5 - From the right of resistance to complex sovereignty  pp. 125-149

From the right of resistance to complex sovereignty

By Pierre Rosanvallon and Arthur Goldhammer

Image View Previous Chapter Next Chapter



Medieval theories of resistance and consent

The idea that there can be no legitimate power without the consent of the governed preceded the emergence of the democratic ideal, that is, the ideal of a self-instituted, self-regulated social order. It was in the Middle Ages, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, that the idea of popular consent was encapsulated in a celebrated maxim: “That which is the concern of all must be approved by all.” All the great authors of that time, theologians as well as philosophers, paid homage to it. One should be careful, however, not to interpret this maxim in modern democratic terms. At the time, its constitutional implications were limited. No specific procedures of consent were called for, and there was certainly no intention to put decisions to a vote. Its significance was above all moral: the Prince was exhorted to govern in the common interest. The point was simply to affirm that society is the source as well as the object of political authority. If there was any hint of popular sovereignty at all, it was therefore purely passive. The principle was solemnly affirmed, but without regard to its application. For medieval commentators, the most important thing was the nature of the good; achieving it depended on the virtues of the Prince. The theoretical imperative was to distinguish between good and bad governors, to distinguish between the Prince devoted to his people and the tyrant who governed for himself alone without regard to his subjects' needs or desires.

Alain Renaut, Le Système du droit: Philosophie et droit dans la pensée de Fichte (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1986)
André Gouron, “Aux origines médiévales de la formule Quod omnes tangit,” in Histoire du droit social. Mélanges en hommage à Jean Imbert (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1989)
Arlette Jouanna, Le Devoir de révolte: La Noblesse française et la gestation de l'État moderne, 1559–1661 (Paris: Fayard, 1989)
Arthur P. Monahan, Consent, Coercion, and Limit: The Medieval Origins of Parliamentary Democracy (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1987)
Céline Spector, “Droit de représentation et pouvoir négatif: la garde de la liberté dans la constitution genevoise,” in Bruno Bernardi, Florent Guénard, and Gabriella Silvestrini, La Religion, la liberté, la justice: Un commentaire des “Lettres écrites de la montagne” de Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Paris: Vrin, 2005)
Christian Bidegaray and Claude Emeri, “Du pouvoir d'empêcher: veto ou contre-pouvoir,” Revue du droit public, no 2 (1994).
Gaines Post, “A Roman Legal Theory of Consent, Quod omnes tangit, in Medieval Representation,” Wisconsin Law Review, 1950
J. G. Fichte, Lettres et témoignages sur la Révolution française (Paris: Vrin, 2002), pp. 191–192.
Jean Cousin, “J.-J. Rousseau interprète des institutions romaines dans le Contrat social,” in Études sur le Contrat social de Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1964)
Jean-Fabien Spitz in his article “Droit de résistance,” in Philippe Raynaud and Stéphane Rials, eds., Dictionnaire de philosophie politique (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1996)
Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Foundations of Natural Right according to the principles of the Wissenschaftslehre, trans. Michael Baur (Cambridge University Press, 2000).
John Knox, On Rebellion, ed. Roger A. Mason (Cambridge University Press, 1994)
Karl Löwenstein, “Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights,” American Political Science Review 31, no. 3 (June 1937).
La Démocratie inachevée: Histoire de la souveraineté du peuple en France (Paris: Gallimard, 2000), pp. 66–81.
Le Nombre et la Raison (Paris: Éditions de l'EHESS, 1993), p. iv.
Le Sacre du citoyen: Histoire du suffrage universel en France (Paris: Gallimard, 1992), pp. 21–38.
Lucien Jaume, “Condorcet: droit de résistance ou censure du peuple?” in Dominique Gros and Olivier Camy, eds., Le Droit de résistance à l'oppression (Paris: Le Genre Humain-Seuil, 2005).
Mario Turchetti, Tyrannie et tyrannicide de l'Antiquité à nos jours (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2001)
Maxime Rosso, La Renaissance des institutions de Sparte dans la pensée française (XVIe–XVIIIe siècle) (Aix: Presses Universitaires d'Aix-Marseille, 2005), pp. 84–101.
Pierangelo Catalano, Tribunato e resistenza (Paravia: Turin, 1971).
Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought (Cambridge University Press, 1979)
Ralph Giesey, “Quod Omnes Tangit: a Post-Scriptum,” Studia Gratiana 15, (1972)