Introduction

• Definition and Types: Political obligation is the commitment or duty to act in a specific way. According to H.L.A. Hart, in his book The Concept of Law (1961), it is divided into "being obliged" (coerced action backed by punitive measures, like paying taxes or voting) and "having an obligation" (a moral duty, like keeping a promise).

• Core Political Dilemma: It remains a highly contested issue in political philosophy, focusing on how much, how far, when, and why an individual must obey a political authority's laws. There is no universally accepted answer.

• Absolutist Viewpoints: Thomas Hobbes and John Austin argued for absolute obligation to the "command of the sovereign." Similarly, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel also carried forward this legacy of absolute political obligation on different grounds.

• Individualism and Rights: John Locke rejected the absolutist view, introducing the concept of individual rights against the state, which laid the foundation for individualism and liberalism. Immanuel Kant expanded on this by developing the concept of "human dignity."

• Limits of Intervention: John Stuart Mill explored the specific limits of political obligation by defining the exact conditions under which a state can legitimately intervene in an individual's life.

• Justice and Rationality: John Rawls built upon Kant’s ideas, utilizing the concept of "rational negotiators" to formulate his theory of justice.

• Marxist and Neo-Marxist Rejection: Karl Marx rejected political obligation entirely, viewing it through the lens of social class and framing the working class as an instrument of revolution. Neo-Marxists continue to look for alternative strategies and instruments for this revolution.

Duty, Obligation, and Conflict

• Analytical Relationship: Obligation and duty have a lot in common, and there isn’t anything that distinguishes the two. Between the two, there is a strong analytical relationship, and obligation and duty are often used interchangeably.

• Responsibility and Obligation: To be obligated means to have a responsibility, and to fulfil a responsibility means to fulfil an obligation. In this context, a duty is the conception of a behavior as the subject of legal obligation. When we say that someone is performing their responsibility, we often mean that they are obligated to do something. As a result, it is apparent that an obligation cannot exist without a will that imposes a responsibility or an obliging will.

• Potential for Conflicts: Because there are so many distinct kinds of obligations, there is a chance that they will conflict with one another. A moral commitment may clash with a legal obligation, and political legitimation may clash with a religious one. Any endeavour to find a solution may elicit or include major moral dilemmas.

• Moral vs. Political Obligation: A conflict between a legal requirement and a political commitment may appear to be less likely, but a conflict between a moral obligation and political obligation can, and typically is, a real one.

• Examples of Conflicting Obligations:

  • For example, my moral obligation to assist an accident victim by rushing him to the hospital may conflict with my legal obligation to follow the traffic rules.

  • Similarly, compulsory immunization or, say, sterilization might be an act of political obligation, however, as a religious obligation, it may claim an almost opposite act.

• Handling Competing Duties: Where do we stand when several obligations come into conflict with one another is a more essential concern, and this is exact about the various kinds of duties. Are we to attend to a particular type of obligation while ignoring the others?

• Balancing Multiple Roles: To be just to these numerous types of obligations or duties, one must attend to these various forms of obligations or duties, and, rarely, one does not. It is quite rare that one likes to sacrifice or ignore one at the expense of the other.

• The Demand of Political Obligation: Political obligations may be more demanding at times, and they may seek immediate rectification, for fear of punishment or otherwise, than other types of obligation.

• Nature of Compliance: It is important to remember that obligation is an obligation, and it doesn’t matter if it is political or moral. Attending to one’s obligation is a sort of performance. The intensity of the event will determine whether we attend it today or tomorrow. If we are obligated, we are obligated; similarly, a duty is a duty. Obligation is the acceptance of a task, and its compliance is an expression of our willingness.

Theories of unlimited obligation

The Doctrine of Force Majeure: Meaning, Features, and Criticism

What is Force Majeure?

• Force Majeure is a French word meaning "superior strength," an "alluring compulsion," or "coercion."

• As per this theory, the superior strength of the state is both the source and the reason for political obligation.

Core Ideas of the Theory

• The state or government is seen as the personification of political authority.

• The state's infallible power is the source of its authority.

• The state is so powerful that the individual has no option but to obey its laws, dictates, and commands, without any choice to refuse.

• Political obligation rests on fear of punishment or coercion for disobedience.

• Individuals are too weak to challenge the state, so political obligation is unlimited.

• The supreme, absolute, and unlimited authority of the state reduces individuals to "dumb-driven cattle" who must follow its dictates or face harsh penalties.

Criticism of the Theory

• It has no moral foundation.

• It simply invokes the unconvincing rule of "might is right."

• It does not allow the individual to inquire into the fairness of the law.

• It ignores whether the individual wants or does not want to obey the command or law.

• There is no scope for resistance against any law or command that could be wrong in public judgment.

• It creates coerced obedience based on a threat of repercussion for non-submission. This stands in stark contrast to an individual's willingness to follow the advice of a doctor in the interest of their own health. 

• With these characteristics, it can hardly be treated as a proper theory of political obligation.

Divine Rights Theory: Meaning, Features, and Criticism

What is the Divine Right Theory?

• The divine right theory holds that the source of power held by the sovereign is derived directly from God.

• Hence, obedience to the state is as imperative as obedience to God.

• Therefore, he who resists the authorities, resists what God has allotted, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Core Features

• The theory advocates an unlimited political obligation, since God’s will is obligatory on all mortals.

• Its foundation is religious, not rational.

• The king can be a tyrant or benevolent, but obedience to him is a must.

• Disobedience is a direct confrontation with God.

Where Was It Followed?

• In recent times, the theory was upheld in pre-communist Tibet and some tribal kingdoms.

• It is rarely practised in the modern state.

Historical Example

• James I of England (1566-1625) sought to justify his tyrannical rule precisely on this ground.

Divine Right vs. Charismatic Authority

• Some writers use the divine right theory synonymously with “charismatic authority," but this comparison is not well-founded.

• Charismatic authority:

  • It belongs to political leaders who command compliance from followers not because of divine origin.

  • It rests on personal qualities like personality, oratory skills and presentation.

  • It is entirely personal and may wither away when the person holding such qualities disappears.

• Divine right theory admits “traditional authority," not charismatic authority.

Why It Is Criticised

• The theory denies the right of the people to resist the state or authority by the people.

• Hence, it is antithetical to a democracy.

Prescriptive Theory: Customary Rights, Hegel, Burke, and Oakeshott

What is the prescriptive theory?

• Political authority and its respect are based on the principle of "customary rights."

• Authority is legitimate if it is endorsed by customs or tradition.

• Example: the 7 rounds of Hindu marriage legitimise a marriage because the authority is derived from traditions and customary rules.

• People follow their rulers' commands because compliance has become like a well-established convention.

The Conservative View of the State

• Conservatives view the state as a fragile structure built over a long period of time.

• It represents a balance of differing and contrasting interests.

• Institutions like the state evolve gradually, adapt slowly to change, and transform over time.

• Hence, it is a matter of duty to accept state authority and obey it while working only for gradual, peaceful change.

Key Thinkers

Hegel

• The conservative theory of political obligation finds its existence in the writings of Hegel.

• He believed that ideas of morality evolve concretely in the customs and institutions of the state.

• Since the state is the incarnation of time-tested customary morality, it is the duty of every citizen to follow what the state expects.

Edmund Burke

• Edmund Burke, an eminent scholar of this school, was an English Parliamentarian.

• He stated that it is unwise to totally disregard custom and tradition.

• Political obligation lies in constant respect for tradition, which is a sacrosanct concern.

• He supported the English colonialists in the American independence revolt, as he favoured the traditional rights of Englishmen.

• He opposed the French Revolution, as it was stirred by the abstract rights of man, completely disjointed from national traditions.

Prof. M. Oakeshott

• Prof. M. Oakeshott, another conservative philosopher, believed that political activities can never be anything other than conventional.

• Political contemplation cannot exist before political action.

• Politics is a skill that needs more practice than theoretical maxims, algorithms, or systems.

• Even when we try to understand other people's views, we are constantly working inside our own framework.

In a Nutshell

• Political authority is based on the principle of established customary right.

• People who obey customs also obey the rules because obedience has become a well-established convention.

• Political authority is legitimate if it is approved by custom.

Criticism of the Theory

• The prescriptive theory has its own flaws.

• Its basic foundation is adhering to existing established practices and conventions, yet there is scope for their abolition as per the demand and need of society.

• People seek change, and if their aspirations are not fulfilled, they turn to revolution.

• Prof. Oakeshott has been chastised for seeing even revolutions as historical events, reducing them to a strictly derivative matter.

• Its proponents could even urge acceptance of traditional practices like racism: indigenous populations of African and Latin American countries would have to accept racial discrimination legislation as "valid," because it is based on the best available evidence.

• Similarly, Sati and genital mutilation could be justified on grounds of tradition.

• This is far from reality: people observe traditions only as long as they have utility and do away with them when they become redundant or useless.

Quick Revision Points

• Basis of authority: custom and tradition.

• Nature of obligation: duty to obey, with only gradual, peaceful change.

• Thinkers: Hegel, Edmund Burke, Prof. M. Oakeshott.

• Main criticisms: can justify harmful practices, ignores people's demand for change, and treats revolutions as merely historical events.

Theories of Limited Obligation

Principle of Consent and Social Contract: Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau

1. Meaning of the Consent Theory

• Some theories advocate that man is master of his will.

• Hence, he can be bound by obligation only through his consent.

• There is no acceptance of a coercive imposition of obligation by an authority.

• The individual's consent is the proper source of political obligation.

• A government can exercise power only with its citizens' explicit or implicit consent.

2. Leslie Green (Green, 2004) on Consent

• Leslie Green (Green, 2004) explains: "In Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, we discover that there are many variations on the statement that our law duties are determined by some kind of individual agreement, whether express or tacit. Promises, contracts, oaths, and vows all fall into this general area. In its central meaning, consent of these sorts is not only voluntary; it is performative: it is given with the intent of changing the rights, duties, powers, or liabilities of another, and it succeeds in part because it is known to be done with that intention."

• Key idea: consent is voluntary and performative, meaning it is given with the intent to change rights and duties.

• Thinkers named: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant.

3. Tacit vs Express Consent

• Some thinkers argue that if an individual accepts the political authority of the land and abides by its laws, his tacit consent may be taken for granted.

• Others hold that mere recognition of legitimate authority is not enough to explain political obligation.

• It must be proved that people themselves created that authority with their consent.

• The “Social Contract Theory” shows that authority was both given and created through consent.

4. The Social Contract Theory

• Chief exponents:

  • Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

  • John Locke (1632-1704)

  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78)

• They claimed a "state of nature", a hypothetical stage before the creation of political authority.

• Hobbes and Locke claimed that in the state of nature, man faced inconveniences due to the absence of clear laws and authority.

• The social contract is the method by which an agreement is reached to create a state with both legitimacy and authority.

• It is responsible for the transition from the state of nature to civil society.

• Under the contract, all gave consent to give up some liberty to establish an authority that maintains a peaceful society.

• The terms of the contract define the ground and limits of political obligation.

• Hence it is the moral and political obligation of individuals to obey laws.

5. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

• Book: Leviathan.

• The state of nature was "solitary, poor, brutish, and short."

• It was absolute anarchy, where "might is right" was the rule.

• It was a state of war of each against all, fraught with insecurity.

• Men surrendered all natural rights to the newly created political authority, the sovereign (Leviathan).

• The surrender was final and unchangeable, because any departure would mean a return to the state of nature.

• Hobbes advocates an unlimited political obligation, yet it is solely based on consent and not imposed from above.

6. John Locke (1632-1704)

• Locke had a more optimistic view of the state of nature.

• He believed man to be rational by nature, generally inclined to follow the rules of morality.

• The state of nature was one of "peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation."

• The social contract created civil society through mutual consent, only to deal with the few lawbreakers who could not be allowed to be judge of their own case.

• Man surrenders the right to be judge in his own case in return for an assurance that the state will protect his natural rights to life, liberty and property.

• Government is created as a trust, which can be dissolved if it fails to perform this function.

• Locke upholds a limited political obligation and acknowledges the right to resistance and revolution.

7. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

• Books: Discourses and Social Contract.

• The state of nature was a peaceful and morally neutral condition, where self-contained individuals acted on basic urges and the desire for self-preservation, close to nature and without restriction.

• As population expanded, scarcity of resources brought insecurity, and "natural liberty" ceased to be a source of constant happiness.

• This led to a conflict between the actual will (guided by immediate interests) and the real will (guided by ultimate interest, which coincides with the community's interest).

• To overcome this, men entered the social contract by placing themselves under the "general will", the convergence of the real will of all members.

• This replaced natural liberty with civil liberty, which gave effective preservation and security of possessions.

• Rousseau advocated absolute sovereignty and unlimited political obligation.

• The contract involves total alienation of each associate to the entire community, including all rights.

• Since each acquires over every other associate the same rights he yields over himself, he receives an equivalent for whatever he loses and an increase of force to maintain what he has.

• The obligation is not owed to any external authority. The individual consents to subordinate his individual will to the general will.

• This subordination is not contrary to freedom; hence, Rousseau said, "Man can be forced to be free."

8. Comparison: Hobbes vs. Locke vs. Rousseau

• All three established a civil society in which the state or government has the responsibility and authority to preserve the life of the people.

• Locke alone postulates conditional consent, hence a limited political obligation.

• Hobbes and Rousseau postulate unconditional consent and absolute sovereignty, seeming to create an unlimited political obligation.

• But since this obligation is based on their consent and intended to serve their interest, it cannot be treated as unlimited in the true sense.

9. Relevance of the Theory

• The contract theory holds that people's obligation to obey the government is guided by the fact that they entered into a contract to do so.

• Though it evolved in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the consent theory is relevant even now.

• Its significance lies in forming the moral basis of a democratic order.

10. Criticisms of the Consent Theory

• The theory treats the state as an artificial institution.

• The consent in a hypothetical state of nature is nothing more than a fiction, hence not legally binding on the existing generation.

• People may stage a rebellion and demand to withdraw consent when the government acts against the "general will."

• As a result, the theory of political obligation is converted into a theory of rebellion.

• The contract forms a legal relationship between rulers and ruled: the former are bound to rule, and the latter are bound to obey.

• Non-compliance is not an option and is met with punishment.

• Once-for-all consent is not a sound basis of political obligation.

• A consent-based government must rely on the continuous consent of a vigilant electorate.

• In this light, Locke's formulation of the social contract may be considered sound.

Quick Revision Table

• Hobbes (1588-1679): Leviathan | state of nature is war of all against all | surrender all rights | unlimited obligation.

• Locke (1632-1704): state of nature is peace and goodwill; government as a trust; conditional consent; limited obligation; right to revolt.

• Rousseau (1712-78): Discourses and Social Contract | general will | total alienation | unlimited obligation | "forced to be free."

• Main criticisms: the contract is a fiction, the state is artificial, and Once-for-all consent is weak and can turn into a theory of rebellion.

Idealist Theory of Political Obligation: Hegel, T.H., Green, and Laski

1. Meaning of the Idealist Theory

• An idealistic view of political authority may involve a serious deviation from a realistic position.

• Idealists believe man's innate natural rationality is the source of political obligation.

• Man is seen as a "political and rational creature."

• The state is seen as a "self-sufficient community" that encompasses the entire society.

• Hegel was one of the proponents of the school. It initially created an unconditional and unlimited obligation but was later modified by scholars like T.H. Green.

2. Hegel's View

• Hegel called the state the "incarnation of divine reason" and the "march of God on earth."

• When an individual obeys the state, he follows divine reason and thereby exercises his freedom.

• Hence, no antithesis can exist between the state and the individual.

• By accepting the state's orders, each individual can seek his best possible development in society on his own.

• In other words, allegiance to the state is the basis of political obligation.

• Hegel carried on the legacy of Plato and Aristotle, who agreed that the state and the people who make it up "form an organic totality."

• He advocated an unlimited political obligation, without drawing a clear distinction between the state and government.

3. T.H. Green's View

• T.H. Green declared that a government cannot claim unconditional and absolute obedience from its citizens.

• The individual owes allegiance to society, and neither to the state nor to the government.

• Only those actions should be made obligations that further a certain moral end.

• The organised power of society should be acknowledged as political authority for determining political obligation.

• It is not the state but society that is the pivot of the common good. Hence allegiance is to society.

• Green sees men and women as self-conscious beings who aspire to realise the good they comprehend along with other members of the community.

• The common good includes the good of all members (collective good), and its origins are also alike for all.

4. Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation (1882)

• In this book, Green said the state itself is obliged to promote the common good as conceived by its citizens.

• The individual is obligated to obey only those laws that promote the common good.

• Hence, the common good is the guiding force for generating compliance.

• He accepts disobedience if individuals think that defying a command of the state will serve the common good.

• Individuals carry out their responsibilities and duties as members of a society, not for individual advantage, because they realise their self-interest truly lies in the common good.

• The consciousness of the common good prompts human beings to embrace their duties.

• He reduces the state to an instrument for protecting the common good as defined by its citizens.

• By distinguishing the organised power of the community from the state, Green rules out any government's claim to unconditional allegiance.

5. Harold J. Laski (1893-1950)

• Harold J. Laski (1893-1950) also rejected unconditional obedience to any government.

• He drew a dichotomy between the state and government.

• If a government claims obedience from citizens, it must compete with other human associations (church, school, community, etc.) in securing their highest welfare.

6. Criticism of the Idealist Theories

• They are too abstract.

• They place everyday things in highly philosophical or metaphysical forms, beyond the understanding of the average man.

• Political obligation is not just obedience to the state. It is also connected with the right to resist an abusive political authority.

• Idealists are hesitant to accommodate the right to resistance in their doctrine.

• Even if Green and Bosanquet recognised the right in certain exceptional or rare circumstances, their treatment is vague and imprecise, and they cannot shake off the influence of English liberalism.

• Treitschke went to the extent of saying one should worship the state and kneel before it.

• Thus, political obligation is converted into the inculcation of blind worship of authority.

Quick Revision Table

• Source of obligation: man's natural rationality.

• Hegel: state as divine reason | allegiance to the state | unlimited obligation | no state-government distinction.

• T.H. Green: Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation (1882) | allegiance to society | common good | conditional obligation | disobedience allowed.

• Harold J. Laski (1893-1950): rejects unconditional obedience | state vs government.

• Criticisms: too abstract, vague on the right to resist, risk of blind worship of authority (Treitschke).

Theories against Political Obligation

Marxist View of Political Obligation: State, Class, and Revolution

1. Meaning of the Marxist View

• Marxism postulates that the state does not represent the organised power of the community.

• It represents the organised power of the dominant class, particularly the class that owns the major means of production.

• Its sole purpose is the welfare of the bourgeoisie, not general welfare.

• It helps strong competitors increase their wealth and power by exploiting weak competitors and the dependent class.

2. Obligation in a Class-Divided Society

• In a class-divided society, individuals cannot have any obligation towards the state.

• At best, an individual can have some obligation towards society, provided it is a classless and stateless society.

• Until such a society exists, we can only think of the worker's obligation towards his own working class.

• Under the capitalist system, where the owners of the means of production and exploiters of the working class are in power, the worker has an obligation "against the state."

• The obligation is to show solidarity with the working class to build a strong organisation for revolution against the capitalist regime and end exploitation.

3. Criticism of the Marxist View

a) Far from the real perspective

• A careful examination shows that Marxian thought approaches political obligation in a way quite far removed from the real perspective.

• What is emphatically encouraged in the capitalist phase is categorically denied in the later stage of social development.

• People encouraged to disobey the bourgeois state are told not to disobey the state at all after a new social system is established.

b) Based on expediency

• Marx is accused of building a theory of political obligation solely on the basis of expediency.

• He ignores the independent individual, whose own experience should matter in determining his allegiance to the laws of the state.

c) Chaos and confusion

• A change accompanied by chaos and confusion is likely to be exploited by anti-social elements.

• If the old order is destroyed arbitrarily without leaving foundations for a new order, the result would be disastrous.

• To destroy is easy; to reconstruct is difficult.

• Thus, a revolution has both pros and cons.

Quick Revision Table

• State: organised power of the dominant (bourgeois) class.

• Purpose: welfare of the bourgeoisie, exploitation of the weak.

• Obligation in capitalism: against the state, towards the working class.

• Aim: solidarity and revolution to end exploitation.

• Future society: classless and stateless, with obligation only towards society.

• Criticisms: inconsistent, based on expediency, ignores the individual; a revolution brings chaos and risks.

Anarchist View of Political Obligation: Proudhon and Kropotkin

1. Meaning of the Anarchist View

• The anarchist view argues for a stateless society.

• Simply put, it is a society without any government.

• Anarchism is usually placed on the extreme left of the political spectrum.

2. Aims of Anarchism

• Anarchists advocate the removal of all organised authority and state apparatus.

• The aim is a society in which all human beings can live freely, peacefully, and happily.

• This should happen without any form of external force regulating their interactions.

3. Key Thinkers

• P.J. Proudhon (1809-65)

• Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921)

4. Arguments of Proudhon and Kropotkin

• The state is a coercive entity.

• Hence, all governmental authority is illegitimate.

• The presence of a state is suited only to a corrupt and unmerited society.

5. Nature of Political Obligation

• The individual is obligated only to uphold justice.

• Hence, he is obliged to resist the state.

• He should devote himself to building a new institution.

• In that institution, all members of society will cooperate with each other.

Quick Revision Table

• Position: extreme left, a stateless society.

• View of the state: a coercive entity.

• View of authority: all governmental authority is illegitimate.

• Thinkers: P.J. Proudhon (1809-65), Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921).

• Obligation: only to justice, with a duty to resist the state and build a cooperative society.

Gandhian Perspective,Civil Disobedience and Political Obligation: Thoreau and Gandhi 

1. Civil Disobedience and the Indian National Movement

• The Indian National Movement saw the tacit use of the principle of civil disobedience.

• It shows that Gandhi recognised the severe limits of political obligation.

2. Meaning of Civil Disobedience

• It means deliberately disobeying an unjust authority and breaking an unjust law.

• It may be used to protest an unjust government policy.

• It may also be used to draw the government's attention to a need for political reform.

• It serves as both a means and an end against an unjust and unfair law.

3. Origin of the Term: Henry David Thoreau

• The term was coined by the American writer Henry David Thoreau.

• He explained, in an essay in 1848, why he refused to pay taxes to the state for several years, for which he was also imprisoned.

• He argued that citizens must protest and show discontent against any injustice by their own government.

4. Example: Conscientious Objectors

• Conscientious objectors to military service in the First World War (1914-18) refused to render military service.

• They believed in a peaceful solution to all human disputes, as highlighted by Harold J. Laski.

• They were given rigorous punishment.

5. Gandhi and Civil Disobedience

• Mahatma Gandhi combined civil disobedience with non-violent struggle and satyagraha throughout the freedom struggle.

• His first practical example was the Champaran satyagraha.

• Later came the famous civil disobedience movement of the 1930s to break the salt law.

• The salt law was the British ban on the manufacture of salt by Indians, which Gandhi and his followers thought unjust.

6. Gandhi's Principles of Civil Disobedience

• Civil disobedience rests on a profound respect for law in general.

• Only an unjust law should be overturned, and only when all attempts at persuasion, negotiation, and petition for its amendment or withdrawal have failed.

• Any resistance against injustice must be non-violent.

• The act should be done non-violently and in full public view.

• Penalties caused by the act should be accepted willingly.

• The true object is a "change of heart" of the authorities concerned, a moral awakening.

7. When Can It Be Used?

• It is a weapon only against a tyrannical regime, an autocratic or unjust government, or foreign rule.

• If a government willingly preserves citizens' rights and can be influenced through democratic means, civil disobedience is not compulsory.

• It should not be used to demand the rights or privileges of any particular section against the general or public interest.

Quick Revision Table

• Meaning: deliberately disobeying unjust law or authority.

• Term coined by: Henry David Thoreau, essay in 1848.

• Example: conscientious objectors, First World War (1914-18).

• Gandhi's examples: Champaran satyagraha, salt law, and the civil disobedience movement of the 1930s.

• Conditions: only against unjust law, non-violent, public, accepts penalties, aim is change of heart.

• Limits: only against tyrannical or foreign rule, never for the interest of one section.

Summary

Political Obligation: Meaning and Scope Between Law and Ethics

1. Meaning of Political Obligation

• Political obligation creates an external domain of standards and regulations.

• Laws, customs, and bylaws govern it.

• It refers to a set of legal obligations and responsibilities that persons may be legally compelled to fulfil.

• The compulsion works through fear of penalty, punishment, or other legal repercussions.

• The term refers to a set of legal responsibilities that citizens must fulfil.

2. Political Obligation vs. Legal Obligation

• This does not mean political obligation is the same as legal obligation.

• Political obligation extends beyond the sphere of legal obligation.

• It requires compliance with the laws of the state but also admits means to challenge the system in order to safeguard the ends of obligation.

• It includes the duty of citizens to obey the laws.

• It also includes a wider obligation: the duty to protect the country and to fight against injustice.

• This broader meaning goes well beyond what one would include in either moral or legal obligation.

3. What Each Obligation Protects

• Legal obligation merely safeguards the existing established legal structure.

• Political obligation protects the system as a whole against:

  • dictatorship

  • political disputes

  • totalitarianism

  • injustice

  • exploitation and the like

4. The Problem of Political Duty

• The problem of political duty is how to construct a legitimate political or social order.

• Political responsibility is a form of obligation that aims to develop a political system free of all types of injustice that promotes the general good.

5. Between Ethics and Law

• Political justice does not wholly fall under the purview of either law or ethics.

• Its domain lies somewhere between ethics and law.

• It is connected with:

  • Its foundations: why obey?

  • Its substance: what it contains so that it is obeyed

Quick Revision Table

• Domain: between ethics and law.

• Governed by: laws, customs, and bylaws.

• Legal obligation: protects the existing legal structure, backed by penalty.

• Political obligation: protects the whole system, includes the duty to protect the country and fight injustice, and allows challenging the system.

• Questions It asks: why obey? (foundations) and what must it contain? (substance).

• Aim: a political system free of injustice that promotes the general good.

Exercise Question