For the social fabric of the society to be in the required equilibrium state of balance, various documents in the form of regulatory constitutions are laid down in any society to govern the day-to-day human and state interactions. However, no particular government body can abridge or limit her citizens through judicial mechanisms. Although the scope of the freedom, rights and responsibilities is explained differently in different countries today, there are many universal rights enshrined in the international bills of rights.
Many early writers and thinkers such as Rousseau, Kant, Marquis de Sade, and Sieyes espoused different opinions on the subject of freedom and the rights and responsibilities of citizens. From my analysis of the theories and concepts propagated by each one of them, none explains it better that Sieyes. This essay, therefore, is going to analyze critically how the views expressed by Sieyes show the relationship between rights and responsibilities and how his perspective was important towards the achievement of westernization civilization.
Sieyes argued that representation of the people in a common assembly was crucial. The clergy and the nobility could not represent the citizens alone (Brito and Runciman, 35). Therefore, in a sense, Sieyes was promoting the “principle of natural equality” (Brito and Runciman, 35). The only danger in that system is that, with the representation of the people in the common assembly, the nobility assumes full control and command of the laws passed and implemented.
Regarding the responsibilities of the citizens and those representing them, Sieyes argued that the nation and the people represented in each section of the representation had an obligation to fulfill different responsibilities. Sieyes was of the opinion that both the state and the citizens had some responsibilities to undertake in order to protect the rights and freedom of individuals. Sieyes further argued that every citizen has responsibilities to offer to the country in the hope of getting political and social freedoms; however, that is only possible if he/she is happy with what is offered to him as rights and freedoms (Galligan, 307).
If those charged with the responsibility of protecting the rights and freedoms of the citizens misuse them, they can expect punishment for dishonoring and misusing the said rights and freedoms. On the other hand, the state, which offers rights to the people, should return force by force meaning that the state should always punish those who go out of the common practices enshrined in the constitution (Galligan, 307). However, this is not an excuse by those in power to go beyond their constitutional powers. Sieyes put it clearly that even those in power are bound to respect and abide by the same provisions with the exception of the king.
However, when the people feel that the government has some done some practices that are against the spirit of the Constitution, they can agitate for their rights through demonstrations and picketing. The people can still use force in the attempt to demand individual rights and freedoms. He says that those who can demand their personal rights should demand it for the benefit of the rest of the society. Sieyes further argued that no person should be required or forced to pay a price so that they enjoy the rights enshrined in the Constitution simply because the power of the public does originate from the people themselves.
Sieyes was inspired by the roles and responsibilities of individuals dating back to the ancestral times. The distant ancestors of man had a better understanding of the importance of the benefits of rights and freedoms.
Comparing the views espoused by Sieyes with the doctrines promoted early by other scholars like Sade, Sieyes explained why he was opposed to the opinion that community aristocrats were the ones who had a chance of being heard and represented. Political class membership was not a perfect way to determine who was a proper citizen and who was inferior. He used the term active and passive citizens to infer to the contribution of each class of the society to the wellbeing of the society, which was exercised through taking part in legislative exercises like voting.
Sade’s viewpoint was supported in his works on the comparison of ancient and modern democracies. He came to the defense of his doctrine of class membership in relation to nationhood and guarantee of basic freedoms. The connotations used at this time to distinguish those who were commonly referred to as proper citizens included the need to consider some basic factors to qualify individuals to these groups (Brun, 68). For members of the society to be treated as the same, all the people in France had to be born and raised in France. The immigrants were underprivileged sections of the society and therefore using the different criteria to separate them from the rest of the populations was unreasonable. Those who were born in France had an upper hand in determining the sort of laws that were to be applied.
In the early days in France, people were treated differently. The common people that Sieyes talked about were only entitled to protection law but had limited rights and freedoms. Voting in the assembly was mainly done by the people in power, and therefore, they passed what was important to them or had an effect on their lives. However, that changed 1791 when constitutional amendments took place, and more rights and freedoms granted to most of the people in the society. All male citizens above the age of 20 years were now allowed to participate in democratic rights, especially in voting. Although they were allowed to vote, this was only in the primary levels of the voting process. They were later compensated though they had to travel for long distances to pick up their compensations.
The events that followed after the French Revolution brought about the idea of basic freedoms and rights of citizens as well as the expected responsibilities from the side of the citizens. The new French constitution highlights the basic rights and liberties of the nation towards the people.
Some of the ideas reflected in the French Constitution were a reflection of Sieyes’s viewpoints. For example, the Constitution was reorganized to give more weight and powers to all the citizens regardless of the social standing. In so doing, therefore, the political class did take undue control over the people through representation in Parliament and assemblies. The citizens also had a right to challenge the elected representatives and those that exceeded their powers could be punished.
In conclusion, Sieyes’s approach to the guarantee of basic human rights and the responsibilities of the citizens towards westernization of the society are more developed than the ideas of other early writers such as Sade. He differed with the belief and connotation that put some members of the society as mere observers of the freedom they were supposed to enjoy. Material possession or class membership variances were unfair ways to determine the rights and freedoms each member of the society should expect from the state. Like everyone, people should be treated indifferently irrespective of their class memberships.
Works Cited
Brito, Vieira M, and David Runciman. Representation. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2008. Print.
Brun, Annie. Sade, a Sudden Abyss. San Francisco: City Light Books, 1990. Print.
Galligan, Denis. Constitutions and the Classics. Patterns of Constitutional Thought from
Fortescue to Bentham. Corby: Oxford University Press, 2014. Print.
