Government. The term 'government' signifies the administration of the public affairs of a community; in a secondary sense it denotes the persons to whom that administration is committed, or a select number of such persons in whom the principal powers of management are vested. The domain of government extends in theory over the whole legislative and administrative business of the country at home and abroad; but some departments of our domestic affairs, such as the administration of justice and the business of the permanent civil service, are not treated in practice as matters of government. According to the various uses of the term, we speak of our constitutional government or our system of government by party, or the policy of a particular government, and we draw a distinction, when necessary, between the principal and the subordinate members of the government of the day. There is a distinction in kind between the administration of public affairs and the management of any private concern; but we speak metaphorically of the domestic government of a household; or, with a nearer approach to correctness, of the self-government of municipalities and other civil districts in regard to their local affairs. There may also be small and imperfectly developed communities, whether carried on under a patriarchal rule or under the form of a village-community, or in some other rudimentary form of society, to which it would be difficult to apply the terms of the art or practice of government with anything like exactness. In the case of an ordinary independent state the sphere of government includes the administration of public affairs at home and the intercourse of the community with foreign nations. These functions may be separated and modified, as when a state forms part of a federal union or confederation or combination of states, in which the component communities have divested themselves of some portions of their sovereign power in favour of a central or combined authority, to which certain kinds of public affairs have been delegated. The same remarks apply to dependent and semi-independent states, including such as have been brought under an empire, or have been mediatised, or neutralised, or in any other way have come under the protection or management of a superior power or combination of powers. In colonies the local authorities may be entitled to exercise the rights of government almost as freely as in the case of a protected state, subject only to the reserved rights of the mother-country and the supreme dominion of the home-government, if the necessity for its exercise should occur. There is indeed hardly any limit to the modes in which the relations between superior and subordinate communities may be constituted in matters of government, subject to the observation that the rights conferred on the inferior power may be so great that they practically amount to independence, or may be so closely bound that they give hardly more than the benefits of municipal self-government.
The origin of government may be found in the social instincts of mankind. As soon as a community attains to great numbers, or a large extent of territory, some form of regular authority will be required and will necessarily be established. Plato is accused of having seen no difference in kind between a large household and a small state. Aristotle, or the Aristotelian author of the Politics, conceived the state as being 'prior to the individual,' in the sense that it is the true object of the social instinct implanted in all men, and only requiring the legislator's wisdom to bring it to perfection. Every community is established with a view to some good end, and the state (which embraces all other communities) must have been established with the object of attaining the highest good. This theory is nearly identical with the modern opinions, in which a distinction has been made without much real difference, that the state was founded with the object of obtaining the greatest happiness of the greatest number, and that governments are intended to fulfil the higher aspirations of humanity. Many other theories of government have been advanced according to the varying circumstances of different times. It was found convenient in one age to secure a respect for authority by an appeal to the divine right of kings; at another time thinkers have been content to find the principles of government in following the momentary wish of the majority. Hobbes solved the difficulty by a new and arbitrary dogma. Mankind, according to his view, seeking refuge from the dangers of a state of nature, were led, not by any social instinct, but by motives of fear and prudence, to enter into a solemn compact by which they finally renounced the freedom which belonged to the individual man. The compact having once been made, the state becomes the 'Leviathan,' or all-powerful being, to whom absolute and unchanging obedience is due. Locke and many later writers took up the idea of a social contract as a convenient image for describing the combined action of mankind, but guarded their position by declaring that the compact might at any time be altered or reversed.
We may leave these barren speculations as to the origin of government with the remark that, according to the more modern opinion, such questions can only be solved, if at all, by the methods of comparative history. It is of more importance to inquire as to what are the essential characteristics of government in the political sense of the term. In the consideration of this part of the subject the mere forms of government may be disregarded. The correct answer to the problem seems to be that government, in relation to the subject-matter with which it is concerned, is in the long-run, and continually tends to be, the expression of the will of the dominant power in the state. The expression may be difficult, owing to the complexity of the constitution or the number of constituent parts among which the power is distributed, or owing, as often happens, to the existence of artificial restrictions designed to afford opportunities for delay. Again, the will of the real rulers may be in a state of acquiescence, and the arriving at any decision in favour of change may be impeded in many ways, as by the influence of custom and tradition, the reluctance felt about disturbing an existing delegation of power, or the feeling that responsible and removable governors can safely be trusted. After making all deductions it seems clear that government is in fact an expression of the wishes of those who have the ultimate dominion, and that in free communities its course and even its form are determined by the general will of the people. The forms of government are, however, in some degree determined by accidental circumstances, such as the survival of institutions which have become obsolete, or which have been adapted to existing needs though their original object has come to an end. The possible variations in the form of government are almost countless, but it is still convenient to adopt to some extent the ancient methods of classification, according as the rule of the state is given to the one, the few, or the many. Another method of division is based on the distinction between those states in which the governors and governed have apparently been opposed to each other, and those in which the contest between prerogative and popular liberty has ended in national self-government.
Plato and Aristotle distinguished governments as true or pure when power is given and used for the good of the subject, and as false or perverted when it is maintained for the private interest of the ruler. Among such true forms they counted monarchy or royalty, in which one ruled for the good of all, and aristocracy or the rule of a class, equally acting in the common interest; besides these rare and ideal forms they found another pure form in the mixed or constitutional government, which was the favourite 'polity' of the Greek states when placed under favourable circumstances. It must be remembered, however, that their arguments are made difficult of application to modern times by the facts that the states were very small, and that the great bulk of the population was enslaved; the last circumstance gave a disproportionate importance to the military class, on which the existence of society depended, so that the ancient 'polities' were in practice dominated by an armed middle class, taken collectively as representing the whole people. Hence it was expressly laid down in the Aristotelian Politics (lib. iii. chap. 7), that 'in a constitutional government the fighting-men have the supreme power, and the armed men are the citizens.' In the same place will be found an account of the perversions of true government. 'Tyranny,' or despotism, is a monarchy having in view the interest of the master of the state. Oligarchy, of which there are many varieties, exists when a small class, generally consisting of the rich, has the whole government in its power. In Aristotle's view the rule of a wealthy class was of the essence of an oligarchy. Democracy, or the rule of the many, was on the same principle identified with government in the interests of the needy. The author of the Politics does not seem to have believed that a wealthy community could be a democracy, or to have conceived the idea of representative government or of a democracy in the modern sense of the term. The democracy described by him was obviously of an unstable and temporary character, ready to suffer a further perversion towards ochlocracy or a mere mob-government, ending in anarchy and the eventual interposition of a despotic or military form of government.
Aristotle distinguished five kinds of monarchy among the true or legitimate systems. The first was the Spartan form, or that which existed in Crete, the power of the kings in each case being strictly limited by the constitution. Next came the despotic form of monarchy, such as was found in the Asian empires, differing only from tyranny because the barbarians, as slaves by nature, were perfectly willing to obey. The third was the Dictatorship, which in Greece was not hereditary, but which has always tended in modern times to become so. Another kind might be called the Heroic form, the kings in ancient times having been 'priests, and judges, and warriors, and having a supreme authority in all things.' Last in the list was the absolute kingship, 'exercising an universal power, like that of the state over the public property, or that of the master over a household' (Arist. Pol. iii. chap. 15; Jowett's Introd. lxxv.). The last-described monarchy is certainly a separate form of government, but it was obviously liable to pass at any moment into a tyranny, unless a succession of disinterested 'benevolent despots' could be found. It should be observed that Aristotle did not think that any monarchy ought to be hereditary, and that he considered absolute monarchy to be contrary to the law of nature. His summary of the causes which had induced the transition from the old kingship to the modern republic is full of interest and information. The reason, he says, why ancient governments were monarchies is that in early times there were only a few good men who could confer benefits, and so they were made into kings. The reason, he adds, why democracies are now necessary is that all men are 'pretty much on an equality'; he is referring, of course, to the free-men who had the franchise and a capacity for office. 'When good men increased in number, royalties passed into aristocracies. These degenerated into oligarchies. Oligarchy passed into "tyranny," and tyrannies became democracies, for the rich became fewer and fewer, and the poor more and more numerous; and democracy seems to be the only form of government any longer possible, now that cities are increased in size.' He shows, however, his personal preference for the mixed constitution or 'polity,' as probably the best form of government after the ideal 'rule of the best,' or 'aristocracy' in the highest sense of the term. The stages through which oligarchy usually passed are summed up as follows: at first there is a high qualification for office, and then as vacancies in office occur, a scheme of co-optation is devised: afterwards hereditary succession is introduced, and finally a few powerful families set up an absolute and arbitrary rule. Democracy in the same way has several stages from that in which all men are equal in circumstances and power, if such an 'Utopian parity' were possible, to the stages when a small qualification is imposed, when every one takes a share in the government, and lastly, when law ceases and the government is carried on by the decrees of the transient majority.
Plato constructed an ideal state, an aristocracy in which philosophers were kings, and thought that of inferior governments there were only four worthy of notice, though, doubtless, there were many intermediate forms both among Greeks and barbarians. He calls the first Timocracy, being a constitution of the fashionable Spartan type, in which the powers of the kings and classes of citizens were limited by strict discipline, and the government was conducted on 'principles of honour,' which in practice came to something like military government. It should be observed that the word 'timocracy' is also used to denote the system of distributing honours and offices according to wealth, a state of things to which the title of a plutocracy would perhaps be more appropriate. Next in Plato's list came Oligarchy, with its attendant evils of avarice and corruption; then Democracy, described as 'a pleasing lawless and various kind of government;' and lastly, Despotism, the 'disease and death of government.' Polybius (book vi. extr. 3, chap. 1) mentions the states of Lacedæmon, Mantinea, Crete, and Carthage as those which were praised by all writers of antiquity. He differs from Plato as to the fact of resemblance between the governments of Crete and Sparta, not perceiving that they were alike in their balance of power, though their laws and institutions were different. The laws of Lycurgus appeared to him to be rather the 'work of some divinity' than the effort of a human mind. The government of Carthage was praised as being limited in much the same way, the king, senate, and people all having a share of power; but his highest commendation was reserved for the Roman Republic. Of this he has left an interesting account, of which Cicero afterwards made considerable use in his treatise De Republicâ.
Passing to modern times, we find that the existing kinds of government are still in many cases much influenced by traditions of the empire, and to some extent by the usages of feudalism. The autocratic form of government still survives, though the ruler's apparently absolute power is generally limited by a 'bureaucracy.' In the greater part of Europe we find constitutional monarchies, in which the powers of the crown and the various classes in the community are supposed to be balanced against each other. The tendency of most of these limited monarchies is apparently towards democracy. The democratic republic has been most successful in the United States of America and in the old-established Swiss Confederation. We have also seen the establishment of empires of a medieval type, as well as governments founded on a principle called Cæsarism, in which a democracy is supposed to have delegated its powers to a dictator. Various circumstances have led to the formation of dual and complex monarchies, and to the placing of various communities in dependent and subordinate positions. The most important feature in modern governments is the extension of the representative system, which can be best studied in the history of Great Britain, justly praised as the 'Mother of Parliaments.' Mr Mill's work on Representative Government should be consulted on the question whether our modern societies ought to make provision for protecting the minority. The problems of government are continually changing, and new remedies will be required as fresh difficulties arise, but the main object of all governments, under whatever forms they exist, must be the fulfilment of the laws and the preservation of order and liberty.
What is the best form of government is a question which every one will answer according to his own disposition, if a specific answer can be given without reference to the varying circumstances of states and communities. Some aid in the matter may be obtained by the study not only of treatises dealing directly with the art of government, but also of political satires and the numerous writings upon the ideal state and the first principles of society. Among these may be mentioned the Utopia of Sir Thomas More, the De Monarchiâ of Dante, the sketch of a new government in Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy, Harrington's Oceana, and Lord Bacon's New Atlantis, besides Dr Jowett's Introductions to the Republic and Politics, and the other treatises upon the subject which have already been mentioned.
Among the multitude of modern writings which deal with the abstract principles of government particular notice is due to Sir G. C. Lewis's treatises on the Best Forms of Government and the Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics; Mr Herbert Spencer's works on Social Statics and the Principles of Sociology; Humboldt on the Sphere and Duties of Government; and Guizot's Histoire des Origines du Gouvernement Représentative en Europe. Among the treatises which deal with the growth of governments by the methods of comparative history Sir H. S. Maine's work on Early Institutions is one of the most important. A general view of the rise of the governments of Europe is to be found in Mr Hallam's View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages, with which should be compared Guizot's Histoire Générale de la Civilisation en Europe. With respect to the growth of the British constitution the reader should refer to the general essays and histories of Hume, Macaulay, and Freeman, and for more special information to the constitutional histories of England by Mr Hallam and Dr Stubbs, Earl Russell's English Government and Constitution, Earl Grey's Parliamentary Government, and Bagehot's essay on the English Constitution. On the important subject of political institutions in America the fullest information may be found in Storer's Commentary on the Constitution of the United States, and in the valuable work of Professor Bryce on the American Commonwealth. See the articles ARISTOCRACY, AUTOCRACY, CABINET, CENTRALISATION, CIVIL SERVICE, COMMUNISM, CONGRESS, DEMOCRACY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, OLIGARCHY, PARLIAMENT, PRIVY COUNCIL, SOCIALISM, &c.