The State: Functions, Structures and Political Regimes
Based on a course by Victor Monnier[1][2][3]
Introduction to the Law : Key Concepts and Definitions ● The State: Functions, Structures and Political Regimes ● The different branches of law ● The sources of law ● The great formative traditions of law ● The elements of the legal relationship ● The application of law ● The implementation of a law ● The evolution of Switzerland from its origins to the 20th century ● Switzerland's domestic legal framework ● Switzerland's state structure, political system and neutrality ● The evolution of international relations from the end of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century ● The universal organizations ● European organisations and their relations with Switzerland ● Categories and generations of fundamental rights ● The origins of fundamental rights ● Declarations of rights at the end of the 18th century ● Towards the construction of a universal conception of fundamental rights in the 20th century
The state, as a central concept in the study of political science and history, is a subject of considerable complexity and importance. Our exploration of this theme seeks to unravel and understand the multiple facets that make up this essential political entity. By immersing ourselves in an in-depth analysis of the state, we aim to unveil its constituent elements, such as population, territory and sovereignty, and to understand how these components fit together and interact to form the backbone of what we call a state. In our quest to define the concept of the state, we will also examine the various functions it performs, from the creation of law to its enforcement, including the administration of justice. In so doing, we will seek to grasp the various ways in which the state influences and structures society.
This approach will also lead us to compare different state structures, ranging from unitary states to confederations and federal states. By assessing these various models, we will seek to understand their specific features, their advantages and disadvantages, and the contexts in which each can be most effective. Finally, our study will be enriched by looking at the historical perspective and reflections of emblematic figures who have influenced the understanding and evolution of the concept of the state. Through this exploration, we aim to gain a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the state, an entity that is both omnipresent and enigmatic in our lives and our history.
What is the State?
The State is a complex and fundamental entity in the political and social organisation of the modern world. Its definition is based on three key elements that are intertwined and mutually reinforcing.
Firstly, the population constitutes the human aspect of the State. It is made up of all the individuals living in a given territory and subject to the same political authority. These individuals often share a national identity and cultural values and are bound by a common set of laws and regulations. For example, the French population is distinguished by its culture, language and traditions, while being united under the laws and principles of the French Republic.
Secondly, the territory is the geographical space over which the State exercises its authority. It includes not only dry land, but also territorial waters, airspace and, in some cases, maritime zones. Controlling and delimiting this territory is crucial. Take China, for example, which controls a vast territory ranging from densely populated coastal regions to isolated mountain and desert areas, with each region integrated into the country's political and administrative structure.
Finally, sovereignty is the principle that gives the State its supreme authority and independence. This means that the state holds ultimate power over its population and territory, without outside interference. Sovereignty manifests itself in the state's ability to create and apply laws, to conduct an independent foreign policy and to defend itself. A striking example is the United States, which exercises its sovereignty through a powerful federal government, autonomous legislation and considerable influence on the international stage.
These three components - population, territory and sovereignty - form the foundation on which the state's existence rests. They define its identity, structure and functioning, and distinguish it from other forms of organisation or institution. The combination of these elements ensures not only the internal stability of the state, but also its recognition and interaction on the international stage.
The functions of the State
The legislative function is an essential pillar in the functioning of a democratic state, its main role being to create rules and pass laws. This function is generally entrusted to a legislative body, such as a parliament or assembly, made up of representatives elected by the population. The process of creating laws is a complex and methodical one. It often begins with the identification of a need or problem within society. For example, an increase in cybercrime could lead to the proposal of new laws on computer security. Members of the legislature, sometimes in collaboration with the executive, then prepare a bill, which is debated, amended and finally passed. Once passed, the law becomes a legal standard that all members of society must respect. Laws can cover a wide range of areas, from civil and commercial law to criminal law, environmental regulations and social protection. They are essential for maintaining order, protecting citizens' rights and guiding interactions within society. The legislative function also plays a crucial role in defining public policy. For example, the adoption of laws favouring renewable energies can guide a country towards an ecological transition. Similarly, laws on education or public health determine the way in which these essential services are organised and financed. The legislative function is therefore a driving force for change and evolution in a society. It enables the legal framework to be adapted to changing realities, ensuring that laws remain relevant, fair and effective in meeting the needs of the population.
The executive function is another fundamental pillar in the governance structure of a state. Its main task is to manage the State's day-to-day policy and to apply or enforce the laws drawn up by the legislature and the decisions handed down by the judiciary. This function is generally performed by the government, headed by a head of state (such as a president) or a head of government (such as a prime minister), and comprises various ministries and departments that focus on specific areas such as education, health, defence or the economy. The executive is responsible for implementing the policies and laws passed by the legislature, ensuring that they are applied effectively and in accordance with the legislative intentions. For example, if the legislature passes a new tax law, it is up to the executive to ensure that it is properly applied, by putting in place the necessary structures, informing the public, and ensuring that taxes are collected in accordance with the law. Similarly, the executive plays a crucial role in managing the day-to-day affairs of the state, such as conducting foreign policy, managing crises or implementing economic development plans. The executive is also responsible for ensuring that the legal system is respected, in particular by working with the judiciary. It ensures that legal decisions are applied and that citizens' rights are protected. For example, in the event of a court conviction, it is up to the executive authorities, such as the police and prison services, to carry out the sentence. In this way, the executive acts as a crucial link between laws and the daily lives of citizens, ensuring that decisions taken at legislative level are translated into concrete action and effective public policies. Its role is essential to the stability and proper functioning of the State, and to the implementation of the laws and policies that shape society.
The judicial function, often referred to as the judiciary, plays a vital role in the governance of a state. Its primary mission is to dispense justice and determine the applicable law in the various disputes that come before it. This function is essential for maintaining order and fairness in society, and for ensuring respect for the law and the rights of individuals. Judicial power is embodied in the courts and tribunals, which are responsible for trying cases and resolving disputes. This process involves interpreting the laws laid down by the legislature and applying them to specific cases. Judges and magistrates, as the main players in this function, assess the evidence, hear the arguments of the parties in dispute, and hand down decisions based on the legal framework in place. A crucial aspect of the judicial function is its independence from the other powers of the State. This independence ensures that judgements are handed down impartially and fairly, without outside influence or political pressure. For example, in a commercial dispute, a court must judge solely on the basis of the relevant laws and the facts presented, without regard to political or personal interests. The jurisdictional function also extends beyond the resolution of disputes between private parties. It includes the adjudication of criminal offences, where the state, through the public prosecutor, prosecutes individuals or entities accused of breaking the law. In such cases, the judiciary is responsible for determining the guilt or innocence of the accused and imposing appropriate penalties, in accordance with the laws in force. The judicial function is crucial to the maintenance of law and order and the protection of individual rights and freedoms. It ensures that laws are not just words on paper, but living principles that actually govern life in society. Through its role as impartial arbiter, the judiciary helps to establish a climate of trust and respect for the rules that is fundamental to any democratic and equitable society.
The structures of states
The unitary state
The unitary state is a form of state organisation in which political authority is centralised. In such a system, there is no intermediate political power between the citizens and the central state. Administrative subdivisions, such as départements, regions or communes, exist primarily to facilitate the management and administration of the territory, but they have no significant political autonomy. They are subject to the directives and authority of the central state.
In a unitary state, there is a single centre of political impetus. This means that major decisions concerning legislation, policy and administration are taken by the central government. This central government has the legislative power to create rules of law that are uniform throughout the country. This ensures consistency and uniformity in the implementation of laws and policies throughout the country. The existence of a single Constitution in a unitary state also underlines this centralisation. The Constitution establishes the fundamental principles of government, the rights of citizens and the limits of state power. In a unitary state, this Constitution applies uniformly throughout the territory, without there being separate constitutions or charters for regions or local authorities. The main advantage of the unitary state is its simplicity and efficiency. The centralisation of power means that decisions are taken more quickly, policies are more coherent and the administration is more uniform. However, it can also lead to a certain distance between central government and local needs, and an excessive concentration of power. Examples of unitary states include France and Japan. In these countries, although local governments exist, their powers and responsibilities are largely defined and limited by the central government. This structure reflects the ideal of uniformity and centralisation of authority within the state.
The confederation of states
A confederation of states is a model of organisation in which several sovereign states decide to join forces to achieve specific objectives. Unlike other forms of political integration, this union maintains the sovereignty and independence of each member state. The aims pursued by a confederation are generally limited and focus on common interests such as defence, foreign policy or trade.
The creation of a confederation is based on an international treaty, which is a formal agreement between the participating states. This treaty defines the terms of cooperation, the areas of competence of the joint body and the decision-making procedures. Unlike a federal state, where the central government has direct authority over its citizens, in a confederation the central government acts through the governments of the member states. The joint body set up by the confederation may be responsible for various functions, such as coordinating foreign policy, managing common defence or implementing cross-border economic regulations. However, the scope of its powers is strictly limited to the areas specified in the treaty. Decisions taken by this body must often be approved by the Member States, reflecting the principle of sovereignty and equality between them.
Confederation is therefore characterised by intergovernmental cooperation rather than supranational integration. This means that, although the Member States work together to achieve common goals, they retain full autonomy in most areas. Historically, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation (prior to the adoption of the current Constitution) are examples of confederations. These entities reflect the desire of states to work together for mutual benefit while preserving their independence and national identity.
The motivations behind the formation of a confederation of states are varied, but generally revolve around the pursuit of common benefits while preserving the autonomy of each member state. Among the main reasons why these states choose to unite is often the desire to ensure peace and security within the alliance, as well as the desire to protect themselves against external threats. Peace within the alliance is a crucial objective. By coming together, the Member States seek to prevent internal conflicts from arising between them. This internal peace is fostered by cooperation and mutual agreements, which enable disputes and rivalries to be managed peacefully. This can be particularly important in regions where history or geopolitics have created tensions between neighbours. Protection against external threats is also a major reason for forming a confederation. By joining forces, states can increase their capacity to defend themselves against foreign aggression or influence. This can take the form of mutual defence agreements, the implementation of a collective security strategy, or even the sharing of resources to strengthen regional stability.
To facilitate cooperation and decision-making, confederations generally organise conferences or meetings where representatives of the various member states meet. These conferences are crucial forums for discussion, negotiation and joint planning. Representatives can debate policies, propose joint initiatives and resolve shared issues. The format and frequency of these meetings depend on the provisions of the treaty that established the confederation and the nature of the issues discussed. These meetings are essential to maintaining the cohesion and effectiveness of the confederation, as they enable the Member States to coordinate their policies and actions while respecting their individual sovereignty. In this way, confederation represents a delicate balance between the independence of individual states and the need to work together to achieve common goals.
The Federal State
A federal state is a form of state organisation characterised by a combination of centralisation and decentralisation of power. In a federal state, several political communities, often called states, provinces or regions, are grouped together within a larger entity. Each of these communities has its own autonomy, with its own governments and legislation, but they are integrated into a higher national structure, the federal state.
A key feature of the federal state is the division of powers between the central government and the governments of the federated entities. This division is generally defined by a Constitution that sets out the powers and responsibilities of each level of government. The federated entities have the power to legislate and govern in certain areas, such as education, health and local transport, while the federal state has powers in areas such as defence, foreign policy and finance. In practice, only the federal state is recognised as a sovereign state on the international stage. It represents the federation as a whole in external relations, conducting foreign policy, concluding treaties and joining international organisations. This does not mean that the federated entities have no role in international affairs, but their actions in this area are generally coordinated or supervised by the federal state.
The federal state therefore combines the advantages of local governance, thanks to the autonomy of the federated entities, with those of unified and coherent governance at a higher level. This structure makes it possible to accommodate regional, ethnic or cultural diversity within the same state, while maintaining national unity and coordination. Examples of federal states include the United States, Germany, Canada and Australia. In each of these countries, the coexistence of a central government and autonomous regional or local governments reflects the complex, multi-layered nature of their governance.
The evolution from a confederation of states to a federal state is a historical process that has occurred in several cases, motivated by recognition of the advantages of a more integrated federal structure. This transition often reflects a desire to strengthen the union between member states while maintaining a degree of regional autonomy. In a confederation, member states retain a large degree of sovereignty and independence. Although this structure encourages cooperation on specific issues, it can lack cohesion and effectiveness, particularly in the areas of foreign policy, defence and economic management. Member states of a confederation may realise that they would be stronger and more cohesive under a federal structure, where a central government holds more substantial authority, while respecting the autonomy of the federated entities.
The move to a federal state allows member states to benefit from a centralised government for matters that concern the federation as a whole, while retaining their own government, legislative and judicial powers to manage local or regional affairs. This two-sided structure offers a balance between unity and diversity, enabling national and international affairs to be managed more effectively, while respecting regional particularities. In addition, the formation of a federal state can strengthen cohesion and stability between Member States. By sharing a common constitution, an integrated economic market and a unified foreign policy, the Member States create a sense of unity and solidarity. This federal structure can also lead to a better distribution of resources, coordination of economic and social policies, and a collective response to external challenges. The most emblematic example of this transition is the United States of America, which moved from a confederation under the Articles of Confederation to a federal state with the adoption of the Constitution in 1787. This change was motivated by the need for a stronger central government to effectively manage the country's affairs, particularly in the areas of finance, trade and international relations.
In a political system where the cantonal and federal levels of government exist side by side, there is a complex and nuanced structure of governance, typical of certain federal states such as Switzerland. This organisation allows for management at two levels, combining the advantages of national coordination with those of regional autonomy. At federal level, the central government is responsible for matters that affect the nation as a whole. This level of governance deals with areas such as foreign policy, national defence, international trade and important economic and legislative matters. The federal government has the power to legislate on matters that apply to the whole country, ensuring a degree of uniformity in national policies. It also plays a crucial role in representing the state on the international stage, making decisions that affect the country as a whole. In parallel, at cantonal level, regional or local bodies, with their own government and legislature, manage affairs more specific to their region. The cantons enjoy a degree of autonomy, allowing them to concentrate on areas such as education, local policing, public health and certain aspects of civil law. The national constitution or federal agreements define the powers of these cantonal governments, which can draw up laws and policies tailored to the needs and particularities of their population. This autonomy allows for regional diversity in the management of public affairs.
This coexistence of cantonal and federal states creates a flexible and adaptable system of governance. It enables the cantons to respond in a more targeted way to the demands and preferences of their citizens, while ensuring coherence and unity at national level. This model promotes participatory democracy, where citizens are involved in decision-making at different levels, thereby strengthening the legitimacy and effectiveness of the political system. This two-sided structure, combining cantonal autonomy and federal governance, offers a valuable balance between local diversity and national cohesion. It is emblematic of the way in which federal states can accommodate both the specific needs of the regions and the overall interests of the nation, creating a governance framework that is both robust and dynamic.
In a federal state, the three traditional functions of the state - legislative, executive and judicial - are exercised both at federal level and at the level of lower entities, such as cantons or member states. This structure creates a unique dynamic in which two centres of legal impetus coexist: federal law and cantonal or state law. At federal level, the central government exercises the legislative function by passing laws that apply to the whole nation. These laws typically concern areas of national interest, such as defence, foreign policy or major economic issues. Similarly, the federal executive manages the day-to-day business of the state at a national level, and the federal judiciary is responsible for interpreting and applying federal laws.
At the same time, the federated entities, such as the cantons in the case of Switzerland, also have the capacity to enact legislation in the areas under their jurisdiction. These cantonal laws may relate to matters specific to the region, such as local education, public health, and certain economic and social regulations. The cantonal governments also exercise executive and judicial functions within their jurisdiction, applying and interpreting cantonal laws. This duality of legislative powers between federal and cantonal law is one of the distinguishing features of federal states. It allows a degree of flexibility and adaptation to regional particularities while maintaining uniformity and cohesion at national level. Lower entities, while linked to the federal framework, retain significant autonomy to meet the specific needs of their population. Consequently, in a federal state, citizens live under the dual authority of federal and cantonal law. This coexistence of levels of governance promotes a balance between national unity and regional diversity, contributing to the stability and effectiveness of the political system as a whole.
The Confederation and the European Union (EU) are two forms of international organisation, but they differ considerably in their structure and operation. In a confederation, the main body is generally made up of representatives of the sovereign member states. These representatives act and take decisions in the interests of their respective states. The confederation, as such, is often a loose union in which the member states retain a large part of their sovereignty and independence. Decisions taken within the confederation usually require unanimity or a broad consensus of the Member States. The emphasis is on cooperation between sovereign states rather than the creation of a supranational entity with direct power over citizens. In contrast, the European Union represents a more integrated form of regional organisation. Although the Member States retain significant sovereignty, the EU has the characteristics of a supranational entity. The European Parliament, elected directly by the citizens of the Member States, represents the European people and plays a crucial role in the EU's legislative process. This direct democratic approach distinguishes the EU from a classic confederation. In addition, the EU has supranational institutions, such as the European Commission, the European Council and the Court of Justice of the European Union, which have executive, legislative and judicial powers that extend beyond national borders.
The EU is therefore more than just cooperation between states; it is a political and economic union with common policies in many areas, such as trade, the environment and the mobility of citizens. EU Member States share common legislation in certain areas and are bound by a set of treaties that define the rules by which the EU operates. The fundamental difference between a confederation and the European Union lies in the degree of integration and the nature of the representative institutions. Whereas a confederation is based on cooperation between sovereign states with limited power at central level, the EU represents deeper integration with supranational institutions having direct authority over certain aspects of the lives of European citizens.
The European Union (EU) is indeed a unique entity in the global political and institutional landscape, often described as a 'sui generis' organisation - a category in itself that does not fit into the traditional classifications of federal state or confederation. This singularity can be explained by the coexistence of the characteristics of these two forms of organisation, while at the same time presenting distinctive features of its own. On the one hand, the EU has elements of a confederation. The Member States retain a large degree of sovereignty, particularly in areas such as foreign policy and defence. Important decisions, particularly in the area of common foreign and security policy, often require unanimity among the Member States. This structure reflects the intergovernmental cooperation typical of a confederation, where states act together on the basis of their common interests while preserving their national independence. On the other hand, the EU has characteristics similar to those of a federal state. It has supranational institutions, such as the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union, which have powers that transcend national borders. The European Parliament, elected directly by the citizens of the Member States, is an example of democratic representation at supranational level. The EU also has common policies and legislation in areas such as the internal market, the environment and economic regulation, which are applied uniformly across the Member States. However, the EU differs from a classical federal state in that it has no sovereignty of its own; its sovereignty is derived from the Member States. Furthermore, although the EU has common legislation in some areas, the Member States retain a great deal of autonomy in other key areas, such as taxation and social affairs. The EU is a unique example of regional cooperation, combining aspects of a confederation and a federal state, while at the same time having its own distinctive features. This hybrid nature makes the EU a complex and constantly evolving entity, reflecting the diversity and growing interdependence of European states in a globalised world.
The political systems
La forme du gouvernement d'un État est incarnée et mise en pratique par ses organes, ou pouvoirs publics, qui sont les institutions à travers lesquelles s'effectuent la prise de décision, l'élaboration de politiques, et l'exécution des actions gouvernementales. Ces pouvoirs publics sont généralement structurés en trois branches interdépendantes mais distinctes : législative, exécutive et judiciaire, chacune jouant un rôle crucial dans la gouvernance de l'État.
Le pouvoir législatif, souvent représenté par un parlement ou une assemblée, est le pilier de la création et de la modification des lois. Composé de représentants élus, ce pouvoir reflète la volonté du peuple et est au cœur du débat démocratique. Par exemple, le Congrès aux États-Unis ou le Parlement au Royaume-Uni sont des instances où les lois sont débattues, amendées et adoptées, définissant ainsi les normes qui régissent la société. Ces institutions législatives sont essentielles pour façonner les politiques publiques et établir les règles qui influencent tous les aspects de la vie nationale.
Le pouvoir exécutif, dirigé par des figures telles que le président ou le premier ministre, est chargé de la gestion quotidienne de l'État et de l'application des lois. Ce pouvoir comprend divers ministères et agences responsables de secteurs spécifiques comme la défense, les affaires étrangères, ou l'économie. Par exemple, en France, le président et le gouvernement, comprenant différents ministres, sont au centre de l'administration de l'État, mettant en œuvre les lois et gérant les relations internationales, la sécurité nationale et les politiques économiques.
Quant au pouvoir judiciaire, il joue le rôle crucial d'arbitre dans l'interprétation des lois et assure que la justice est rendue équitablement. Les cours et tribunaux, qui forment ce pouvoir, sont chargés de résoudre les litiges, de juger la conformité des actions avec la constitution et de veiller à une application juste des lois. Dans des pays comme l'Allemagne ou le Canada, les systèmes judiciaires fonctionnent indépendamment des autres branches du gouvernement, garantissant ainsi que les décisions de justice sont prises sans influence politique et dans le strict respect de la loi.
La structure et l'interaction de ces trois pouvoirs déterminent la forme du gouvernement et sont essentielles pour maintenir un équilibre, éviter les abus de pouvoir et assurer une gouvernance démocratique et responsable. La séparation et l'équilibre des pouvoirs permettent de s'assurer que les différentes branches du gouvernement représentent et servent effectivement les intérêts de la population, tout en respectant l'état de droit et les principes démocratiques. Cet équilibre est vital pour la stabilité politique et la légitimité du gouvernement aux yeux des citoyens.
La monarchie
La monarchie est un régime politique caractérisé par la présence d'un monarque, tel qu'un roi ou une reine, en tant que chef de l'État. Dans ce système, la position du monarque est souvent héréditaire, passant de génération en génération au sein d'une même famille royale. Les spécificités du rôle et du pouvoir du monarque peuvent varier considérablement d'une monarchie à l'autre, en fonction de la structure constitutionnelle et historique de chaque pays.
Dans le cas de la monarchie absolue, le monarque détient un pouvoir total, exclusif et illimité sur l'État. Ce type de monarchie était plus répandu dans l'histoire, notamment en Europe durant certaines périodes. Dans une monarchie absolue, le monarque n'est pas contraint par des lois écrites ou par une constitution, et il exerce un contrôle total sur le gouvernement et l'administration du pays. Les décisions du monarque sont sans appel et il dispose souvent du pouvoir législatif, exécutif et judiciaire. Un exemple historique célèbre de monarchie absolue est celui de la France sous le règne de Louis XIV, où le roi avait un pouvoir incontesté, incarné par sa fameuse phrase « L'État, c'est moi ». Dans de telles monarchies, le monarque était souvent considéré comme régnant par droit divin, c'est-à-dire choisi par et représentant la volonté de Dieu sur terre, ce qui renforçait davantage son pouvoir absolu. Aujourd'hui, la plupart des monarchies existantes sont constitutionnelles, ce qui signifie que le pouvoir du monarque est limité par une constitution et souvent exercé dans un cadre démocratique, avec un gouvernement élu qui gère les affaires de l'État. Dans ces systèmes, le rôle du monarque est généralement cérémoniel, avec peu de pouvoir réel sur les décisions politiques ou gouvernementales. Des exemples de telles monarchies constitutionnelles incluent le Royaume-Uni, la Suède et le Japon.
L'adage « Si veut le Roy, si veut la loi » exprimé par le juriste français Pierre Loisel (1536 – 1617) capture l'essence de la monarchie absolue, où la volonté du roi s'impose comme loi. Ce principe reflète la conception du pouvoir monarchique à cette époque, où le monarque n'était pas seulement le chef de l'État, mais aussi la source suprême de la législation. Dans une monarchie absolue, le roi ou la reine est considéré(e) comme l'autorité ultime, ses décisions et ses désirs ayant force de loi. Cela signifie que le monarque n'est pas tenu de suivre des lois préétablies ni de consulter d'autres organes de gouvernance avant de prendre des décisions. La loi est donc le produit direct de la volonté du monarque et s'applique à tous les sujets sans exception. Ce système concentre tous les pouvoirs – législatif, exécutif et judiciaire – entre les mains du monarque. Cette approche de la gouvernance était typique de plusieurs monarchies européennes durant les XVIème et XVIIème siècles. Elle s'inscrit dans le contexte d'une époque où la notion de droit divin des rois était largement acceptée, ce qui légitimait le pouvoir absolu du monarque comme étant accordé et sanctionné par une autorité divine. L'exemple de Neuchâtel en tant que monarchie ecclésiastique sous le prince-évêque de Bâle illustre également cette forme de gouvernance. Dans de telles monarchies, l'autorité religieuse et l'autorité civile étaient souvent fusionnées, renforçant l'idée que le pouvoir royal ou princier était à la fois temporel et spirituel. Aujourd'hui, ces notions de monarchie absolue ont largement évolué vers des formes de gouvernance plus démocratiques et constitutionnelles, où le pouvoir du monarque est limité et équilibré par d'autres institutions étatiques et par le respect des lois constitutionnelles.
L'oligarchie
L'oligarchie est un système politique dans lequel le pouvoir est détenu et exercé par un petit groupe de personnes. Cette forme de gouvernement se distingue de la monarchie, où le pouvoir est concentré entre les mains d'un seul individu, généralement un roi ou une reine. En oligarchie, le pouvoir est partagé entre quelques individus qui peuvent être distingués par leur richesse, leur statut social, leur éducation, leur affiliation corporative, ou leur appartenance à une certaine élite. Contrairement à une démocratie, où le pouvoir est censé résider dans l'ensemble de la population, l'oligarchie implique une concentration du pouvoir au sein d'un petit segment de la société. Cette minorité dirigeante peut exercer son influence de différentes manières, souvent en contrôlant les principaux leviers économiques, politiques, ou militaires. Les décisions et les politiques adoptées par un gouvernement oligarchique reflètent généralement les intérêts et les visions de ce groupe restreint, plutôt que ceux de la majorité de la population.
L'oligarchie peut parfois être dissimulée derrière les apparences d'une démocratie, avec des élections et des institutions officielles. Cependant, dans la pratique, le véritable pouvoir réside dans les mains de quelques personnes ou familles influentes. Ces groupes peuvent maintenir leur influence à travers divers moyens, tels que le contrôle des médias, de grandes entreprises, des financements politiques, ou des réseaux de relations et de patronage. Historiquement, de nombreux systèmes politiques ont présenté des caractéristiques oligarchiques. Par exemple, dans certaines cités-États grecques de l'Antiquité, le pouvoir était souvent détenu par une petite élite de citoyens riches et influents. De même, à différentes périodes de l'histoire, de nombreuses sociétés ont vu leur gouvernement dominé par une classe aristocratique ou une élite économique. L'oligarchie est souvent critiquée pour son manque de représentativité et d'équité, car elle exclut la majorité des citoyens de la participation effective au processus politique et tend à favoriser les intérêts d'une petite partie de la société au détriment du bien commun.
La démocratie
La démocratie est un système politique fondé sur le principe de la souveraineté populaire, où le pouvoir appartient au peuple. Dans une démocratie, les citoyens ont un rôle central dans la prise de décision et l'exercice du pouvoir, soit directement, soit par le biais de représentants élus. Dans une démocratie directe, les citoyens participent activement à la formulation et à l'adoption des lois et des politiques. Cet exercice direct du pouvoir se manifeste souvent par des référendums ou des assemblées populaires où les citoyens votent sur des questions spécifiques. Un exemple historique de démocratie directe est la cité-État athénienne de l'Antiquité, où les citoyens se réunissaient pour débattre et décider des affaires de l'État. Cependant, dans la plupart des démocraties modernes, le système est représentatif : les citoyens élisent des représentants pour les gouverner et prendre des décisions en leur nom. Cette forme de démocratie permet une gestion plus pratique des affaires d'un État, surtout quand la population est trop grande pour une participation directe de tous à la gouvernance. Les représentants élus, tels que les députés, les sénateurs, et le chef de l'État, sont censés refléter la volonté du peuple et agir dans l'intérêt général.
La démocratie représentative s'accompagne généralement de diverses institutions et mécanismes visant à garantir la transparence, la responsabilité et l'équité dans le processus politique. Cela inclut des élections régulières, libres et équitables, des droits civiques tels que la liberté d'expression et d'association, une presse libre, ainsi que des systèmes judiciaires indépendants pour protéger les droits des citoyens. Des pays comme les États-Unis, l'Allemagne, le Canada et l'Australie sont des exemples de démocraties représentatives. Dans ces systèmes, bien que les citoyens ne prennent pas directement les décisions politiques, ils jouent un rôle crucial en élisant ceux qui les gouvernent et en participant au débat public, ce qui façonne les politiques et les lois de l'État.
La citation de Heinrich Rudolf Schinz, un éminent juriste zurichois du XIXe siècle, souligne une conception fondamentale de la démocratie et du rôle du gouvernement, particulièrement en contexte suisse. Son affirmation que « tous les gouvernements de la Suisse doivent le reconnaître, il n'existe que pour autant qu'ils sont du peuple et qu'ils agissent par le peuple et pour le peuple » reflète l'idée que la légitimité d'un gouvernement repose sur sa représentation et son service au peuple. Cette perspective est particulièrement pertinente pour la Suisse, un pays qui a longtemps valorisé les principes de la démocratie directe et participative. En 1830, l'époque à laquelle Schinz exprimait cette pensée, la Suisse était en pleine période de transformation et de développement politique. Son propos résonnait avec les idéaux démocratiques émergents qui prônaient un gouvernement responsable et réceptif aux besoins et volontés des citoyens.
L'accent mis par Schinz sur le fait que les gouvernements doivent être "du peuple" signifie que les autorités doivent émaner du consentement et de la volonté des citoyens. Cela implique un processus démocratique transparent et équitable où les citoyens ont un rôle significatif dans l'élection de leurs représentants et dans les décisions politiques. L'expression "agissent par le peuple" souligne l'importance de la participation citoyenne dans la gouvernance. Dans le système suisse, cela se traduit par des mécanismes de démocratie directe, tels que les référendums et les initiatives populaires, où les citoyens peuvent directement influencer la législation et les politiques publiques. Quant à "agir pour le peuple", cela renvoie à l'obligation des gouvernements de travailler dans l'intérêt général, en mettant en œuvre des politiques et des lois qui bénéficient à la société dans son ensemble, plutôt que de servir des intérêts particuliers ou des élites. Cette vision de Schinz est emblématique des principes démocratiques qui continuent d'être au cœur de la gouvernance en Suisse, où le pouvoir est exercé de manière transparente et responsable, avec une participation active des citoyens. Cela reflète un engagement envers une démocratie qui n'est pas seulement une forme de gouvernement, mais aussi une expression des valeurs et des aspirations du peuple.
La citation de Abraham Lincoln lors de l'inauguration du cimetière de la bataille de Gettysburg en 1863 est un des discours les plus célèbres de l'histoire américaine et un pilier de la pensée démocratique. Ses paroles, « Puissions-nous, par notre détermination, faire en sorte que ces morts ne soient pas morts en vain, que cette nation, à l'ombre de Dieu, puisse renaître dans la liberté... et que le gouvernement du peuple, par le peuple et pour le peuple ne disparaisse pas de la surface de la terre », résonnent profondément avec les valeurs de démocratie et de liberté. Lincoln prononça ce discours dans un contexte de guerre civile déchirante, où la nation était profondément divisée sur des questions de liberté et d'esclavage. La bataille de Gettysburg, l'une des plus sanglantes de la guerre civile américaine, était un moment crucial du conflit. En évoquant les sacrifices des soldats tombés, Lincoln cherchait à donner un sens à ces pertes et à renforcer l'engagement de la nation envers les principes de liberté et d'unité.
L'idée que "le gouvernement du peuple, par le peuple et pour le peuple" ne doit pas "disparaître de la surface de la terre" est une puissante affirmation des principes démocratiques. Lincoln soulignait que la démocratie était non seulement essentielle pour les États-Unis, mais aussi un idéal à préserver pour l'humanité tout entière. Ce concept implique que le gouvernement devrait être basé sur la volonté du peuple, qu'il devrait être exercé par des représentants élus pour servir les intérêts de la population, et que son objectif ultime doit être le bien-être du peuple. Le discours de Gettysburg, bien que bref, a eu un impact profond et durable, non seulement sur la société américaine, mais aussi sur la perception mondiale de la démocratie et de la liberté. Il continue d'être cité comme un exemple éloquent de leadership en temps de crise et un rappel puissant des valeurs fondamentales sur lesquelles les démocraties sont construites.