essay about popular sovereignty

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

• What was the Compromise of 1850?
• What measures were adopted in the Compromise of 1850?
• Was the Compromise of 1850 a success or a failure?
• Who was Dred Scott?
• What was the Dred Scott decision?

popular sovereignty

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• University of of Pennsylvania Carey Law School - Legal Scholarship Repository - The Very Idea of Popular Sovereignty: “We the People” Reconsidered
• Academia - Popular Sovereignty: social convention or social rule?
• LSU Scholarly Repository - The Failure of Popular Sovereignty: Slavery, Manifest Destiny, and the Radicalization of Southern Politicsthe Radicalization of Southern Politics
• Saylor Academy - Popular sovereignty
• University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository - Theory of Popular Sovereignty
• Essential Civil War Curriculum - Popular Sovereignty
• The Kansas City Public Library - Civil War on the Western Border - Popular Sovereignty

popular sovereignty , in U.S. history , a controversial political doctrine according to which the people of federal territories should decide for themselves whether their territories would enter the Union as free or slave states. Its enemies, especially in New England , called it “squatter sovereignty.”

It was first applied in organizing the Utah and New Mexico territories in 1850. Its most crucial application came with the passage of U.S. Sen. Stephen A. Douglas ’s Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which repealed the prohibition of slavery north of latitude 36°30′ (established in the Missouri Compromise of 1820 ). The violent struggle that followed for control of the Kansas Territory ( see Bleeding Kansas ) illustrated the failure of popular sovereignty as a possible ground for agreement between proslavery and antislavery factions in the country. See also Dred Scott decision .

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.

• Civil War History
• Interpreting Popular Sovereignty: A Historiographical Essay
• Christopher Childers
• The Kent State University Press
• Volume 57, Number 1, March 2011
• 10.1353/cwh.2011.0009
• View Citation

Additional Information

• Christopher Childers (bio)

Historians have long recognized the significance of popular sovereignty as one of the primary compromise solutions to the debate over slavery in the territories. In numerous works on antebellum politics and the crisis of the Union, scholars have addressed the issue by weaving its history into the larger narrative of political fragmentation that characterized the late 1840s and 1850s—the road to disunion, in the words of one historian. In the minds of moderate Democrats from the North and South, according to the traditional narrative, allowing the settlers in the territories to determine the status of slavery for themselves would restore sectional harmony. Popular sovereignty was merely the great principle of self-government, a hallmark of the American Revolution itself, and wholly within the spirit of democracy that Americans had embraced since the days of Andrew Jackson. 1 Beautifully simple in theory and thoroughly American in its essence, popular sovereignty foundered when [End Page 48] settlers in Kansas Territory attempted to put it into practice. Fraud and deceit made a mockery of the principle, while the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford transformed popular sovereignty into a proslavery doctrine, all of which led its northern Democratic proponents to discredit their own handiwork. 2

The scholars who have studied popular sovereignty have centered their analysis on three critical issues. First, they have sought to explain the origins of the doctrine. While students of the sectional controversy have generally agreed that popular sovereignty emerged in the late 1840s, few have explored any antecedents to the doctrine as articulated in the aftermath of the Wilmot Proviso. Second, scholars have sought to understand what popular sovereignty actually meant. Pragmatic politicians looking for a way to neutralize the Wilmot Proviso imbued popular sovereignty with an ambiguity that papered over deep internal discord within the political system. By declining to define when a territory could legislate on the slavery issue, politicians hoped to make the solution palatable to northerners and southerners alike and avoid offending their respective—and differing—positions on the issue of territorial sovereignty. Third, scholars have chronicled how popular sovereignty worked when put into practice, especially after passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854. The latter two issues have received the lion's share of attention from students of the Civil War era.

Unfortunately, historians have approached the study of popular sovereignty with a narrow field of view, focusing almost solely on the period between 1847 and 1860, when northern Democrats supposedly created the doctrine and used it as a tool to create consensus over the slavery question. Over fifty years ago, Roy F. Nichols challenged scholars to reexamine the Kansas-Nebraska Act, positing that they "had failed to trace adequately the connections between antecedent situations and accomplished fact, the process of becoming." 3 Today's historians need to discover the process of becoming through which popular sovereignty developed. The prevailing interpretation suffers from two weaknesses. First, most scholars have ignored evidence that shows the idea of popular sovereignty as an ever-present issue in debates over [End Page 49] slavery in the territories during the eighty years prior to the Civil War. In almost every debate from the creation of the Northwest Territory forward, politicians grappled with whether the power to prohibit slavery rested with Congress or the people residing in the territories. Second, most historians have viewed popular sovereignty solely as a political contrivance designed to circumvent the slavery issue. According to the standard narrative, the principle had immense political appeal because of its ambiguity; few if any of its proponents defined how it would operate and when a territory could legislate on slavery. The prevailing interpretation correctly identifies the political value of popular sovereignty, but in its bias against the doctrine and its narrow scope, it omits a critical dimension of the debate that evolved during the nineteenth century, which explains how the expansion of slavery played a key role in American politics long before the 1850s. 4

Popular sovereignty became linked to the larger debate over states' rights versus nationalism that intensified during the antebellum era. Different interpretations of the nature of the Union...

Project MUSE Mission

Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.

2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

+1 (410) 516-6989 [email protected]

©2024 Project MUSE. Produced by Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Sheridan Libraries.

Now and Always, The Trusted Content Your Research Requires

Built on the Johns Hopkins University Campus

Popular Sovereignty

Tetra Images / Henryk Sadura / Brand X Pictures / Getty Images

• U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights
• History & Major Milestones
• U.S. Legal System
• U.S. Political System
• Defense & Security
• Campaigns & Elections
• Business & Finance
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• M.A., History, University of Florida
• B.A., History, University of Florida

The popular sovereignty principle is one of the underlying ideas of the United States Constitution, and it argues that the source of governmental power (sovereignty) lies with the people (popular). This tenet is based on the concept of the social contract , the idea that government should be for the benefit of its citizens. If the government is not protecting the people, says the Declaration of Independence, it should be dissolved. That idea evolved through the writings of Enlightenment philosophers from England—Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704)—and from Switzerland—Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778).

Hobbes: Human Life in a State of Nature

Thomas Hobbes wrote The L e viathan in 1651, during the English Civil War , and in it, he laid out the first basis of popular sovereignty. According to his theory, human beings were selfish and if left alone, in what he called a "state of nature," human life would be "nasty, brutish, and short." Therefore, to survive people give over their rights to a ruler who provides them with protection. In Hobbes' opinion, an absolute monarchy provided the best form of security.

Locke: The Social Contract Limiting Ruler's Powers

John Locke wrote Two Treatises on Government in 1689, in response to another paper (Robert Filmer's Patriarcha ) which argued that kings have a "divine right" to rule. Locke said that the power of a king or government doesn't come from God, but comes from the people. People make a "social contract" with their government, trading away some of their rights to the ruler in exchange for security and laws.

In addition, Locke said, individuals have natural rights including the right to hold property. The government does not have the right to take this away without their consent. Significantly, if a king or ruler breaks the terms of the "contract"—by taking away rights or taking away property without an individual's consent—it is the right of the people to offer resistance and, if necessary, depose him. 

Rousseau: Who Makes the Laws?

Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote The Social Contract  in 1762. In this, he proposes that "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains." These chains are not natural, says Rousseau, but they come about through the "right of the strongest," the unequal nature of power and control.

According to Rousseau, people must willingly give legitimate authority to the government through a "social contract" for mutual preservation. The collective group of citizens who have come together must make the laws, while their chosen government ensures their daily implementation. In this way, the people as a sovereign group look out for the common welfare as opposed to the selfish needs of each individual. 

Popular Sovereignty and the US Government

The idea of popular sovereignty was still evolving when the founding fathers were writing the US Constitution during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. In fact, popular sovereignty is one of six foundational principles on which the convention built the US Constitution . The other five principles are a limited government, the separation of powers , a system of checks and balances, the need for judicial review , and federalism , the need for a strong central government. Each tenet gives the Constitution a basis for authority and legitimacy that it uses even today.

Popular sovereignty was often cited before the US Civil War as a reason why individuals in a newly organized territory should have the right to decide whether or not the practice of enslavement should be allowed. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was based on the idea—that people have a right to "property" in the form of enslaved people. It set the stage for a situation that became known as Bleeding Kansas , and it is a painful irony because certainly Locke and Rousseau would not agree that people are ever considered property.

As Rousseau wrote in "The Social Contract":

"From whatever aspect we regard the question, the right of slavery is null and void, not only as being illegitimate, but also because it is absurd and meaningless. The words slave and right contradict each other, and are mutually exclusive."

Sources and Further Reading

• Deneys-Tunney, Anne. "Rousseau shows us that there is a way to break the chains—from within." The Guardian , July 15, 2012. 
• Douglass, Robin. "Fugitive Rousseau: Slavery, Primitivism, and Political Freedom." Contemporary Political Theory 14.2 (2015): e220–e23.
• Habermas, Jurgen. "Popular sovereignty as procedure." Eds., Bohman, James, and William Rehg. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997. 35–66.
• Hobbes, Thomas. " The Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme, & Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill ." London: Andrew Crooke, 1651. McMaster University Archive of the History of Economic Thought. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. 
• Locke, John. " Two Treastises of Government ." London: Thomas Tegg, 1823. McMaster University Archive of the History of Economic Thought. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. 
• Morgan, Edmund S. "Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America." New York, W.W. Norton, 1988. 
• Reisman, W. Michael. "Sovereignty and Human Rights in Contemporary International Law." American Journal of International Law 84.4 (1990): 866–76. Print.
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract . Trans. Bennett, Jonathan. Early Modern Texts, 2017.
• The Social Contract in American Politics
• What Is a Writ of Habeas Corpus?
• Preamble to the US Constitution
• The 10th Amendment: Text, Origins, and Meaning
• Understanding States' Rights and the 10th Amendment
• Ninth Amendment Supreme Court Cases
• Federalism and the United States Constitution
• U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 8
• What Is the Necessary and Proper Clause in the US Constitution?
• Constitutional Law: Definition and Function
• The Third Amendment: Text, Origins, and Meaning
• 14th Amendment Summary
• What Rights and Liberties Are Guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?
• The Three Branches of US Government
• What Is Constitution Day in the United States?
• What Are Inherent Powers? Definition and Examples

• Resource Library
• Events and Webinars

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Popular Sovereignty

Public and social media are inundated with vitriolic declarations calling for the toppling of political institutions and their replacement by the infallible diktats of the so-called ‘sovereignty of the people’. Rousseau was the first modern theorist of this complex and ambiguous notion, analysed and developed in his seminal essay, The Social Contract , published in 1762. The proud ‘citizen of the City of Geneva’, lay down the foundations of a republican form of government resting on the principle of the sovereignty of the people. The latter is at the heart of the social contract which brings together like-minded individuals, prepared to live in harmony and establish a form of government capable of enforcing equality between all its newly-born citizens. The original contract is, in itself, inalienable once it has been instituted.

However, a common misunderstanding and widely spread assumption is to see in the ‘social contract’ a renewable, à la carte, covenant between the sovereign people and their government. If such was Rousseau’s original argument, then why didn’t he refer more explicitly to a ‘political’ contract? Like Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau was acutely aware of the precarious existence of individuals living in a lawless environment, comparable to the ‘state of nature’ hypothesised by political theorists since the seventeenth century. History teaches us that there is no perfect form of government and that the state is nothing more than an artificial creation, doomed, sooner or later, to its dissolution and eventual regeneration under a new form.

Although life outside civil society may be ‘brutish and short’, the freedom bequeathed by Nature transcends and survives all political régimes, whatever their degree of longevity and success. Personal freedom cannot, under any circumstances, be relinquished as it is only in order to protect and promote this invaluable gift that individuals collectively aspire to a safer life through the exclusive rule of their own laws. Once again, Rousseau turns the traditional concept of ‘sovereignty’ on its head as the source of power ceases to be embodied in a single person to become a collective responsibility. Every citizen is sovereign’ every time he or she is called to exercise his legislative power, along with his fellow citizens.

Rousseau is very keen to make the ‘common good’ the concern of everyone as he regards factions and parties as potentially detrimental to the happiness and prosperity of society. In this respect, his republican state may seem a far cry from pluralistic models of democracy. At the same time, it is essential, for Rousseau, that the ‘general will’ of the citizens converges towards the same shared ends if the ‘common good’ is to be defended and sustained. For this reason, when the sovereign people ratify the laws promulgated by their elected representatives, they do so with a full knowledge of their significance and ultimate implications: ‘when, therefore, the opinion contrary to my own prevails, this proves only that I have made a mistake, and that what I believed to be the general will was not so.’ (Book IV, chapter 2)

Recent Posts

5 Activities to Get Your DP Students Exam-Ready

OSC Study for Schools: Now with IB Exams!

5 Hot Tips for the Maths Exams. With OSC Study and OSC Exams

Popular Sovereignty

Popular sovereignty is government based on consent of the people. The government’s source of authority is the people, and its power is not legitimate if it disregards the will of the people. Government established by free choice of the people is expected to serve the people, who have sovereignty, or supreme power.

There are four ways that popular sovereignty is expressed in a democracy.

• First, the people are involved either directly or through their representatives in the making of a constitution.
• Second, the constitution made in the name of the people is ratified by a majority vote of the people or by representatives elected by the people.
• Third, the people are involved directly or indirectly in proposing and ratifying amendments to their constitution.
• Fourth, the people indicate support for their government when they vote in public elections, uphold the constitution and basic principles of their government, and work to influence public policy decisions and otherwise prompt their representatives in government to be accountable to them.

Popular sovereignty was asserted as a founding principle of the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 asserts that legitimate governments are those ‘‘deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.’’ Later, in 1787, the framers of the U.S. Constitution proclaimed popular sovereignty in the document’s Preamble: ‘‘We the people of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’’ Popular sovereignty was also expressed in Article VII of the Constitution, which required that nine states approve the proposed framework of government before it could become the supreme law of the land.

The people of the several American states chose representatives to ratifying conventions who freely decided to approve the Constitution in the name of those who elected them. Popular sovereignty was also included in Article V of the Constitution, which provides the means to amend the Constitution through the elected representatives of the people. Finally, popular sovereignty is reflected in two different parts of the Constitution that require members of Congress to be elected directly by the people: Article I pertaining to the House of Representatives and the 17th Amendment concerning election of senators.

The founding of the United States and the framing of its Constitution heralded the idea of popular sovereignty as the standard by which popular government should be established and sustained. The American example, exceptional in the late 18th century, has become a world-class standard of legitimacy for governments in the 21st century. No country can realistically claim to be a democracy unless it proclaims constitutionally and implements functionally the principle of popular sovereignty.

This standard has been upheld in the constitutions of democratic nation-states today. For example, Article 2 of the 1993 constitution of the Czech Republic says ‘‘All state power derives from the people . . . The state power serves all citizens and can be exercised only in cases within the scope stipulated by law, and by means specified by law.’’

The 1988 constitution of Brazil asserts in Article 1: ‘‘All power emanates from the people, who exercise it by means of elected representatives or directly as provided by the constitution.’’ And Article 2 of the 1992 constitution of the Republic of Lithuania says: ‘‘The State of Lithuania shall be created by the people. Sovereignty shall be vested in the people.’’ Further, Article 4 says ‘‘The people shall exercise the supreme sovereign power vested in them either directly or through their democratically elected representatives.’’

Popular sovereignty as the legitimate source of authority in government has become so widely recognized among the democracies of our world that even non-democracies try to claim it in order to justify their exercise of power. For example, the constitution of the People’s Republic of China is, according to its preamble, established in the name of the people and ‘‘led by the working class and based on the alliance of the workers and peasants.’’

In reality, the Communist Party of China has appropriated power for itself, which it exercises dictatorially to suppress any organized opposition to its authority. Although economic freedom has increased dramatically in China in recent years, the party still tightly controls political life.

By John Patrick, Understanding Democracy, A Hip Pocket Guide (Oxford University Press)

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

US government and civics

Course: us government and civics   >   unit 1.

• The social contract
• Democratic ideals of US government
• The ideas at the heart of US government
• Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence

Democratic ideals in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

The declaration of independence.

• Democratic ideals in the Preamble to the US Constitution
• The Preamble to the Constitution
• Ideals of democracy: lesson overview
• Ideals of democracy

• The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are documents that provide the ideological foundations for the democratic government of the United States.
• The Declaration of Independence provides a foundation for the concept of popular sovereignty , the idea that the government exists to serve the people, who elect representatives to express their will.
• The US Constitution outlines the blueprint for the US governmental system, which strives to balance individual liberty with public order.

National treasures

• That all humans are born with “natural rights,” including the right to protect their lives, liberty, and property
• That government is a “social contract” between people and their rulers, which can be dissolved if rulers fail to promote the people’s welfare

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The Constitution

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

What do you think?

Want to join the conversation.

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Opinion: What do you do when democracy is too much of a good thing?

The answer is in the u.s. constitution’s inspired balance between popular rule and centralized power.

By Justin Collings

Editor’s note: In his April 4 address at the general conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Dallin H. Oaks spoke of his belief that “the United States Constitution contains at least five divinely inspired principles”: popular sovereignty, the separation of powers, federalism, individual rights, and the rule of law. This essay is the first in a five-part series that will address each of these principles.

December 1789 . Thomas Jefferson had been home less than three weeks, and his country was calling again. As United States minister to Paris, Jefferson had relished the sparkle of French wit, the savor of French cuisine and the glories of the gallic countryside. He had also witnessed the opening scenes of the French Revolution.

Now he was back in his native Virginia, just getting settled in his beloved Monticello, when a letter arrived from New York. It was from a fellow Virginian, George Washington — the newly installed first president of the United States of America. Washington wanted Jefferson to serve as his secretary of state. Reluctantly, Jefferson accepted the chief executive’s summons.

Before he left for New York, the infant nation’s temporary capital, Jefferson received a special salute from his neighbors — the people of Albemarle County, Virginia. In grateful response, Jefferson highlighted in just a few lines what for him had been the core meaning of the American Revolution. 

“We have been fellow-laborers and fellow-sufferers,” Jefferson observed, “and heaven has rewarded us with a happy issue from our struggles. It rests now with ourselves alone to enjoy in peace and concord the blessings of self-government, so long denied to mankind: to show by example the sufficiency of human reason for the care of human affairs and that the will of the majority, the natural law of every society, is the only sure guardian of the rights of man.”

The blessings of self-government . That, for Jefferson, was what the colonial rebels had been fighting for during eight long years from 1775 and 1783; and it was what the recently ratified federal Constitution had been designed to secure. 

In the summer of 1776, in the most famous paragraph he ever penned, Jefferson proclaimed “self-evident” truth that “governments ... deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Four score and seven years later, Abraham Lincoln described the country’s deadliest crisis as a test of whether “government of the people, by the people, for the people” could “long endure.” 

For both Jefferson and Lincoln, then, “America” was an experiment in self-government — in what political theorists called “popular sovereignty.” 

The stakes of that experiment were colossal. It encompassed the fate of freedom, not only in America but around the globe. Jefferson and Lincoln believed with many others that the United States had mounted the stage of human history — and that the entire world was watching.

But what did these high-sounding phrases mean? What is self-government or popular sovereignty? Who are “the People” invoked in the Constitution’s preamble? And how can they govern themselves?

The notion of popular rule has ancient roots. It was a central — and hotly contested — concept ancient Greek philosophers and politicians alike. Among the Greeks, rule by the people (the demos , from which we get our modern term democracy) meant two fundamental things. It meant that the people could both choose their own rulers and hold those rulers to account. Some Greek thinkers used a chilling term to describe the people’s rule. The people, they said, were a political society’s proper tyrannos . The demos, that is, was a tyrant.

Tyrant, for these writers, was a neutral term. But it had, then as now, a darker side. It was the people of Athens, after all, who condemned and executed Socrates.

For centuries after the golden age of Greece, thinkers and statesmen warned of the risks of popular rule. In the early days of the French Revolution, one writer observed that the people “is essentially credulous; and, in its moments of fury, it uses ostracism against a great man. It wishes the death of Socrates, bewails it the next day, and a few days later dresses altars for him. The people,” he concluded, “does not know how to govern without passion!” (As if to prove his point, the author of these words, Jean-Baptiste Salle, later had his head severed from his shoulders before a gaping crowd in the streets of Bordeaux.)

Did this mean that the people shouldn’t govern at all? Not necessarily. The key was to distinguish between popular sovereignty and day-to-day governance. The people could govern themselves by delegating lawmaking powers to their chosen representatives. Self-government didn’t require actual governing. It proceeded via representation. It required only what Jefferson called “the consent of the governed.”

The rub was how to secure that consent — how to ensure that representatives pursue the people’s interest, rather than their own, and that legislation reflect the people’s considered wishes, not just momentary passions. This was the conundrum, above all others, that perplexed the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

Following the Declaration of Independence in 1776, each American state adopted a constitution of its own. Many state constitutions were strikingly democratic. Pennsylvania was governed almost entirely by a single-house legislature. Most state legislators served for very short terms. “Where annual elections end,” ran a common saying, “tyranny begins.” 

Voters thus had frequent occasion to punish legislators who displeased them, and they made the most of that opportunity. Constantly fearing for their jobs, legislators responded swiftly to shifts in the popular mood. This led them to adopt various measures that were politically popular but fiscally reckless. States lavishly printed paper currency, commanded creditors to accept the worthless cash, imposed punitive trade policies against their sister states, and left their wartime debts unpaid. 

Some observers thought democracy in America had become too much of a good thing. The states, they believed, had swung from one pendulum to the other. Before the Revolution, there had been too little official responsiveness to popular pressures; now, perhaps, there was too much. Before the Revolution, there had been too much centralized power; now, it seemed, there was too little.

The delegates to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 sought to strike a happy balance. They aimed to craft a government that would derive its powers from the people and secure the consent of the governed, but also enjoy some independence from shifting popular passions. It was in this respect that Jefferson’s farewell to his Virginia neighbors was incomplete. The new country would not be ruled by “the will of the majority” at any given moment, but by the will of the majority over time.

Hence the Constitution’s sophisticated clockwork — a staggered sequence of elections and terms of varying length. Representatives would serve for two years; presidents for four; senators for six; judges for life. Biannual elections would keep the government accountable, but no single election would radically change its composition. To effect dramatic change, a political movement would need to win repeatedly over time. It would require the people’s enduring approval.

None of that would matter, of course, unless the proposed Constitution acquired the people’s immediate approval through ratification. By its own terms, the Constitution would enter into force only if conventions in nine states ratified it. The delegates in Philadelphia had spoken in We the People’s name. It was now the People’s turn to speak for themselves.

By modern standards, the process by which the Constitution was ratified was intolerably exclusive. Few Black Americans or other people of color — and no women — voted for delegates to the state ratifying conventions. But modern standards have been shaped by impulses and ideals that ratification helped unleash. By the standards of the late 18th century, the process was astonishingly democratic — almost breathtakingly inclusive. Property qualifications for voting — and for service as delegates — all but evaporated. Up and down the eastern seaboard, more freemen were allowed to vote or stand for election than ever before anywhere in the world.  

“True,” writes Akhil Amar, a law professor at Yale, the ratification process “fell far short of universal suffrage as modern Americans understand the idea, but where had anything close to universal suffrage ever existed prior to 1787?”

The answer, of course, is nowhere. More than two centuries later, universal suffrage is an unquestioned premise across much of the planet. But this fact owes much the example of the U.S. Constitution — including subsequent amendments that banned slavery and gave the vote to men and women of all races. The ratification process had shortcomings, to be sure. But we can identify those shortcomings today largely thanks to standards the original Constitution helped create.

Ratification, of course, involved more than voting. It entailed an unprecedented process of public deliberation. Oceans of ink were spilled on mountains of paper as armies of essayists and orators, poets and pundits made their cases for or against the proposed Constitution. 

The most brilliant contributions to this debate — the seven dozen Federalist essays, mostly composed by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison — have become an enduring classic of political philosophy. But there were many lesser lights that, for their time and season, burned brightly and intensely. 

It was a remarkable conversation, one that led not only to the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, but to the enactment of the Bill of Rights two years later. The Constitution enshrined the principle of popular sovereignty; but the ratification process embodied it.

That process wasn’t always edifying. The years in which the Constitution was drafted, debated, and ratified were years of searing political conflict and intense polarization. It was an age of bluster and invective, character assassination and fake news. Those years witnessed shenanigans in statehouses and shady tactics at the polls.

They saw libel in the newspapers and violence in the streets. They were years, in short, not entirely unlike our own. 

But glimmering through the gloom there glowed a civil and articulate few — dedicated citizens committed to reasoned discourse and public deliberation. These were the forgers of an American dialogue, the founders and framers of a national conversation. Over time, the conversation has become more inclusive. It is the richest heritage of the founding era.

The survival of self-government requires that the conversation continue. We must defend, in our day, the rights of all to engage in that ongoing dialogue, even if they or their views are unpopular. We must collectively carry the conversation forward with unflagging civility and mutual respect, with a passionate democratic gusto, and in an invincible spirit of freedom.

Justin Collings is a professor at Brigham Young University Law School and a fellow at the Wheatley Institution.

Popular Sovereignty and the Consent of the Governed

The Founders believe

Guiding Questions

• What is the proper role and function of government in a democratic society?
• Why is consent necessary in government?
• What rights do people have in the U.S., and where do they get those rights?
• Students will describe the relationship between citizens and government.
• Students will explain the importance of consent in a democracy.
• Students will explain the reasons for the American Revolution.
• Students will compare and contrast different philosophies around consent and popular sovereignty.

Expand Materials Materials

Educator Resources

• Handout B: Comparing Philosophies Answer Key

Student Handouts

• Popular Sovereignty and the Consent of the Governed Essay
• Handout A: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Consent of the Governed

Handout B: Comparing Philosophies

Expand key terms key terms.

• Bill of Rights
• Declaration of Independence
• King George III
• English Bill of Rights
• inalienable rights
• Benjamin Franklin
• popular sovereignty

Expand Prework Prework

Ask students to define the following terms:

Ask students to explain why the American colonists listed so many charges against King George III in the Declaration of Independence

Ask students why the Preamble of the Constitution begins with the words “We the People,” and what is significant about that statement.

Expand Warmup Warmup

Ask students to describe what would happen if government ceased to exist (alternatively, ask students what essential services does government provide, or, why government is necessary).

Ask students what the phrase “taxation without representation” means.

Ask students what responsibilities government has to its citizens, and what responsibilities citizens have to the government.

Ask students why it is important that the authority to rule people is based on their consent to be ruled.

Discuss students’ responses.

Expand Activities Activities

The teacher will inform students that at the time of the American Revolution, there were several key philosophers that helped influence the Founders’ thinking on the role and responsibilities of government.

Have students read the excerpts from Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau on Handout A: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Consent of the Governed . After reading, students should complete Handout B: Comparing Philosophies to compare and contrast the ideas relating to consent of the governed. Afterward, the teacher will discuss the answers with the students.

Expand Wrap Up Wrap Up

The teacher can ask students what, if anything, King George III and the British Government could have done to have prevented the American Revolution.

Expand Homework Homework

Benjamin Franklin once said “In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns.”

Based on this quote, what do you think Franklin would say about our government today? Why do you think this?

Expand Extensions Extensions

Students can read more of John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government ( The Project Gutenberg eBook of Second Treatise Of Government By John Locke. ) and consider Locke’s arguments on the need for consent, and why Locke argued that revolutions would be rare.

Essay: Popular Sovereignty and the Consent of the Governed

Primary source: hobbes, locke, rousseau, and consent of the governed.

Next Lesson

Rule of Law

• Content Guidelines
• Privacy Policy

Essay on Sovereignty: Top 7 Essays | Sovereignty | Political Science

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Here is an essay on ‘Sovereignty’ for class 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on ‘Sovereignty’ especially written for school and college students.

Essay on Sovereignty

Essay Contents:

• Essay on the Titular and Actual Sovereign

Essay # 1. Definition of Sovereignty:

The term sovereignty is derived from the Latin word “superanus” which means supreme. It is common knowledge that sovereignty is the most important characteristic which distinguishes the state from other associations.

According to Jean Bodin- “Sovereignty is the supreme power of the state over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law.” Hugo Grotius defined it as “the supreme political power vested in him, whose acts are not subject to any other and whose will cannot be overridden.”

For J. W. Burgess, it is “original, absolute, unlimited power over the individual subjects and over all other associations of subjects. It is the un-derived and independent power to command and compel obedience.” According to Woodrow Wilson- “Sovereignty is the daily operative power of framing and giving efficacy to the laws.” W.W. Willoughby identified it with “the supreme will of the state.”

There are two aspects of sovereignty – internal and external. Internally, sovereignty has undisputed control over all citizens, aliens, associations and organisations. Its command is final and binding. The disobeyer of the sovereignty is punished. The limitations on the sovereignty, if any, are those mentioned in the constitution. The fact is that there can be no higher authority to restrain the sovereignty.

From the external point of view, the sovereign is free and independent and equal with the sovereigns. The sovereign is master of its destiny and decides about war and peace. It sends envoys to other states and receives envoys of other states. It enters into contracts and treaties with other states and participates in all international conferences.

Essay # 2. Characteristics of Sovereignty:

The following are the major characteristics of sovereignty:

The first characteristic of sovereignty is absoluteness. It means that the sovereign is supreme and unlimited. In the state there is no other power higher than the sovereign to command over. Sovereignty is the storehouse of all laws and rights.

It is very clear that if a sovereign is put under the control of any other power it will lose its sovereign status. There is no authority internal or external to poach on the power of the sovereign.

But there are some limitations, as argued by the critics, upon the sovereign:

(i) No sovereign, however great he might be, can curb religion, morality or customs. The King-in-parliament in England cannot make a law that all blind children will be killed.

(ii) In modern states the constitution guarantees some fundamental rights to the citizens. Obviously, these are limitations on the sovereign.

(iii) In the international field each state has to obey the international law, which goes against the absolute nature of the state.

The second essential characteristic of sovereignty is its indivisibility, which means that it cannot be divided into so many parts. So John C. Calhoun rightly observed- “Sovereignty is an entire thing to divide it is to destroy it. It is the supreme power in a state and we might just as well speak of half a square or half a triangle or half a sovereignty.” It is said that sovereignty stands for the supreme will. If it is dissected it cannot represent the supreme will.

But there are some limitations on the theory of indivisibility of sovereignty:

(i) In a federation the sovereignty is divided between the centre and the federation states. It is also possible that in the centre one political party is in power and in the federating units some other parties are holding the rein of administration. In such a case the sovereignty is shared between the different parties.

According to A. L. Lowell:

“There can exist within the same territory two sovereigns issuing commands to same subjects touching different matters.”

(ii) The pluralist do not believe in the indivisibility of sovereignty. The sovereignty resides on the various units of the society, of which the state is one. According to them, the state is never absolute nor is sovereignty indivisible. Sovereignty is split up among the state, the central government, provincial government, local self-government, family, etc. So the indivisible aspect of sovereignty is negative by the pluralists.

The third inherent element of sovereignty is its exclusiveness. This characteristic is very much akin to the element of indivisibility which means that there can be only one sovereign in one state.

The fourth important feature of sovereignty is universality or all-comprehensiveness. The sovereign has full jurisdiction over every person or every-thing within the state. With such sweeping control there cannot be any social disorder.

But the critics put some limitations on the universality of sovereignty. The diplomats and envoys of foreign countries, the ships and aircraft of foreign countries are to be exempted from the purview of the sovereignty of the state.

The fifth essential mark of sovereignty is permanence. So long the state will remain in existence its sovereignty will continue because sovereignty is a permanent trait of the state. The King may die, the government may be replaced but the state will continue and with the continuance of the state will continue the sovereignty.

The final trait of sovereignty is inalienability. It means that sovereignty cannot be transferred. So Francis Lieber rightly said- “Sovereignty can no more be alienated than a tree can alienate its right to sprout or man can transfer his life and personality without self-destruction.” The alienation of sovereignty from the state is as suicidal as the transfer of heart from the body of a man.

Essay # 3. Legal Sovereignty :

Legal sovereign is defined as that person or body of persons that makes law which is final and recognised by the courts and enforced by the executive. The concept of legal sovereignty is associated with the English jurist John Austin. This theory is also known as the classical theory or monistic theory of sovereignty.

According to the monistic school, sovereignty is absolute, determinate, supreme, omnipotent, indivisible and inalienable.

In his book Province of Jurisprudence Determined, published in 1832, John Austin defined legal sovereignty as:

“If a determinate human superior not in the habit of obedience to a like superior receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinate human superior is sovereign in that society, and the society is political and independent.”

The focal point of Austin’s theory of Sovereignty is law which is the weapon of the sovereign. Law is nothing else but the command of the sovereign and is obeyed because of physical penalties.

In the words of Austin:

“Law is the command of a determinate human superior to an inferior, i.e., a command of the sovereign to the subject. The essence of law is the coercive force of the state.”

Law creates unity in the state. The rights of the people are what the sovereign sanctions. It can make and unmake any law or right. Sovereignty is universal. Whatever exists in the state are permitted and commanded by the sovereign.

The English constitutionalists who support the theory give out the example of the British Crown in Parliament as the embodiment of Austinian sovereignty. So the closest that the English constitutionalists came to identifying the centre of sovereign power is in the phrase used frequently from the sixteenth century onward – the King (or Queen)-in-Parliament.

Basic Features of Austin’s Legal S overeignty:

From an analysis of Austin’s concept of legal sovereignty we find the following essential features:

1. In every state there must be one sovereign, who may be a person or a body of persons. The sovereign must be both definite and determinate. In other words, it should be clear to ascertain who is the sovereign. It may be a King, a dictator or the parliament. Without sovereignty the state loses its status of a state and degenerates into a dependency.

2. The authority of the sovereign is absolute, unlimited and indivisible. All the people inside the state must obey him and if there be anybody not loyal to him, he will be punished by the sovereign. Outside the state also the sovereign is supreme, because he is  not under the control of any other sovereign or foreign state.

3. Law is what the sovereign commands. Whatever the sovereign says becomes law. So the courts of law will respect only those laws as are made by the sovereign. There can be no limit to the law-making power of the sovereign. The individuals have no legal rights against the sovereign. The individuals, however, can enjoy some rights which are granted by the sovereign.

4. All laws are backed by the coercive power of the sovereign. It means that for the enforcement of law the sovereign will take recourse to force. If law is violated by anybody he will be punished by the sovereign.

Criticism of Legal Sovereignty:

The legal theory of sovereignty as propounded by Austin is subjected to searching criticism:

In the first place, Sir Henry Maine, who is the main antagonist of legal sovereignty, attacks the determinate and absolute nature of legal sovereignty. For Maine, the sovereign is neither determinate nor absolute. Maine cites the example of Ranjit Singh, an oriental despot who could not do anything or everything, he had in mind. Every sovereign must respect the public opinion, the legislature, the electorate and the religion and customs of the people.

In reply Austin said that what the electorate, the press and other bodies do they can do so because the sovereign permits them to do so. This eye-wash of Austin is not maintainable because if the sovereign goes against the public opinion or the wishes of the people that sovereign will be overthrow. This public opinion or the electorate is the political sovereign which stands behind the legal sovereign. So it is said that behind every legal sovereign there is one political sovereign.

In the second place, refuting the coercive aspect of law, Thomas Hill Green pointed out that law is obeyed not because it is backed by force but because of the willingness of the citizens. Such willingness is actuated by the common welfare of the community, not the fear for penalties. The sovereign receives habitual obedience from the bulk of the society not out of fear but because the law is meant for the promotion of the common welfare.

In the third place, the American philosophers like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton seriously contended that sovereignty cannot be indivisible because in a federation like the USA the sovereignty is shared by the federal union and the component units. But the supporters of legal sovereignty tried to meet this point on the ground that it is the governmental powers that are divided, not the sovereignty, which in the USA resides with the body that can amend the constitution.

In the fourth place, sovereignty is externally limited by the international laws and international organisations like the UNO. A resolution of the UNO cannot be disobeyed by the state and if it actually disobeys it will be punished.

In the fifth place, the sociologists are of the view that moral ethos, law of equity and good conscience are limitations on the sovereignty. Law is not the command of the sovereign but a code governing the behaviour of the sovereign. The sovereign is not above law, but under law. Again, the sovereign is under the constitution of the country, which is known as the supreme law of the land. If Austin’s sovereign is the parliament of India or the parliament of the USA, can these two parliaments go against the constitutions of the country? The answer is no.

Lastly, the pluralists are of the firm conviction that the sovereignty does not lie in a particular body but in multiple bodies like the King, the parliament, the provincial government, local self-government, families and various associations in the society. This is refuted by the Austinians on the argument that all these bodies are creations of the sovereign. If the sovereign wills, he can curb them. The Nazis in Germany and the Fascists in Italy curbed and destroyed all these bodies.

Conclusion:

The legal or classical theory of sovereignty, as laid down by John Austin, does not tell us the real concept of sovereignty. The King-in-Parliament, which is the classic example of the classical theory, is a seat of legal sovereignty in a particular point of time. Otherwise, it does not’ stand the test of reality. We may conclude with the words of R. M. MacIver- “Physical force is not the essence but only differentia or criterion of the state. Sovereignty belongs to the state because the performance of the purpose of the state demands it.”

Essay # 4. Political Sovereignty:

The legal sovereignty is that body which makes the laws of the land. Thus the King-in-Parliament is the legal sovereign of England. But there is another sovereign behind the legal sovereignty. That sovereignty is called the political sovereignty. The electorate of the country is identifiable with the political sovereignty, because without the support of the electorate the legal sovereign cannot go ahead with its programme of legislation.

So Albert Venn Dicey rightly said:

“Behind the legal sovereign that the lawyer recognises there is another sovereign, to whom the legal sovereign must bow.”

That sovereign is called the political sovereign.

In a democracy the legal sovereign receives its authority from the electorate. As a matter of fact, the legislature makes laws on the wishes of the electorate. So the real sovereign is not the parliament but the voters. But the electorate is not the only consideration for legislation. There are some other factors like public opinion, press and several associations. So R. N. Gilchrist rightly maintained that the political sovereign is “the sum total of the influence in a state which lie behind the law.”

Criticism of Political Sovereignty on Political Theory:

The theory of political sovereignty is attacked on the following grounds:

First, the seat or composition of political sovereignty is rather shaky. The political sovereignty is said to be represented by the electorate. If so, the voters who are the political sovereign, will be incapable of any direct political action.

The voters in all countries do all their works through their representatives, because it is not possible for all the voters to make the laws or enforce them. This will inevitably result in shedding powers by the voters and transferring these powers to some other set of persons. This runs contrary to the basic idea of sovereignty.

Secondly, the concept of the electorate being the political sovereign is seriously challenged by another school which thinks that the real political sovereign power resides with the people as a whole. This theory is called popular sovereignty.

Essay # 5. Popular Sovereignty:

The concept of political sovereignty locates the seat of sovereignty in the electorate. The popular sovereignty shifts the seat of sovereignty to the people. This concept may be traced back to Julius Caesar who is said to have derived his authority from the populace of Rome.

In the medieval age this theory was nurtured by Marsiglio of Padua, George Buchanan and Francis Hotman. In the modern period this theory was espoused by the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The American celebrity Thomas Jefferson made use of this in the American Declaration of Independence when he announced that the governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Since then it is considered as the watchword of true democracy. Lord James Bryce is an important advocate of this concept. According to R. N. Gilchrist, popular sovereignty means the power of the masses as against any individual or classes. Popular sovereignty stands for universal adult franchise and control of the legislature by the representatives of the people. Thus popular sovereignty is identifiable with representative democracy.

Criticism of Popular Sovereignty:

It is difficult to precisely locate the popular sovereignty, because the term people is a very vague term. It refers to the whole unorganised mass of men and women of all ages. Such an unorganised people cannot take any political action. There must be some definite representatives of the people to discharge the political functions. Only in a small state the people as a whole can exercise the functions of a sovereign. So the concept of political sovereignty is unclear and unrealistic.

Value of the Theory of Popular Sovereignty:

The above criticism must not blind us with the idea that popular sovereignty has no value in a large state having indirect democracy. This theory has immense value.

First, we find the remnants of this theory in modern democratic states in the form of referendum, initiative and recall. These are the devices through which the people themselves exert their influence in the state.

Secondly, the theory tells us that the government exists for the good of the people, not for its own good. If the interest of the people is not preserved by the government, that government will be overthrown. The government must not act close up arbitrarily but must take into consideration the paramount interest of the people at large. For ensuring popular confidence there should be frequent elections and the government should be split up into local self-government.

Essay # 6. Pluralist Theory of Sovereignty :

The pluralist theory of sovereignty is directly opposed to the legal theory of sovereignty. While the legal theory concentrates sovereignty in one unit, the pluralist theory splits it up among various units. So the former is called monistic theory and the latter is known as the pluralist theory.

According to the pluralists, the state is one of the associations of the society. The state is not co-terminus with the society. The state is not all-pervading. It deals only with the external conditions of the social order. It does not concern itself with the internal aspect.

The pluralists believe that each association is a real personality, independent of the state. Family and the church are some of the associations that existed long before the state. These associations had their own constitution, purpose and regulative institutions which cannot be interfered by the state.

Man is an associative animal and he expresses his corporate personality through the family, church, club, economic organisations, etc. For a man, these associations are more important than the state.

According to A. D. Lindsay: 

“The state is only one of the many associations and organisations which possess corporate personalities”.

If and to what extent the state can control these organisations are to be decided by the citizens.

So Lindsay rightly pointed out- “These associations attract deeper loyalties than the state and prove more effective agencies of social coordination.” For a man the state is necessary only to create external conditions by which he can elect his association and develop his personality. It is but natural that these associations are limitations on the state. So R. M. MacIver rightly observed- “ Customs, religion, principles of morality and public opinion are a limitation upon the state.”

The pluralists do not subscribe to the view that laws are the commands of the state. The real nature of law is its sociological purpose of the society. These laws are definitely restraints on the state. The people obey law not because they are afraid of punishment but because laws are good for all, since they promote common welfare.

Harold J. Laski, who is an exponent of the pluralist theory, believed that the state cannot be said to be the sole unit of sovereignty. The true position is that there are numerous units of sovereignty, of which the state is one. He wanted that the whole concept of monistic sovereignty should be surrendered. The associative impulse of men generates the growth of several associations which are as much sovereign as the state.

According to J. N. Figgis:

“The state is agency of coordination and adjustment.”

There are scathing criticisms to which the pluralist theory of sovereignty is subjected:

First, the pluralist theory is one of anachronism because by equating the associations with the state it creates disorder in the society. In the absence of one authority there is bound to be chaos and finally anarchy.

Secondly, this theory overlooks the fact that the state is a unifying force.

Thirdly, there is want of clarity and uniformity among the pluralists about their exact nature of sovereignty.

Fourthly, the pluralist theory is rather a negative theory of sovereignty and does not tell anything positive. To quote Harold J. Laski- “It will be of lasting benefit to the world if the whole concept of absolute sovereignty is expunged from political science.”

The pluralists succeeded in negating the legal theory of sovereignty without giving anything new instead. So we are to conclude with the words of J. W. Garner- “ Notwithstanding weakness of Austin’s theory of sovereignty as a concept of strict legal nature of sovereignty, his theory on the whole is clear and logical and much of the criticism directed against it has been founded on inapprehension and misconception.”

Essay # 7. Titular and Actual Sovereign:

The titular sovereign and actual sovereign are two opposite terms. The titular or nominal sovereign is one who is sovereign only theoretically. But the real sovereignty is vested in a different body. The first is rather a rubber stamp and the second is the real man controlling the puppet from behind the scene. The best example of titular sovereign is the Queen of England. In effect, she has no power, though the administration of the country is carried on by the name of the Queen. Who is the real sovereign there? The parliament of England is the actual sovereign.

De Jure Sovereign and De Facto Sovereign:

In times of war or during the revolution some authority captures the power in the state and rules the country with the backing of the army. That authority has no legal right to hold on power. Thus during the French Revolution the Jacobins captured power and ruled over France.

The Jacobins had no right to rule over the country under the laws of the land. This type of emergency-born sovereign is called the de facto sovereign. When the de facto sovereign is successful in restoring law and order and victory in the war front, that sovereign may continue permanently and become de jure sovereign.

For example we may say that Field Marshal Ayub Khan overthrew the civilian government in Pakistan and established martial law in that country with himself as the President of Pakistan. But he was welcome by the people of Pakistan and so he continued in power. He began as the de facto sovereign but later on became the de jure sovereign.

Internal and External Sovereignty:

The state has both internal and external sovereignty. The former refers to the authority of the state over every individual and institutions within its boundary lines. This is a basic ingredient of sovereignty. But the state has also its external sovereignty which means its authority and command over its foreign policy, its relation with the other states and its place and position in the political bodies like the UNO, the Commonwealth of Nations, the South Asian Association of Regional Co-operations etc.

Thus the freedom exercised by the state in regulating its foreign policy is as elementary as independence of a state. It, however, does not mean occupying the land of other state. Iraq in 1991 occupied Kuwait. This was illegal. Iraq was corrected by the UNO. Finally Iraq had to pull out. Similarly, Russia occupied Afghanistan illegally. Ultimately, Afghanistan was freed.

Marxian Doctrine of Sovereignty:

Marxism looks at sovereignty through the prism of class-struggle and gives a peculiar concept of sovereignty. It thinks that sovereignty resides with the most dominant class in the society. It arose with the class struggle. There was no need for sovereignty in the primitive age because there was no class struggle at that time.

The class struggle arose with the pastoral age when the conception of sovereignty was invented to protect the possessing class, economic factor being the most vital point in the determination of where the sovereignty lay. Thus sovereignty began to change hands with the change in the class coming to occupy the cockpit of power. That power was economic power. Thus it went on from the slave master to the feudal barons, from the feudal barons to the capitalists.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the French Revolution of 1789 shook the theory of absolute sovereignty and sovereignty was shifted to the bourgeoisie. Thus the bourgeoisie headed the sovereignty in the European countries since the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

The parliament of the European counties and the USA made laws to protect the interest of the bourgeoisie. With the Russian Revolution in 1917 and the Chinese Revolution of 1949 the sovereign element was taken from the bourgeoisie and transferred to the proletariat, who held on the economic power in those countries.

The Marxists do not accept that sovereignty in any country in Europe or the USA belongs to the people or even to the electorate as held by the priests of popular sovereignty. The Marxists also reject the idea of the believers of the pluralist sovereignty on the argument that in all these bourgeois systems the sovereignty is enjoyed by the parliament which is the institute of the bourgeoisie to upkeep its interest and exploiting the others who are the majority.

The minority rule is the order of the day for all systems until the on-coming of the dictatorship of the proletariat who are in the majority. The Marxists do not accept the theory as is commonly believed in the USA that the sovereignty belongs to the constitution which is above all. The Marxists sneered at the constitution calling it a document prepared by the bourgeoisie to protect their own interest and to rule over and oppress the other classes.

Criticism of Marxist Doctrine of Sovereignty:

The Marxist idea of sovereignty came under heavy fire in the hands of the critics.

The criticisms go on the following lines:

The first line of criticism is that the Marxists have failed to give a clear-cut picture of sovereignty. Instead they have thrown the sovereignty to be found out in the strait-jacket of the most dominant class in the society. It is vague and indefinite.

The second line of criticism is that nobody has heard that sovereignty was absent until the class struggle ensued. It-is-common knowledge that sovereignty began with the coming of the state. Sovereignty is linked with the state, not with the class.

The third line of criticism is that Marx would have us believe that with the death of the class struggle there will be end of sovereignty. It may sound acceptable that an umpire is necessary so long there are two teams playing cricket and after the game is over the umpire will also go. The state is neither cricket, nor the sovereign an umpire. Marx misconceived the entire concept of sovereignty. So we must conclude with the observation that Marx’s theory of sovereignty must be dismissed as false and misleading one.

Related Articles:

• 5 Different Kinds of Sovereignty
• 8 Criticism Faced by Austin’s Theory of Sovereignty
• Sovereignty: Meaning and Characteristics of Sovereignty
• Essay on Political Science: Top 9 Essays | India | Political Science

Upload and Share Your Article:

• Description *
• Your Name *
• Your Email ID *
• Upload Your File Drop files here or Select files Max. file size: 3 MB, Max. files: 5.

Essay , Essay on Sovereignty , Political Science , Sovereignty

Upload Your Knowledge on Political science:

Privacy overview.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Guest Essay

How Harris Has Completely Upended the Presidential Race, in 14 Maps

Daniel Zvereff

By Doug Sosnik Graphics by Quoctrung Bui

Mr. Sosnik was a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000 and has advised more than 50 governors and U.S. senators.

With Kamala Harris now at the top of the ticket, the enthusiasm and confidence within the Democratic Party feel stronger than at any point I’ve seen since Barack Obama ran for president in 2008. And it’s not just vibes: The paths to victory in the Electoral College have been completely reshaped for the Democrats – and for Donald Trump – since my last analysis of the electoral map on July 12, nine days before Joe Biden exited the race.

Not only have Democrats come home to support their party’s nominee, they are now also more energized about the election than Republicans. Ms. Harris has quickly picked up support from nonwhite and younger voters.

We are now back to the same electoral map that we had before Mr. Biden’s summertime polling collapse: Once again, the winner in November will come down to the seven battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The seven swing states that will most likely decide the 2024 presidential election.

Current polling shows the transformed race: While Mr. Biden trailed Mr. Trump in all seven battleground states last month, Ms. Harris is now leading Mr. Trump by four points in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the latest New York Times/Siena College polls . Other polls show Ms. Harris in a statistical dead heat in Georgia and Arizona .

Those polls also reveal one of Mr. Trump’s biggest obstacles to winning the election: A majority of the country has never supported him, either as president or as a candidate for office. In the Times/Siena surveys, Mr. Trump had polled at only 46 percent in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And with the race no longer between two unpopular nominees, support for third-party candidates has dropped, making it much more difficult for Mr. Trump to win.

And yet: Republicans have a structural advantage in the Electoral College system of voting, giving Mr. Trump at least one advantage against a surging Ms. Harris.

The G.O.P. lost the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections, yet won the White House in three of those elections. In 2016, Mr. Trump eked out Electoral College wins in swing states like Wisconsin even as Hillary Clinton crushed him in the most populous states like California. The Republican edge has only grown stronger with the reallocation of electoral votes based on the most recent census.

Given that structural advantage, Georgia, and its 16 Electoral College votes, is increasingly becoming a pivotal state that Mr. Trump can’t lose. If Ms. Harris is able to carry Georgia – and Mr. Trump seems to be trying to help her by inexplicably attacking the popular incumbent Republican governor and his wife – then she would have 242 electoral votes, only 28 short of the 270 needed to win.

Mr. Trump may not understand the political consequences of losing Georgia, but his advisers appear to: His campaign and biggest aligned super PAC spent four times as much in advertising in the state in the two weeks since Ms. Harris became the Democratic Party nominee as they did in the rest of 2024 combined. And in this coming week, of the $37 million in ad buys that the Trump campaign has placed nationally, almost $24 million are in Georgia.

Pennsylvania looks increasingly to be the other key battleground state, and both parties know it. According to AdImpact , over $211 million in paid media has so far been purchased in Pennsylvania from March 6 until Election Day, which is more than double the amount in any other state.

Given its size and support for Democratic candidates in the past, if Ms. Harris loses Pennsylvania, that could be just as damaging to her candidacy as a loss in Georgia would be to Mr. Trump’s chances.

This is why Georgia and Pennsylvania are the two most important states to watch to see if one candidate is able to establish a decisive path to 270 electoral votes.

Ms. Harris starts out with 226 likely electoral votes compared to 219 for Mr. Trump, with 93 votes up for grabs. However, unlike Mr. Biden last month, she has multiple paths to 270 electoral votes.

The first path for Ms. Harris is to carry Pennsylvania , which Mr. Biden won by more than 80,000 votes in 2020 and has voted for the Democratic candidate in seven out of the last eight presidential elections. Assuming that Ms. Harris wins Pennsylvania, she will have 245 electoral votes and six paths to 270.

Scenario 1 Then all Ms. Harris needs are Michigan and Wisconsin (assuming that she carries the Second Congressional District in Nebraska) …

Scenario 2 … or Wisconsin and Georgia …

Scenario 3 … or Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada …

Scenario 4 … or Michigan and Arizona …

Scenario 5 … or Michigan and Georgia …

Scenario 6 … or Georgia and Arizona.

The second path for Ms. Harris does not require her winning Pennsylvania. Instead she needs to win Wisconsin , Michigan , Georgia and …

Scenario 1 … Arizona …

Scenario 2 … or Nevada .

Based on past elections, Mr. Trump starts out with 219 Electoral College votes, compared to 226 for Ms. Harris, with 93 votes up for grabs.

It’s difficult to see how Mr. Trump could win the election if he cannot carry North Carolina , which generally favors Republican presidential candidates. That would give Mr. Trump 235 electoral votes and multiple paths to 270.

The first path involves carrying Georgia , a state he lost by fewer than 12,000 votes in 2020. Before then, Republicans won Georgia in every election since 1992. If Mr. Trump carried North Carolina and Georgia, he would have a base of 251 electoral votes.

Scenario 1 Then all Mr. Trump needs is Pennsylvania …

Scenario 2 … or Michigan and Nevada …

Scenario 3 … or Michigan and Arizona …

Scenario 4 … or Arizona and Wisconsin …

The second and more difficult path for Mr. Trump would be if he carried North Carolina but lost Georgia. He would then have only 235 electoral votes and would need to win three of the six remaining battleground states.

Scenario 1 Like Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin …

Scenario 2 … or Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania .

A Look Ahead to November

Ms. Harris clearly has the momentum going into the Democratic National Convention, but she has not really been tested yet. At some point she will need to demonstrate that she can perform under pressure in order to win over undecided voters and less enthusiastic moderates and independents.

As unruly as this election year has been, there are still certain rules of politics that apply to the presidential race. History has repeatedly shown that the winning candidates are usually the ones best able to define who they are, whom they are running against and what the election is about.

Mr. Trump had made the election a referendum of his presidency compared to Mr. Biden’s – that he was a strong leader and Mr. Biden was weak.

In the past three weeks, Ms. Harris has set the terms of the campaign as a choice between change versus going backward – a positive view of the future compared to a dystopian view of the present with a desire to go back to the past.

But even though Ms. Harris’s favorability has gone up significantly since she announced her candidacy, the increase in support is soft. That is the reason that the Democratic convention is such an important opportunity for her to close the deal with key swing voters.

Mr. Trump, on the other hand, is fully defined in the minds of most voters, and has elected to double down on catering to his MAGA base despite alienating the key swing voter blocs that will determine the outcome of the election. During the last hour of his convention speech, and every day since then, Mr. Trump has offered words and actions that remind Americans why they voted him out of office in 2020.

Mr. Trump has increasingly looked like a washed-up rock star who can play only his greatest hits for his dwindling group of fans. If he loses in November, he will have been a one-hit wonder who led the Republican Party to four presidential and midterm election-cycle losses in a row.

More on the 2024 presidential election

What the Polls Say About Harris That the Trump Team Doesn’t Like

If a major change on the Democratic ticket fires up progressives, it wouldn’t be unusual to see a slightly higher number of progressive likely voters.

By Kristen Soltis Anderson

Don’t Listen to the Right. The Kamalanomenon Is Real.

There was Obama-level excitement at Harris’s Atlanta rally.

By Michelle Goldberg

Biden’s Path to Re-election Has All But Vanished

A Democratic strategist explains just how difficult the Electoral College math is getting for President Biden.

By Doug Sosnik

Doug Sosnik was a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000 and has advised over 50 governors and U.S. senators.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .