The issue of governance has always occupied a significant place in philosophy because the former directly affects people’s social life. The most prominent thinkers of different epochs dedicated their attention and effort to explain what governance was, why it existed, and what forms were preferable. This state of affairs has resulted in the fact that the concept under consideration had various interpretations at different times. Thus, the evolution of thought on governance can be traced by comparing Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas with Locke and Hobbes because these philosophers have both similarities and differences in defining the concept.
In the beginning, it is reasonable to explain how Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas approached governance. Plato believed that people should have been governed, but he had different opinions regarding governance processes in various philosophical works. Initially, he expressed antipathy to the rule by many, but he changed his mind in Laws, where a few merits of this approach were presented (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2017). It means that Plato admitted that democracy had specific benefits when it came to governing people. However, further information will demonstrate that not all philosophers shared Plato’s vision.
Aristotle and Aquinas also drew sufficient attention to the concept under analysis. It is worth stating that the two were on the same mind saying that the justification of the state and, consequently, governance was in human nature (Anselm & Vincent, 2019). However, these philosophers did not agree on how the state should have been governed. On the one hand, Aristotle insisted that aristocracy was an optimal choice. The thinker made that conclusion because he believed that governance efficiency depended on how effective public governors were (van Steden, 2020). It denotes that governance could only result in positive outcomes if good governors were found and chosen to rule the state and people.
On the other hand, Thomas Aquinas stated that it was not reasonable to rely on a single governance structure. Even though the philosopher preferred the rule of many, he explained that an effective governance system could consist of “monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy” (Anselm & Vincent, 2019, p. 61). This description demonstrates that Aquinas offered to share governing functions among a single person and many other individuals. It means that the thinker emphasized that governance was associated with the selective nature, which enabled the division of power among numerous members of society.
Simultaneously, Locke and Hobbes expressed their own opinions regarding governance. For example, John Locke offered the minimal theory of rights that ignored the role of the sovereign state (Styhre, 2018). Thus, governance structures exist because people need them, but it does not mean that these structures have unlimited power. The philosopher stipulated that governors were not allowed to use power to benefit their own interests, meaning that human integrity and fundamental rights were governing priorities (Styhre, 2018). As for Thomas Hobbes, he stated that selfishness and rationality were in human nature (Brennan, 2017). Thus, they could not survive without centralized governance, and a suitable option could be to find a Leviathan. This description denotes that Hobbes offered to submit the authority to a third party (Brenna, 2017). In other words, the philosopher advocated for monarchy and stipulated that it was necessary to provide the governing body with absolute authority over people.
At this point, it is reasonable to comment on the similarities and differences between Locke and Hobbes and their predecessors. All the five philosophers admitted that it was in people’s nature to be governed. That is why they focused on this concept, and it means that this idea is a universally accepted truth. Furthermore, a similarity is found between Aristotle and Hobbes because the two stated that governance effectiveness depended on how exercised it. However, a few peculiar features make the thoughts by Locke and Hobbes different from those by Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas. Firstly, Locke’s opinion deserves attention since he undermines the role of governing bodies, stating that their task was to serve individual rights and freedoms. His predecessors failed to address the issue of governance from this viewpoint. Secondly, Hobbes is different from the three philosophers under consideration because he stated that people should have given authority to a third party. Simultaneously, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas considered that society had sufficient internal resources that could govern it.
In conclusion, the thought on governance has experienced some evolution from Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas to Locke and Hobbes. Even though all these philosophers admitted the importance of governance, they offered various opinions regarding how it should have been implemented. The first three thinkers approached the concept under analysis from a traditional perspective, commenting on what was the most suitable governing structure for people. However, Locke and Hobbes drew their attention to other essential points. While the former emphasized the importance of satisfying individual rights and freedoms in the process of governance, the latter insisted that people needed to give authority to a third party. Thus, the thought on governance changed over time and focused on those issues that Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas did not cover.
References
Anselm, J., & Vincent, A. (2019). The concept of democracy in Thomas Aquinas’ political philosophy: Towards an evaluation of democratic governance in Nigeria. NAJOP: Nasara Journal of Philosophy, 4(1), 54-66.
Brennan J. (2018). Private governance and the three biases of political philosophy. The Review of Austrian Economics, 31(2), 235-243.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2017). Plato.
Styhre, A. (2018). Corporate governance varieties: Locke and Hegel’s philosophy of right and the roots of corporate governance traditions. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 26(3), 582-598.
Van Steden, R. (2020). Blind spots in public ethics and integrity research: What public administration scholars can learn from Aristotle. Public Integrity, 22(3).