The Role of Government

The drama that takes place every day in governmental chambers across the nation deals with the interface of the individual and the community. Each debate, discussion or dialogue has its own tone, hopefully a civil one (see two earlier postings in this blog), all dealing with this sensitive space between the individual (or groups of individuals in association: see the works of John McKnight, Northwestern University) and the community that is created when people come together.

The role of government in the creation of civil society is something that gets daily attention in the press, however this attention is usually focused at the surface, or the visible actions taken by government, not the deeper roots of government, why it exists, or how the government we see relates to the government that was created by the founders of our nation.

There is a huge amount of material available to anyone interested in the role of government ranging from the writings of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to the more philosophic works of John Locke and Edmund Burke.

If you are interested in some perspectives on government and its role in our society, here are a few thoughts from some of the great thinkers of the past 350 years.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was one of the early proponents of a small, limited government that received its powers from the law, or a written constitution, and where sovereignty remained with the people rather than a political or royal leader. In addition, Jefferson believed that the government was responsible to the will of the majority, but as the following passage shows, he was aware of the need for the government to respect the rights of the minority as well:

"...that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." Quoted from Jefferson's first inaugural address provided by Wikisource.

This recognition of the majority while understanding government's responsibility to the minority has become one of the central tenets defining the role of government in this country. 

John Adams (1735-1826) felt that the government's role was to ensure happiness, but added a few defining words to clarify what happiness would mean:

"We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moral philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government which communicates ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness, to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best." (From John Adams "Thoughts on Government" published April, 1776, provided by Wikisource).

In Adams' view, government was to provide comfort and security to the greatest number of persons. He goes on to say in other writings that the legislative body that represents the people should model the makeup of the community. It should think and act as the community would think and act.

Jefferson and Adams give us a picture of a government that acts in the best interest of the majority to provide comfort and security to the community, and that represents the will of the community in its actions and decisions. (The terms "comfort" and "security" invite greater investigation and definition, however that will be saved for a later blog entry.)

Among the many philosophers that have penned opinions of government, Locke (1632-1704) stands out as one of the more controversial figures. Without going into great detail, for the purposes of this entry it is sufficient to say that Locke gives us two important concepts. The first deals with the Social Contract Theory. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Locke believed that:

...legitimate civil government is instituted by the explicit consent of those governed. Those who make this agreement transfer to the civil government their right of executing the law of nature and judging their own case. These are the powers which they give to the central government, and this is what makes the justice system of civil governments a legitimate function of such governments.

From this point of view, the community has given the government the right to develop and implement laws that create the type of society that Jefferson and Adams were describing. 

This is the foundation of a social contract between the government and the governed where the government is given the responsibility for creating a system that will result in the type of society that the members of the community want to achieve. The logic may seem a little circular, however it is interesting that in the end, if the government does not meet the needs of the community, the community has the right to change the government (in Locke's view this change could include revolution).

A second, less complex, but long lasting concept promoted by Locke was that:

"...no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or
possessions..." From the Project Gutenberg eBook of Two
Treatises of Government, by John Locke.

This simple statement found in the writings of Locke worked its way into the constitution of the United States, and has become one of the foundations of government. The statement sounds simple on its face, but when a governing body is weighing competing ideas that affect a community's future the complexities of the concept become very clear.

Edmund Burke (1729-1797), a classic political thinker and philosopher, was a supporter of representative democracy and the principle that elected representatives should act broadly, not in the narrow interests of their supporters. Burke "...was noted for [his] defense of the principles of representative democracy against the notion that elected officials should act narrowly as advocates for the interests of their constituents." (Wikipedia)

Today, the concept of elected officials avoiding (or failing to avoid) special interest entanglements is part of the daily news.

What is often forgotten is that communities are not just a collection of individuals, they are the aggregation of people who have joined together into associations (see the works of John McKnight, Northwestern University), many of which could be considered special interests. Whether it is the Chamber of Commerce, the Sierra Club, or an oil company, communities include groups with narrow interests that wish to gain the favor of elected officials. Burke would argue that those who are elected to represent the public must maintain a broad perspective, and not be guided by supportive special interests.

Today, most citizens take our system of government for granted. Community's members have generally been born and raised in a country that has a reasonably good system of government. Citizens do not have to expend a considerable amount of time monitoring their local governments because in the vast majority of cases the services the government provides, and the comfort and safety provided by the government are sufficient.

Most governments carry out their role, as conceived by the founders of our political systems, in relative peace and harmony. However, when citizens feel that their comfort and safety needs (including fairness, equity, and justice) are not being met it is necessary for a dialogue to occur between the governed and the government. This dialogue, to be effective, needs to take into consideration the role that each party plays.

In this entry we have scratched the surface of the government's role. Perhaps a future entry will deal with the citizen's role; for the role of the citizen is as important to the success of a community as is the role of the government.

Civil Dialogue - Making a Representative Democracy Work

Although it is true that we live in a democratic country, it is also true that the form of democracy that is practiced in the majority of the communities across this the United States is Representative Democracy.

In a true democracy all citizens have an equal vote or voice in shaping policy. And, although this is a noble thought, as the numbers of citizens increases the efficiency of a pure democratic model decreases, eventually reaching the point where there are too many voices to be heard, and too many varying opinions to be considered, bringing the system to a grinding halt.

It is for these reasons that most democratic nations and states in the world today have chosen a form of representative democracy. In this system, the citizens elect representatives to participate in the setting of policies, and governing the community.

A representative democracy requires that citizens have access to their government. This gives the citizens an opportunity to have a dialogue with their elected representatives about issues that affect the community, and gives the representatives a chance to connect with the community to hear local concerns. This keeps communication lines open between the representative and the electors.

But it is in this critical communication process that today's democracy appear to break down. Good communications depends on what is called “Civil Dialogue”. In this case, civil means a respectful, polite (based on the norms of society) exchange, that provides common courtesy to both the citizen and the representative. Dialogue implies both the act of speaking of meaningful community issues, and listening to both the meaning and the concern of the other party. This is a two-way process. Both the citizen and representative must participate is this civil dialogue.

In today’s society American’s have been taught that communication with their representatives must be loud, sarcastic, demeaning, disrespectful, pointed, and full of sound-bites. Shakespeare would have called this “…a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

John Cavanaugh, of the Kettering Foundation, in an article titled Understanding the Nature of Representation in a Democracy (Connections, July 2003) described the difficulties of a representative democracy this way:

The most obvious and perhaps largest disconnect between citizens and institutions is the one that separates “We, the People” from what is perceived as “They, the Government.” The public’s generic dissatisfaction with their relationship with government officials strikes at the heart of the Kettering Foundation’s key research questions in the Public-Government Program area: How can citizens and officeholders relate more productively in addressing public policy issues?


Our research to date shows that the means officials and citizens typically use to interact with each other (public hearings, for example) are often quite unsatisfactory, to the point of making a bad relationship even worse. Hence our studies have attempted to identify the causes of the poor working relationship. One root cause seems to be the inability of citizens to appreciate the problems facing officeholders in their sworn duties as political representatives.

Good government starts with good communications between the people and their representatives. It will be strengthened by high quality civil dialogue based on mutual respect. And, it is reinforced by an understanding that the governmental systems we have created require both citizens and representatives to carry out their respective duties.

It is common to think of the duties of the representative to the citizen, but it is equally important to remember that a well informed, educated, participative citizenry is part of the formula for success. Neither can shed the mantle of responsibility. If one fails to perform, the entire system will fail.

Next time you want to communicate with your elected representatives, keep these thoughts in mind. Your participation is critical to the success of our democratic system.