The Westphalian state by Neil Lock
Last week, I wrote about John Locke, the 17th-century father of the Enlightenment, and his forward-looking ideas on political philosophy. Today, I’m going to look at the other side of the coin. That is, the political system, in the grip of which we actually live today; the “Westphalian” state. Which, you may be surprised to learn, was designed a whole century before Locke produced his masterpieces, and was first implemented during his lifetime.
States and monarchs
The state, a group of people in a geographical area, ruled over by a king or a more or less tightly bound group of oligarchs, has been the major political structure in most of the world for more than 5,000 years. States could be small – as in the city-states of ancient Greece, or the Hanseatic towns of Germany. Or they could be large or very large, like the Roman Republic and the Empire to which it led, or the USA or India today.
Before the 14th century in Europe, and in France in particular, the monarchical state had been rivalled, and often exceeded in influence, by the Catholic church. But as the French monarchs became more and more powerful, they started to claim that they ruled by divine right. By the early 16th century, with the Renaissance and the rise of Protestantism, the French king had negotiated a concordat with the Catholic church. And began to persecute Protestants.
Jean Bodin
Into this political and religious maelstrom stepped a man named Jean Bodin, a legal scholar and political philosopher with strong monarchist leanings. Although he was in some ways a Renaissance man and a humanist, he advocated a state with strong control from the centre.
His Six Books of the Commonwealth (published 1576) outlined his ideas. A Canadian university has seen fit to publish on the Internet an abridged English translation of this work: [[1]]. This includes both a biographical sketch of Bodin, and a summary of his arguments.
Sovereignty
Fortunately for the casual reader, the essences of Bodin’s system – the ideas of sovereignty and its opposite, subjection – are elucidated in just two chapters of his book.
In Book 1, Chapter 8, he defines sovereignty as “that absolute and perpetual power vested in a commonwealth which in Latin is termed majestas.” While a sovereign can always choose to delegate tasks and powers to a subject, he says, the sovereign always has the right to take them back again. “However much he gives there always remains a reserve of right in his own person, whereby he may command, or intervene by way of prevention, confirmation, evocation, or any other way he thinks fit, in all matters delegated to a subject, whether in virtue of an office or a commission.”
Later, he says: “It is impossible to bind oneself in any matter which is the subject of one’s own free exercise of will… It follows of necessity that the king cannot be subject to his own laws.”
Powers of the sovereign
In Book 1, Chapter 10, “The True Attributes of Sovereignty,” we find the nub of Bodin’s ideas.
“The first attribute of the sovereign prince therefore is the power to make law binding on all his subjects in general and on each in particular.” And: “I mean by this last phrase the grant of privileges. I mean by a privilege a concession to one or a small group of individuals which concerns the profit and loss of those persons only.”
The second attribute of sovereignty is the power to make war and peace.
“The third attribute of sovereignty is the power to institute the great officers of state.” That is, to choose to whom the sovereign wishes to delegate tasks and powers, and to appoint and dismiss them.
“The fourth attribute of sovereignty… is that the prince should be the final resort of appeal from all other courts.” “With this right is coupled the right of pardoning convicted persons, and so of overruling the sentences of his own courts, in mitigation of the severity of the law.”
As for the fifth, to issue a currency: “only he who can make law can regulate currency.”
The sixth: “The right of levying taxes and imposing dues, or of exempting persons from the payment of such, is also part of the power of making law and granting privileges.” And: “If any necessity should arise of imposing or withdrawing a tax, it can only be done by him who has sovereign authority.”
It is interesting to note that much later, in Book 6, Bodin says: “The last method of raising revenue is to tax the subject. One should never have recourse to it until all other measures have failed, and only then because urgent necessity compels one to make some provision for the commonwealth.” Would that today’s governments ruled with so light a touch!
Sovereign immunity
Bodin touches on the doctrine of “sovereign immunity,” also known as “the king can do no wrong,” in Book 2, Chapter 5. “It is in no circumstances permissible either by any of their subjects in particular, or all in general, to attempt anything against the life and honour of their king, either by process of law or force of arms, even though he has committed all the evil, impious and cruel deeds imaginable. No process of law is possible, for the subject has no jurisdiction over his prince.” Lack of accountability is built into the system at its very roots!
To sum up
To paraphrase all this. In Bodin’s scheme, the “sovereign” – the king or ruling élite – is fundamentally different from, and superior to, the rest of the population in its territory, the “subjects.” The sovereign has moral privileges. It can make laws to bind the subjects, and give privileges to those it chooses to. It can make war and peace. It appoints the top officials of the state. It is the final court of appeal. It can pardon guilty individuals if it so wishes. It can issue a currency. And it can levy taxes and impositions, and exempt at will certain individuals or groups from payment.
Furthermore, the sovereign isn’t bound by the laws it makes. And it isn’t responsible for the consequences to anyone of what it does (also known as “sovereign immunity,” or “the king can do no wrong.”)
The Westphalian state
Previously, the main justification for kingly or oligarchical rule had been “might makes right.” But Bodin laid a new, stronger intellectual foundation for the state. It is no surprise, then, that kings and political élites liked his ideas, and set about putting them into practice.
After the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a system of states grew up in Europe, which was heavily influenced by Bodin’s thinking. Some experts think that the treaty of 1648 itself had little to do with the idea of sovereignty as expressed by Bodin. But despite this, the states that have grown up since then have been described as “Westphalian.”
As since developed in international law, the principle of Westphalian sovereignty dictates that no state may interfere in the internal affairs or the territory of another state, however small. Building on the work of thinkers like Hugo Grotius, this principle of non-interference was codified in the “law of nations” in the mid-18th century.
Monarchist expansion
Bodin’s ideas were eagerly seized on by kings, since his idea of sovereignty gave them a new justification for increasing their power. One example was Charles I of England, who declared in 1646 that “A subject and a sovereign are clean different things.” He was to discover, three years later, that when subjects are angry enough, even sovereigns can be brought to justice.
Perhaps the most brilliant example of the results of Bodin’s system was found in its native France. The “Sun King,” Louis XIV, reigned from 1643 to 1715, in a highly centralized, autocratic manner. He was even reputed to have said, “L’état, c’est moi!” I am the state! And he made wars. Many wars.
Problems with sovereignty
There are several problems apparent today with the idea of sovereignty, and with its application.
A dichotomy of meaning
The first problem with sovereignty today is that the word now has two quite different meanings. One is as Bodin defined it: a system which has a sovereign (whether one individual or many) and subjects. The other means an essence that gives the people of a territory a right, under international law, to non-interference in their internal affairs.
Even today, this leads to misunderstandings. Among Reform UK supporters, some think of sovereignty as this right to non-interference. They see it as a good thing, and necessary to support a democracy. Others, including myself, stick to Bodin’s meaning of the word, and see sovereignty as a problem needing to be fixed, not as a solution to anything.
My own answer to this dichotomy is to use, for the Westphalian right to non-interference which we need, not the word “sovereignty,” but “self-determination.” And when applied to a democracy, self-determination reflects not only the right to non-interference by external parties, but also the wider right of the people, and no-one else, to determine the political direction of their country.
Bodin’s sovereignty contradicts the rule of law
Knowing what we learned in the Enlightenment, it is now clear that Bodin’s kind of sovereignty is incompatible with the rule of law, in which every individual under the law must obey the same set of rules.
In Bodin’s scheme, the sovereign has a right to make laws for the subjects, which it itself need not obey. It can give benefits to its favourites. And by implication, it can unjustly harm those it does not favour. Moreover, it is not in any way accountable for the harms it does.
Westphalian sovereignty does not guarantee non-interference
The history of the 20th and early 21st century shows that the claims of states to non-interference by other states are by no means always honoured. If you don’t have the might to defend yourself, you are likely to lose the right to non-interference.
Not only has this been shown by invasive warmongers such as Hitler and Putin. But we see it also in the continual meddling in other states’ affairs by the supposed leader of the Western world, the USA, and its allies, including the UK. From Iran in 1953, to Vietnam, to Nicaragua, to Panama, to Iraq, and seemingly now back to Iran again.
Sovereignty in the UK
I shall now bring my thoughts closer to home, both in space and in time.
Who or what is the sovereign?
The name used for the sovereign of the United Kingdom seems to have become a bit of a movable feast. A few years ago, it used to be called “the crown in parliament.” But that term doesn’t seem to be used any more.
Today, the sovereign of the UK is some unclearly defined amalgam of the monarch and the parliament. But whatever it may be, it still considers itself the rightful ruler over everyone in the realm, other than itself. It is still a Westphalian state. And it claims for itself all Bodin’s privileges.
How does the sovereign behave towards us?
Does this “sovereign” of the UK today make laws to bind us? Hell, yes. How about the unnecessary, unaffordable, destructive madness that is “nett zero?” Or the violation of our right to free speech that is the “on-line safety bill?” Virtually all laws being made today are, like these two, bad laws. They are, as John Locke put it, “the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words.”
Does it tax us? Hell, yes. Harder, and harder, and yet harder, until none of us have any pips left to squeak. How about predatory inheritance taxes on farmers? Or VAT on private school fees?
Does it grant privileges to its favourites? Hell, yes. How about paying subsidies to the makers of ugly, expensive, grid-destabilizing, bird-killing wind turbines? Or allowing its propaganda arm the BBC to rake in money through a regressive, unfair, ruthlessly collected licence fee system?
Does it use bad laws to hurt those it doesn’t like? Hell, yes. How about IR35, which ruined the careers of many independent people, including my own? Or ULEZ, to victimize drivers of older cars, who can’t afford to upgrade them?
Does it disobey its own laws? Hell, yes. How about Boris Johnson and Partygate?
Does it make wars? Hell, yes. How about Tony Blair lying about weapons of mass destruction to “justify” a war in Iraq? Or Boris Johnson in 2022 “persuading” the Ukrainians not to go through with a deal that could have ended the war honourably?
Does it appoint the “great officers of state?” Hell, yes. But they are hardly great! With only three exceptions – two of them very brief – every government in the UK since at least 1960 has behaved worse towards the people than its predecessor.
Is it the final court of appeal? Debatably, as the saga of the 2019 attempt to prorogue parliament attests. But when the UK was a member of the EU, the sovereign gave up this role to the European courts, thus negating the UK’s Westphalian sovereignty. For anyone to give away self-determination is utter madness.
Does it issue a currency? Yes, but it manipulates its value, like the Roman emperors used to. And it wants to take it away from us, and replace it by some electronic system that will make it easy to cut off people, whom it doesn’t approve of, from their own purchasing power.
Does it behave responsibly in what it does to us? Does it do what any government founded on Enlightenment principles would do, and always strive to be a nett benefit to every one among the governed? You must be joking.
The state is out of date
For 25 years and more, there has been a meme going round that the state is out of date. Indeed, a book was published in 2014 with exactly that title: [[2]]. I myself still have a copy of the original version of that book, from 1997. And the meme, I think, is spot-on right.
UK politics today is a complete mess. We are used to politicians lying to or misleading the public. We are constantly bombarded with false narratives, like “there’s a climate crisis and we’re all going to fry!” We are used to government and its officials acting arrogantly and recklessly, denying accountability, failing to practise what they preach that others should do. The current political system, the Westphalian state, has become morally bankrupt.
Instead of being a nett benefit to us human beings, as they should be, successive governments have set out, in John Locke’s words, to “impoverish, harass or subdue” us. Or all three at the same time. And yet, despite how much they have taken from us and keep on taking from us, the state is in debt to the tune of something like £180,000 per person in the UK. This is not a sustainable situation. As well as being morally bankrupt, the state is all but financially bankrupt, too.
So, how to go forward? As I outlined near the end of my earlier missive about John Locke’s ideas, we need to dismantle the whole corrupt system, kick out the degenerates that infest it, and build a new system to replace it. And the sooner, the better.
In conclusion
The political system we live under, the Westphalian state, is failing. And as it fails, it increasingly flails at, and so endangers, all of us. In my view, it is now in its death-throes. I really do think we ought to be putting it out of its (and, far more importantly, our) misery, as soon as we can. And replacing it with a system that can, and will, genuinely deliver government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Reform UK, I hope, will be an important tool in that process.
[[1]] http://www.yorku.ca/comninel/courses/3020pdf/six_books.pdf
[[2]] https://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Out-Date-Can-Better/dp/1938875060