
V
Articles 70 and 71 of Ukraine’s Constitution lay out the rights of voters. Ukrainian citizens age 18 or older who are not deemed incompetent can vote in local and national elections based on the principles of universal suffrage. (Constitute Project, “Ukraine’s Constitution of [[Probable year:: 1996]] with Amendments through [[Probable year:: 2016]]” ). +
Under article 46 of section 1, The Supreme Council of the Union, each Emirate shall have a single vote in the deliberations of the council. According to article 49 decisions of the council and procedural matters shall be taken by majority vote. Article 61 states that the decisions are secret and in an evenly divided vote the Chairman’s vote shall prevail. There are no political parties and, until the beginning of the 21st century, no elections were held. Now, an electoral college meets every four years to select half of the members of the advisory Federal National Council, the other half is designated by appointment. (Constitute Project, “United Arab Emirates's Constitution of [[Probable year:: 1971]] with Amendments through [[Probable year:: 2004]]” ) +
The Reform Act of [[Probable year:: 1832]] was the first piece of legislation to expand voting rights in the United Kingdom. It established that men above the age of 21 who were freeholders of property could vote. Universal suffrage was established with the Representation of the People Act [[Probable year:: 1969]], which extended the right to vote to all persons of age (Anglotopia, "The History of Voting Rights in the United Kingdom") +
U.S. election laws first were seen in Article 1 of the Constitution, which gave states the responsibility to oversee federal elections. Since then, many Constitutional amendments and federal laws have been put in place to protect voting rights such as the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth Amendment (USA Gov, "Voting and Elections"). +
Chapter 2 article 77 of the [[Probable year:: 1966]] Constitution of Uruguay states that since every citizen is a member of the sovereignty of the nation, they are eligible to vote and participate in the electoral process (Constitute Project, "Uruguay's Constitution of [[Probable year:: 1966]], Reinstated in [[Probable year:: 1985]], with Amendments through [[Probable year:: 2004]]" ). +
The law on Election of Citizens' Suffrage in [[Probable year:: 1994]] granted Citizens of the Republic of Uzbekistan the right to take part in public and state affairs both as directly and through their representatives (Legislaionline, "Law on Election of Citizens' Suffrage"). +
The [[Probable year:: 1980]] Constitution under Chapter 1, National Sovereignty, The Electoral Franchise and Political Parties, entitles every citizen of age thee right to vote (Constitute Project, "Vanuatu's Constitution of [[Probable year:: 1980]] with Amendments through [[Probable year:: 2013]]" ). +
Under the [[Probable year:: 1999]] Constitution of Venezuela, Article 64, all Venezuelans over the age of 18 have the right to vote (Constitute Project, Venezuela's Constitution of [[Probable year:: 1999]] with Amendments through [[Probable year:: 2009]]) . +
According to Chapter I, Political System, Article 7 of the Vietnmaese Constitution the elections are held in accordance with the principles of universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage. Under Chapter II, Human Rights and Citizen’s Fundamental Rights and Duties, Article 27 citizens of the age of 18 have the right to vote (Constitute Project, “Vietnam’s Constitution of [[Probable year:: 1992]] with Amendments through [[Probable year:: 2013]]” ). +
Under Part Three, Organization of the State Authorities, Chapter 1, Article 63 of the Yemeni Constitution, The members of the House of Representatives shall be elected in a secret free and equal vote directly by the people (Constitute Project, “Yemen's Constitution of [[Probable year:: 1991]] with Amendments through [[Probable year:: 2001]]” ). +
Article 66 of the 1964 Constitution of Zambia states: "Every citizen of Zambia who has attained the age of eighteen years shall, unless he is disqualified by Parliament from registration as a voter for the purposes of elections to the National Assembly, be entitled to be registered as such a voter under a law in that behalf, and no other person may be so registered."
Article 75, clause 1 of the [[Probable year:: 1991]] Constitution grants every citizen of Zambia who has attained the age of eighteen years is entitled to be registered as a voter (Election Access, "Zambia").
https://www.worldstatesmen.org/Constitution-Zambia1964.pdf +
According to ZImbabwe’s Constitution, Chapter 7, Elections, Part one, Electoral Systems and Processes, Number 155, Principles of the Electoral System, elections must be held regularly and referendums to which the Constitution applies must be peaceful, free, conducted by a secret ballot and based on universal suffrage and equality (Constitute Project, “Zimbabwe's Constitution of [[Probable year:: 2013]]” ). +
Other noteworthy written sources that mention an implicit right to vote in a more modern context include Thomas Rainsborough during the British Putney Debates in 1647, where he stated, “I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put Himself under.” Rainsborough’s speech at the Putney Debates also alluded to a divine right to vote:
"I do think the main cause why Almighty God gave men reason, it was that they should make use of that reason…every man born in England cannot, ought not, neither by the law of God nor the law of nature, to be exempted from the choice of those who are to make laws for him to live under." (Rainsborough)
In the United States, the 1776 Constitution of Virginia was one of the first written sources to establish a protected right to vote, stating that “all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage.” Federalist 52, written by James Madison, also alludes to the importance of voting rights, stating “the definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government” (Avalon Project).
In both of these cases, however, the right to vote was granted solely to property-owning men, and it would not be until the mid-19th Century that the connection between the right to vote and property ownership would be removed in both Great Britain and the United States. Additionally, perceptions of suffrage as a universal right have come about much more recently, with New Zealand becoming the first country to legally recognize suffrage as a universal right in 1893 under Part One of the Electoral Act, which outlined that “every person of the age of twenty-one years or upwards who has resided for one year in the colony” was eligible to vote.
References:
Calvin, John, and Luther, Martin, and Milton, John, and Lilburne, John, and Overton, Richard, and Ireton, Henry, and Rainborough, Thomas, and Cromwell, Oliver, and John Wildman. Puritanism and Liberty, being the Army Debates (1647-9). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938.
Federalist No. 52 (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed52.asp#:~:text=A%20representative%20of%20the%20United,office%20under%20the%20United%20States.)
Multiple 5th-Century BC sources outline the importance of citizen voting to early Athenian democracy. Thucydides’s The History of the Peloponnesian War includes several allusions to the importance of citizen participation in democracy. The first instance comes in Chthe funeral oration of Pericles:
"Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy…instead of looking on discussion as a stumbling-block in the way of action, we think it an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all." (Thucydides)
The description of participatory democracy as “indispensable” evokes an importance that moves beyond simply advocating for the benefits of democracy. Rather, it implies an intrinsic importance that more closely mirrors that of a political right. The early political foundations of democracy appear again during a speech from Athenagoras:
"It will be said, perhaps, that democracy is neither wise nor equitable, but that the holders of property are also the best fitted to rule. I say, on the contrary, first, that the word demos, or people, includes the whole state, oligarchy only a part; next, that if the best guardians of property are the rich, and the best counsellors the wise, none can hear and decide so well as the many; and that all these talents, severally and collectively, have their just place in a democracy." (Thucydides)
Aristotle also outlines the inner workings of early Athenian democracy after the reforms of Solon and includes several allusions to the intrinsic importance of suffrage in The Constitution of the Athenians, most likely written between 328 and 322 BC. In his discussion of the importance of individuals’ right to appeal grievances in Athenian court, Aristotle states that “when the democracy is master of the voting-power, it is master of the constitution,” and that “the masses have owed their strength” to Athens’s democratic institutions (Avalon Project). While there is no explicit mention of suffrage as a “right” per se, Aristotle’s emphasis on “voting-power” as a fundamental element of Athenian civil society serves as one of the older examples of voting as a “right.” However, it is important to note that voting in Ancient Athens, while highly valued and perceived as a right for some, was not universal, and only free adult men, whose parents were also Athenian, were granted the right to vote.
References:
Aristotle, Constitution of the Athenians, Avalon Project
Thucydides, Peloponnesian War
The right to vote has developed into an international norm over the past several decades, one often made an element of national constitutions. The widespread suffrage we see today was achieved through the struggle of advocates for democracy around the globe. Other political forces, beyond national constitutions, have also guided the global development of voting rights, to some degree. International and regional conventions on human, civic, and political rights further encourage states to protect their citizens’ right to vote. Examples include The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Organization of American States (OAS), to name just a few. (Kirshner, 2003) Though ambitious, such conventions are rarely legally binding, thus lacking enforcement. Furthermore, they present a general framework that allows national governments to find and exploit loopholes based on their own interests, should they desire to do so.
A government’s motivation plays a key role in how it implements voting rights. While we typically think of suffrage as a way of empowering citizens, it functions just as easily as a tool of legitimation to counter both domestic and international criticism. The latter function is common in “anocratic” states that blend democracy with authoritarianism, and can use voting rights as an attempt to gain clout and legitimacy in the global arena. (Global Citizen)
References:
Global Citizen. “What Democracy and Voting Rights Look Like Around the World.” n.d. Global Citizen. Accessed June 9, 2021. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/its-2016-here-is-the-state-of-voting-rights-around/.
Kirshner, Alexander. 2003. “The International Status of the Right to Vote.” Democracy Coalition Project. +
Natural Law:
Perceptions of voting as a right under natural law theory have evolved over time. In early natural law theory, the right to vote was not explicitly considered a necessary component of the fundamental goods on which rights and law are founded. While Aquinas posited that “the supreme power belongs to the multitude as a whole, or to that one who represents the multitude,” he never emphasized the importance of expressing the power of the multitude through voting, specifically (Shepard 1913, 114). Additionally, in the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke finds that, while natural law and reason compel humans beings to create civil governments to protect their property and grant powers to sovereign individuals and institutions as a “common superior on earth to appeal to for relief,” widely-recognized suffrage is not a natural prerequisite for this tendency (Locke 1689, 15).
Over time, however, suffrage has received more consideration as intrinsic to natural law. Walter James Shepard describes this shift as part of the “theory of the early constitutional regime,” which moved beyond feudal interpretations of political representation and brought about the notion “that voting is an abstract right, founded in natural law, a consequence of the social compact, and an incident of popular sovereignty” (Shepard 1913, 108). The American Civil Rights Movement also brought about more explicit connections between the right to vote and natural law theory. Martin Luther King Jr., widely considered to have based his political philosophy on the tenets of natural law, often rhetorically framed the right to vote as part of the “eternal moral issue” of the Civil Rights Movement, stating that “the denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic tradition” (King 1957) . King’s commentary on de facto denial of African Americans’ right to vote echoes later writings by King that more explicitly outline the natural law tradition: “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law” (King 1963).
Legal Positivism:
Legal positivist interpretations of suffrage prioritize the systems that define, carry out, and protect suffrage and the voting process. Unlike natural law, the right to vote is not intimately connected or not connected to the pursuit of human goodness. Instead, it is a product of positive norms in a given society, and can be codified as a right as long as society and its legislators view it as something worth protecting. According to H.L.A. Hart, the right to vote constitutes a “secondary rule”–a rule that regulates how laws in the conventional sense are “ascertained, introduced, eliminated” and enforced (Hart 1961, 92).
Whereas “primary rules” control individual action such as speed limits, environmental regulations, or criminal law, the right to vote as a secondary rule regulates the process by which primary rules are created by incorporating some level of public input on who makes the law. Jeremy Waldron emphasizes the necessity of governmental and legal systems for suffrage, stating that “[o]ne has the right to vote only if one’s vote is counted and given effect in a system of collective decision that determines policy, leadership and authority” (Waldron 1998, 309). While positivists emphasize the importance of systems in the creation and validation of voting rights, voting as a right can also be conferred “as criteria of legal validity” in “conformity with moral principles or substantive values” (Hart 1961, 250). Waldron’s discussion of the inherent connection between individuals and the legal systems that dictate large parts of their lives serves as a positivist articulation of voting as a right: “since it is my duties (among others’) whose performance the state is orchestrating, I have a right to a say in the decision-mechanisms which control their orchestration” (Waldron 1998, 310).
Critical Legal Theory:
Some critical legal theorists maintain critiques against rights-based legal philosophies and methodologies altogether, including voting rights. These critiques include notions that rights-based legal thought “produces a kind of isolated individualism that hinders social solidarity and genuine human connection,” that “the use of rights discourse stunts human imagination and mystifies people about how law really works,” and that “legal rights are in fact indeterminate and incoherent” (Harvard). Drawing on historical precedent, critical legal theorists such as Robert Gordon argue that overreliance on rights-based legal strategy can make modest social gains for individuals, but simultaneously impose a limit on the extent to which individuals can make use of such rights and push back against entrenched power structures. Similarly, Cass Sunstein in describing the views of this school points to a claim that the right to vote is not meaningfully enforced in the United States due to its strict limitation to the public sector:
“The legal system purports to promote democracy through protecting the right to vote and the traditional freedom of expression; but those rights do not allow for democracy in the private sector, where critical decisions are also made. By safeguarding rights in the public arena and ignoring the private sphere, the legal system has eroded rather than promoted democracy” (Sunstein 1983, 128).Under this framework, limiting suffrage to a matter of individual rights imposes unnecessary restrictions on when and where it can be enforced.
Not all critical legal theorists agree with the rejection of rights-based frameworks for suffrage. Critical race theorists such as Kimberle Crenshaw believe that “rights can be defended and reconstructed; the critique of rights neglects the historical potential of rights in the real lives of people of color and women” (Harvard). Framing voting as a right can also empower marginalized groups and mobilize individuals to push back against the existing legal status quo:
“The vast majority are able to sustain a ‘dual consciousness’ – recognizing and capitalizing on the revolutionary potential of legal rights while remaining skeptical of the overall social and political order in which rights are currently embedded” (Harvard). While there is broad consensus in critical legal theory that existing legal systems favor historically dominant hierarchies and do not equally protect all citizens’ ability to vote, there is ongoing debate as to whether framing the issue as a matter of voting “rights” is the best course of action.
References:
King, Martin Luther, “Give us the Ballot”, 1957, from King, Martin Luther and James Melvin. Washington. A Testament of Hope : the Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. 1st ed. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986.
King, Martin Luther, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, 1963, from King, Martin Luther. Why We Can’t Wait. Boston: Beacon Press, 2010.
Hart, H. L. A. (Herbert Lionel Adolphus). The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.
Harvard University, The Bridge, “Critical Perspectives on Legal Rights”: https://cyber.harvard.edu/bridge/CriticalTheory/rights.htm
Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government
Shepard, Walter James. “The Theory of the Nature of the Suffrage.” The American Political Science Review 7, no. 1 (1913): 106–36. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4616998.
Sunstein, Cass R. Review of Politics and Adjudication, by Lon Fuller and David Kairys. Ethics 94, no. 1 (1983): 126–35. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2380661.
Waldron, Jeremy. “Participation: The Right of Rights.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98 (1998): 307–37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4545289.
Voting Rights and Suffrage/Philosophical Origins/Tradition contributions/Ancient Chinese Philosophy +
Confucianism
Confucianism presents that a virtuous person, and therefore a virtuous society, can only come about through the understanding of an individual’s place within their society, and the eager participation in the rites and rituals of the society by that individual (Mark, 2020). If both these things are realized, there will be a righteous and happy culture.
The two major parts of understanding one’s place in their social system is honoring ones familial and social superiors: “Filial piety and fraternal submission,--are they not the root of all benevolent actions?” (Analects, 1.2). Within the Analects, there are many rules emphasizing the actions and attitudes one must take to those one should honor. Confucianism proposes that interest in oneself is limiting and: “To subdue one’s self and return to propriety, is perfect virtue”.
This importance on the collective can harshly rub against one of the founding traditions towards the right to vote, as the right usually implies a dissatisfaction found within the current leadership when the right is expressed—certainly the modern origins of voting were led by that dissatisfaction. In fact, the insistence of usurping the power traditionally given to political superiors is greatly disrespectful and damaging under the Confucian view: “The requisites of government are that there be sufficiency of food, sufficiency of military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler” (12.7). Confucianism reveals the highly individual nature of the right to vote which rises from a discontent towards the present politics.
Confucianism can reveal the other, more collective side of the right to vote as well, however. The overcoming of the self is key for Confucianism which is realized when: “…one de-emphasizes the boundaries between oneself and others, and gives one’s own and others’ concerns as much weight as is appropriate to the situation” (Chang & Kalmanson, 2010, pg. 109). This is immanently compatible with the right to vote. Moreover, public rituals were seen as the path towards peace and virtue: “In practicing the rules of [ritual] propriety, a natural ease is to be prized. This is the Way of the ancient kings, a quality of excellence, and in things small and great follow them” (Analects, 1.12). Later: “The management of a state demands the rules of [ritual] propriety” (11.26). Under this lens, the right to vote is a ritual with which the current political and social order is being upheld, as well as an opportunity for citizens to participate together. Confucianism reveals how the right to vote is also a modern ritual of political participation, and Confucianism shows how the right to vote has a paradoxical nature. On the one hand, it is a mechanism that allows citizens to privately disrespect their leaders and voice their resentment with the qualities of their current political system. At the same time, voting also acts as a modern-day ritual that is experienced with other citizens.
Taoism
Central to Taoism is the full acceptance of the Tao. Describing the Tao is difficult as the very first lines of the Laozi texts state: “The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the ternal Name” (Tao Te Ching, 1). It both creates and holds everything that is existing. With this expansiveness, the ambitions and anxieties of man’s daily life are unimportant and giving them special attention would be a personal mistake: “Heaven and earth are not like humans, they are impartial” (Tao Te Ching, 5).
The strivings that people have create a paradoxical relationship between our ambition and their outcomes and this relationship is found all throughout the foundational text: “The pride of wealth and position brings about their own misfortune” (9). What we strive towards will usually bring what we are trying to avoid. The Taoist prescription to this issue is wu wei, which is a type of nonattached, spontaneous action. With wu wei, one doesn’t struggle to get anywhere, rather they are just expressing their natures as part of the Tao: “To win true merit, to preserve just fame, the personality must be retiring. This is the heavenly [Tao]” (9).
The connection between Taoism and the right to vote can be readily made. The Taoist political life and rule is decidedly hands off. If it were intentional and active, one would reach similar problems to the ones that result from striving for things in one’s daily life. The Taoist errs on the side of not-intervening: “Among people the more restrictions and prohibitions there are, the poorer they become…The more laws and orders are issued the more thieves and robbers abound” (57). Later it states: “If a ruler practices wu wei the people will reform themselves” (57). The implication is that the more active a society’s politics is, the worse outcomes will occur for the state and its people. This shows that the Taoist has a preference towards a freer politics where the ruling forces are not apparent: “When great men rule, subjects know little of their existence…How carefully a wise ruler chooses his words. He performs deeds, and accumulates merit! Under such a ruler the people think they are ruling themselves” (17).
As with Confucianism, Taoism provides two insights about the right to vote. On one hand, the right to vote for citizens is a decidedly more emphasized version of the allowance for people’s self-reformation. While this reformation decidedly occurs through the changing of one’s rulers, voting rights allow the people to go their own way, and live according to the ever changing, spontaneous desires and ideas that they hold, and the elected leadership reflects that.
On the other hand, Taoism shows that the right to vote can come from a misguided ambition to change society, usually for unnecessary reasons. It is this discontented impulse which is responsible for the right to vote, and according to Taoism, this impulse brings with it dire consequences. Under this view, voting is unnecessary, and just another expression of man caring for things that are not his business. Of course, voting could also be an act of concession where the voter chooses for what their society already believes and approves of. Voting in this way is not to change anything, but rather to continue what is already present. However, it is arguable that the Taoist would still be against this as this prevents the spontaneous change present in the Tao.
References:
Wonsuk Chang, Leah Kalmanson / Wonsuk Chang. Confucianism in Context: Classic Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, East Asia and Beyond. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2010.
Confucius, Analects
Laozi, Tao Te Ching
Mark, Joshua J.. "Confucianism." World History Encyclopedia. Last modified July 07, 2020. https://www.worldhistory.org/Confucianism/.
An Aristotelian approach to voting is complex, in part because democracies of his day functioned differently than those today. Aristotle broke the selection of officials into three main categories. The first was selection of officials by lot in which case office would be open to all citizens. Aristotle viewed selection by lot to be a democratic feature. The second category was selecting officials by means of elections, which he considered to be more oligarchic and aristocratic. The third category was a combination of the first two, in which some members were elected for the purpose of certain matters and others were chosen either by lot from all or by lot from a preselected group, or these two groups worked together in the same offices (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., [[Probable year:: 1298]]b 5).
Aristotle outlined election features of different types of democracies that were considered democratic because of their incorporation of the assembly. The first type would be that in which offices were open to all but would be appointed in turn by magistrates. In this case few things would be decided by all in the assembly, but the assembly would decide on the passage of laws and they would approve or withhold the selection of officials by magistrates. Aristotle did not specifically explain how magistrates would go about selecting officials in this type of democracy (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., [[Probable year:: 1298]]a 9). Another type of democracy was one in which more matters were decided by the assembly, including legislation and selecting offices. Offices would be chosen by lot, except in the cases where an office required a special skill or knowledge, in which case they would be chosen by election (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., [[Probable year:: 1298]]a 24). In the final form of democracy, the assembly would decide all matters. Officials would only be necessary for organizational purposes to ensure the assembly ran properly, and officials would not have final judgment on matters (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., [[Probable year:: 1298]]a 28). In the case of democracies, Aristotle suggested paying the poor to attend the assembly and fining the rich for not. He also recommended limitations on payment for attendance in order to ensure the common people would not outweigh the rich. Aristotle wanted to avoid oligarchy by evening the influence of the rich and the poor, to ensure the common interest was at hand (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., [[Probable year:: 1298]]b 11).
Aristotle also outlined differences in voting procedures in different types of oligarchies as well as mixed regimes and aristocracies and polities. One type of oligarchy was that in which officials were elected from among those who had the requisite amount of wealth. Another type was that in which all who had the requisite amount of wealth shared in rule. There were also cases of aristocracy or polity in which case all had control over matters of war, peace, and taking audits, but magistrates had control of everything else, including laws and electing officials. This type of regime would not be democratic because officials were not chosen by all, or at least not approved by all in the assembly. However, because all still decided on other matters such as war and peace, the regime would not be an oligarchy. “Lot is a democratic feature and will make them [regimes] polities by opening up office to many; election is an oligarchic and aristocratic feature and will either confine office to the wealthy (in which case the regime will be an aristocracy in the sense in which oligarchic polities are aristocracies) or to those with a certain quality or virtue (in which case the regime will be genuinely aristocratic…)” (Simpson [[Probable year:: 2002]], 345). In general, Aristotle believed that rulers should rule in the common best interest, rather than solely in their own best interest (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., [[Probable year:: 1279]]a 28). In the case of oligarchy, Aristotle recommended affording the populace the ability to give some input on political decisions, as this could promote peace, even if they were not given power in final decision making (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., [[Probable year:: 1298]]b 26).
Aristotle had two large concerns with elections, campaigning and demagoguery. In terms of campaigning, Aristotle was concerned that only the people who wanted to be in office would be, rather than the people who necessarily deserved to be in office. He believed that a man who was worthy of office should accept the position regardless of if he wanted to (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., [[Probable year:: 1271]]a 10). He also thought that campaigning “promotes love of honor, the cause, along with love of money, of most voluntary wrongs or deliberate acts of injustice” (Simpson [[Probable year:: 2002]], 118). It is the pursuit of these wrongs that leads to tyranny. Additionally, regarding demagoguery, Aristotle worried that class interests would dominate elections, rather than the good of the whole. To prevent this, he recommended that the populace be divided into local groups for voting in elections. He believed that by voting in such groups, people would be less concerned with their general class interest, and would be more alert to local ties (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., [[Probable year:: 1305]]a 28).
While Aristotle strongly believed citizens should participate in politics, he did not support extending political rights to slaves, women, or laborers. He thought that slaves did not possess the intellectual skills to be able to govern themselves, and hence would be subject to the governing of others (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., [[Probable year:: 1254]]b 16-23). Similarly, women were viewed as naturally inferior to men with less capability of leading (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., [[Probable year:: 1259]]b 1-2). An important point that Aristotle emphasized was that citizens should be ruled by their equals, resulting in a reciprocal equality, unlike that between slaves and their masters or women and men, and therefore women and slaves were not considered citizens. As for laborers and artisans, Aristotle believed that “there is a need for leisure both with a view to the creation of virtue and with a view to political activities,” which laborers and artisans did not have sufficient time for (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., [[Probable year:: 1329]]a 1-2).
References:
Aristotle, Politics
Simpson, Peter. A Philosophical Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.
The understanding of how and why human beings act was and still is often described as a dualistic interaction between mind and body. Usually this is described in terms of feelings. We feel a certain way, and that feeling prompts us to act. We eat because we feel like eating. We attack others because we feel angry. This causal explanation for behavior is taken for granted, but in the 19th century, a group of psychologists believed that behavior could be studied, not as an effect of the non-observable, ethereal mind, but rather as the outcome of changes from the environment. This was behaviorism, and William Baum states: “the central idea in behaviorism can be stated simply: A science of behavior is possible” (Baum, [[Probable year:: 2017]], pg. 3).
One of the most influential behaviorists, BF Skinner, was a radical behaviorist where instead of merely positing that only behavior could be objectively observed, went one step further in saying that all interior phenomena was a behavior like any other, and was subject to and created by the same environmental pressures as external behavior.
According to Skinner, all of our behavior and dispositions are determined by our environment. What we call freedom is merely the ability to free ourselves from “harmful contacts” (Skinner, [[Probable year:: 1971]], pg. 32). Slavery is when we are unable to escape of avoid harm, and what Skinner calls the “literature of freedom”—philosophical and political traditions based around rights, emancipation, and the immorality of oppression—are merely ways to “..induce people to escape from or attack those who act to control them aversively” (pg. 35). The idea of freedom as an inherent right towards autonomy in one’s actions and beliefs is wholeheartedly rejected by Skinner, and instead is reduced to being able to do what one desires when the desire arises; a desire whose arising the individual has nothing to do with.
Dignity is an attribute that we use to describe someone’s character—character of course meaning a quality essential to someone’s internality, something that a radical behaviorist is very skeptical of. We do not respect someone’s action if it is done automatically, instead we value the individual who does a particular action despite whatever the environment compels them to do: “We give credit generosity when there are no obvious reasons for behaving differently…” (pg. 72). Our caring towards dignified action and character then reveals a blind spot that we have towards reality—if every behavior we do is determined and selected by the environment, no one deserves any credit towards their action, and no one is dignified for acting in a certain way.
Democracy and the right to vote for behaviorists like Skinner are then merely an expression of the fundamental biological mechanism of avoiding or escaping harmful contacts. If it weren’t for the aversive state of affairs that were present in the past, the right to vote would have never come about. Voting rights came about as a way to justify the public’s resistance to the restrictors, and this is in great contrast with the “literature of freedom’s” claim that the right to vote is a way to uphold god given rights. Voting, at base, was a way to control the behavior of those in power.
References:
Baum, William M. Understanding Behaviorism : Behavior, Culture, and Evolution. Third edition. Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.
Skinner, B. F. (Burrhus Frederic). Beyond Freedom and Dignity. [1st ed.]. New York: Knopf, 1971.
In early Indian philosophy, there is little or no mention of voting rights. However, many ancient scriptures in different civilizations mention representative forms of government. In various regions of ancient India, republican governments existed. During the nineteenth century, research into the Buddhist Pali Canon revealed existing republicanism at the time. (Muhlberger, [[Probable year:: 1998]]) . The Pali Canon provides a far more complete, though somewhat oblique, account of democratic institutions in Indian Philosophy, confirming and expanding on Panini's vision. The Maha-parinibbana-suttanta, the Mahavagga, and the Kullavagga are three of the Canon's oldest and most revered parts. Taken together, they preserve the Buddha's teachings for the proper operation of the Buddhist monastic community – the Sangha – after his death. (Muhlberger, [[Probable year:: 1998]]) . They were the most reliable source on voting processes in a corporate body during the early Buddhist period. They also provide some insight into the development of democratic thought.
According to Panini, all northern India's states and territories (janapadas) during his time were founded on the colonization or conquest of a specific area by an identified warrior group who still controlled the political life of that area (Basham, [[Probable year:: 1959]]) . Some of these peoples (known as janapadins by Panini) were ruled by a king who was, at least in theory, of their own blood and maybe reliant on their support (Muhlberger, [[Probable year:: 1998]]) . Other than that, the janapadins handled their affairs in a republican fashion. Thus, in both types of state, the government was dominated by persons classed as ksatriyas, or members of the warrior caste, as later times would describe it (Hays, [[Probable year:: 2015]]) . Another example is a republican federation known as the Kshudrak-Malla Sangha which posed serious resistance to Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC. Many more republican regimes in India have been mentioned by the Greeks, some of which were classified as pure democracies and others as "aristocratic republics” (Muhlberger, [[Probable year:: 1998]]) .
According to Prakash ([[Probable year:: 2006]]) , a vote was called a 'chhanda,' which literally translates to a 'wish.' This evocative word was used to communicate the concept that voting expresses a member's free will and choice. There used to be multi-colored voting tickets called 'shalakas' (pins) for voting in the assembly . When a division was called, they were handed to members and collected by an officer of the assembly called the ‘shalaka grahak' (collector of pins). This official was chosen by the entire assembly. It was his responsibility to conduct the vote, which may be secret or open. However, Indian republics are beginning to sound extremely undemocratic by our modern standards, with real power concentrated in the hands of a few patriarchs representing the leading lineages of one privileged section of the warrior caste.
References:
Basham, A. L. ([[Probable year:: 1959]]) . India as Known to Pāṇini (A Study of the Cultural Material of the Ashṭādhyāyī). By V. S. Agrawala. pp. xx + 549, 3 maps, plate. Lucknow University, [[Probable year:: 1953]]. Rs. 50. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 91(3-4), 181–183. https://doi.org/10.[[Probable year:: 1017]]/ S0035869X00118544
Muhlberger, S. ([[Probable year:: 1998]]) . Democracy in Ancient India. https://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_muhlb_democra_frameset.htm
Prakash, A. ([[Probable year:: 2006]]) . Law relating to elections: an essential revision aid for law students. Universal Law Pub.
Hays, J. ([[Probable year:: 2015]]) . ANCIENT INDIA IN THE TIME OF THE BUDDHA. Facts and Details. http://factsanddetails.com/india/History/sub7_1a/entry-4105.html