Unit 2 Reflection: Synthesis Essay

All societies insist that a citizen follow written laws. While the people are the power in any natural government, they give their power up to leaders who then must embody the ideals of their country. The Romans were not far off when they began to call their ruler the “First Citizen” of Rome. As a leader is the “First Citizen” of their own government, it is his or her duty to publicly abide by the written laws of the government. When these requirements are no longer met, it is the right and duty of the masses to correct this problem and regain the power they vested in their government.

It is Locke’s belief that the people give their power to their government. This government is natural when all people as equals elect a representative. Locke writes, “…these men, it is evident, were actually free… [and] by consent were all equal, till by the same consent they set rulers over themselves.” In this way, it is naturally logical that there should be one ruler to organize a government, one who rules by the will of the people. Even Machiavelli in The Prince concedes that there is power held in the people.  “…it is necessary for him [the prince] to  be sufficiently prudent  that he may know how to avoid the reproach of those vices which would lose him his state.” Much of The Prince is based on keeping the common people content. Even though Machiavelli promotes negative actions like deceit, he still recognizes the power of the common people.

While Socrates was never a part of his government, he was a leader in his own right because of the support of people who looked up to him; he was truly a “First Citizen.” As such, he felt he was not only responsible for his own actions, but also that of those who followed him. He argued for his own death in Crito because in escaping, he would harm his society. Socrates asks Crito, “Do you imagine that a state can subsist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and trampled upon by individuals?” (Plato). By escaping, Socrates, as a public figure, would incite more disobedience of the law. Although wronged, Socrates’ escape would wrong others and could potentially hurt his own society. Therefore, he would have rather died an honest man, than live as a criminal. His influence in society would have crumbled because he no longer would have the power of the admiration and respect of the masses who had originally given him importance.  

There is power held in both the rulers and the ruled, but when the rulers get out of hand it is the duty of the citizens to speak up. Locke spent much of The Second Treatise of Civil Government speaking on the tacit contract. He believed that if one did not disband from the government into which they were born, then they were obliged to follow the rules of their current government. In this way, Locke equates silence to agreement. Similarly, not speaking when something unacceptable occurs is like accepting the event. This then puts the responsibility of maintaining society as well as power into the people’s hands. It is the duty of the individual to maintain order by speaking on the behalf of what is correct. Furthermore, a citizen hurts society when he or she stays quiet about a concern.