The Concept of Sovereignty in Political Philosophy

Abstract

The concept of sovereignty has a very long historical records. It dates back to Aristotle; trending through the Middle Ages to our contemporary times. The meanings and nature of sovereignty as a socio-political concept have undergone remarkable transformations from ancient to our present times based on critical reflections of some astute thinkers and socio[1]political commentators alike. The changes have to do with successes recorded from the monistic interpretation of the concept to that of the present day pluralist account. There are so many problems associated with the concept of sovereignty, which caught our attention for inquiring into the meaning and nature of sovereignty; among the areas which this paper seeks to enquire are: the lopsided nature of the monistic interpretations to the concept of state sovereignty as laid down in its characteristic elements as: sovereignty is absolute, indivisible and unlimited in both cases internal and external. Secondly, that sovereignty always resides in the determinate person. Thirdly, a society without sovereignty cannot be called a state. Fourthly, the determinate human superior is the only law maker; his commandsare laws and without him the state cannot have laws. More-also, the sovereign has no rival of equal status in the state nor does he obey the order of anyone. Finally, the sovereign is not subject to any power nor his own will. This paper examines all these features through a critical, analytic methods and concludes that the monistic ideas about sovereignty do not support the flourishment of our present day concept of popular sovereignty or the democratic practices of contemporary state, hence the paper’s advocacy for a pluralist account of state sovereignty for the prompt realization of quick decision making in state socio-political project.