Government answerable to the many
For whose happiness should a state be built, the ruling few or the governed many? Bentham fixes the end as the greatest happiness of the greatest number and designs a government to serve no lesser interest.
In a few compressed pages Bentham fixes the end of government, the greatest happiness of the greatest number, and specifically of the many rather than the ruling few, then derives a frame to serve it and no sinister interest. Sovereignty rests in the whole people; a single representative assembly is chosen on a wide and secret franchise; officials are appointed for fitness, paid modestly, and held answerable at every point to those they serve. Frankly republican and democratic, with none of the deference to existing constitutions that softened the reform pamphlets of the day, it is the democratic conclusion a lifetime of utilitarian argument had finally brought him to.
- utilitarianism
- distributive justice
Enter a dialogue
- Someone has lost all faith that any government will serve them rather than its own insiders; what in your design earns that faith back?
- Putting sovereignty in the whole people sounds noble, but doesn't a single unchecked assembly just trade one tyranny for the tyranny of a majority?
- How does a state built for the greatest happiness of the many differ from one that merely flatters the people while serving the few?
- If every official must answer at every turn to those below them, what decisiveness or expertise might a government lose in the bargain?
- A citizen wonders why a secret ballot and a wide franchise should matter to their daily life; how would you answer them?