54
Akk ja, retten, retten; hva hjelper det at du har retten når du ikke har
noen makt?
[Ah yes, rights, rights; what does it help that you have rights when you
do not have any power?]
—Fru Stockmann in “En Folkefiende” (Henrik Ibsen 1882)
5.1 AccountAbility And SociAl contrAct
‘Everyone realizes how praiseworthy it is for a prince to honour his word
and to be straightforward rather than crafty in his dealings; nonetheless
contemporary experience shows that princes who have achieved great
things have been those who have given their words lightly, who have
known how to trick men with their cunning, and who, in the end, have
overcome those abiding by honest principles. … There are two ways of
fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second
to beasts. … a prince must know how to act according to the nature of
both, … he cannot survive otherwise’ (Machiavelli 1961: 99). The candour of this sixteenth-century Secretary and Second Chancellor to the
Florentine Republic is refreshing. Moreover, his book is probably among
the most concise of the 30,000+ offerings from Amazon.com when you
punch in ‘accountability’. Google.com suggests a menu of 128,000,000
items in less than 0.3 seconds. Power’s interest in power is obvious and
unabashedly stated as a fact by Machiavelli. It is not cloaked in bureaucratic niceties and unrealistic assumptions about the common good, and
as a self-help book for politicians, The Prince remains unsurpassed.
The principle of power stands in tension with the principles of its division. Montesquieu’s idea about the separation of powers (1977), Locke’s
suggestion to rein in tyranny (1980) and Rousseau’s doctrine that government must rest on a social contract (1977) all recognise the truths of the
drive for power described by Machiavelli, and they all share a concern for
the danger of power’s concentration. Each, in their own way, suggests
checks and balances in the system of government, and within the European
history of enlightenment, they may be the first to articulate concern with
power’s accountability. While Montesquieu focuses on the mutual
accountability among institutions of power, Locke and Rousseau direct
their attention to the relationship between the governors and the governed. In a nutshell, Rousseau argues that government (or the sovereign)
derives its legitimacy to govern from the power freely surrendered by the
C. LUND
Akk ja, retten, retten; hva hjelper det at du har retten når du ikke har
noen makt?
[Ah yes, rights, rights; what does it help that you have rights when you
do not have any power?]
—Fru Stockmann in “En Folkefiende” (Henrik Ibsen 1882)
5.1 AccountAbility And SociAl contrAct
‘Everyone realizes how praiseworthy it is for a prince to honour his word
and to be straightforward rather than crafty in his dealings; nonetheless
contemporary experience shows that princes who have achieved great
things have been those who have given their words lightly, who have
known how to trick men with their cunning, and who, in the end, have
overcome those abiding by honest principles. … There are two ways of
fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second
to beasts. … a prince must know how to act according to the nature of
both, … he cannot survive otherwise’ (Machiavelli 1961: 99). The candour of this sixteenth-century Secretary and Second Chancellor to the
Florentine Republic is refreshing. Moreover, his book is probably among
the most concise of the 30,000+ offerings from Amazon.com when you
punch in ‘accountability’. Google.com suggests a menu of 128,000,000
items in less than 0.3 seconds. Power’s interest in power is obvious and
unabashedly stated as a fact by Machiavelli. It is not cloaked in bureaucratic niceties and unrealistic assumptions about the common good, and
as a self-help book for politicians, The Prince remains unsurpassed.
The principle of power stands in tension with the principles of its division. Montesquieu’s idea about the separation of powers (1977), Locke’s
suggestion to rein in tyranny (1980) and Rousseau’s doctrine that government must rest on a social contract (1977) all recognise the truths of the
drive for power described by Machiavelli, and they all share a concern for
the danger of power’s concentration. Each, in their own way, suggests
checks and balances in the system of government, and within the European
history of enlightenment, they may be the first to articulate concern with
power’s accountability. While Montesquieu focuses on the mutual
accountability among institutions of power, Locke and Rousseau direct
their attention to the relationship between the governors and the governed. In a nutshell, Rousseau argues that government (or the sovereign)
derives its legitimacy to govern from the power freely surrendered by the
C. LUND