Narodna suverenost

Narodni suverenitet je princip da se državne vođa i njena vlada stvaraju i održavaju pristankom njenog naroda, koji je izvor svake političke legitimnosti. Narodni suverenitet, kao princip, ne podrazumijeva nikakvu posebnu političku implementaciju.^[a] Benjamin Franklin je izrazio taj koncept kada je napisao da su "U slobodnim vladama vladari sluge, a narod njihovi nadređeni i vladari".^[1]

Porijeklo

Šablon:Republikanizam, bočna traka Šablon:Nacionalizam, bočna traka U djelu Branitelj mira (Defensor pacis), Marsilije iz Padove zagovarao je oblik republikanizma koji narod smatra jedinim legitimnim izvorom političke vlasti. Suverenitet pripada narodu, a narod treba birati, ispravljati i, ako je potrebno, smjenjivati svoje političke vođe.^[2]

Dalji razvoj teorije narodnog suvereniteta nalazi se među Škola Salamanke (vidi npr. Francisco de Vitoria (1483–1546) ili Francisco Suarez (1548–1617)). Poput teoretičara božanskog prava kraljeva i Lockea, Salamanci su smatrali da suverenitet izvorno proizlazi iz Boga. Međutim, za razliku od teoretičara božanskog prava i u skladu s Lockeom, oni su ga smatrali prelaskom od Boga na sve ljude podjednako, a ne samo na monarhe.

Narodni suverenitet u svom modernom smislu je ideja koja datira iz škole društvenog ugovora koju su predstavljali Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), John Locke (1632–1704) i Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778). Rousseau je autor knjige pod nazivom Društveni ugovor, istaknutog političkog djela koje je istaklo ideju "opće volje". Centralno načelo narodnog suvereniteta je da se legitimnost (politička) vladinog autoriteta i njenih zakona zasniva na pristanku onih kojima se vlada. Hobbes, Locke i Rousseau su smatrali da pojedinci sklapaju društveni ugovor, dobrovoljno se odričući dijela svoje prirodne slobode, kako bi osigurali zaštitu od opasnosti svojstvenih slobodi drugih. Bez obzira da li se na muškarce gleda kao na prirodno sklonije nasilju i pljački (Hobbes) ili saradnji i ljubaznosti (Rousseau), ideja da legitimni društveni poredak nastaje samo kada su sloboda i dužnosti jednake među građanima veže mislioce društvenog ugovora za koncept narodnog suvereniteta. Republika i Narodna monarhija teoreijski se zasnivaju na narodnom suverenitetu. Međutim, legalistički pojam narodnog suvereniteta ne podrazumijeva nužno efektivnu, funkcionalnu demokratiju. Stranka ili čak pojedinac diktator mogu tvrditi da predstavljaju volju naroda i vladaju u njegovo ime, što bi bilo u skladu s Hobbesovim stavom o toj temi. Većina modernih definicija predstavlja demokratiju kao neophodan uslov narodnog suvereniteta.

Sudija Ivora Jenningsa dala je ideju da su vlade tvorevina pristanka svog naroda "smiješnom", jer "narod ne može odlučivati dok neko ne odluči ko je narod".^[3]

Sjedinjene Američke Države

Primjena doktrine narodnog suvereniteta dobija poseban naglasak u američkoj historiji, primjećuje historičar Christian G. Fritz , u svojoj studiji rane historije američkog ustavnog sistema pod nazivom „Američki suvereni: Narod i američka ustavna tradicija prije građanskog rata“, studiji rane historije američkog ustavnog sistema.^[4] Američka revolucija označila je odstupanje od koncepta narodnog suvereniteta kako se o njemu raspravljalo i kako se koristio u evropskom historijskom kontekstu. Američki revolucionari su imali za cilj da suverenitet u liku kralja Georgea III zamijene kolektivnim suverenom - sastavljenim od naroda. Od tada su se američki revolucionari uglavnom slagali i bili su posvećeni principu da su vlade legitimne samo ako počivaju na narodnom suverenitetu - to jest, suverenitetu naroda.^[b] Ovo je često bilo povezivano s pojmom pristanka onih kojima se vlada - idejom naroda kao suverena - i imalo je jasne intelektualne korijene u engleskoj historiji iz 17. i 18. stoljeća.^[5]

1850-te

Tokom 1850-ih, u periodu prije Građanskog rata, sjeverni demokrati predvođeni senatorom Lewisom Cassom iz Michigana i Stephenom A. Douglasom iz Illinoisa promovirali su "narodni suverenitet" kao srednji stav o pitanju ropstva. U njemu se navodi da bi bijeli stanovnici teritorija trebaju moći glasanjem odlučiti hoće li ropstvo biti dozvoljeno na toj teritoriji ili ne. Savezna vlada nije morala donijeti odluku, a pozivajući se na demokratiju, Cass i Douglas su se nadali da će moći riješiti pitanje podrške ili protivljenja ropstvu. Douglas je primijenio "narodni suverenitet" na Kansas u Zakonu Kansas-Nebraska, koji je Kongres usvojio 1854. godine. Zakon je naveo ^[6] da u Kansasu i Nebraski "svaki slobodni bijeli muški stanovnik stariji od dvadeset i jedne godine...ima pravo glasa na prvim izborima".

Zakon je imao dva neočekivana rezultata. Ukidanjem Missurijsskog kompromisa iz 1820. godine, prema kojem ropstvo nikada neće biti dozvoljeno u Kansasu, to je bio veliki posaticaj za širenje ropstva. Preko noći, ogorčenje je ujedinilo snage protiv ropstva širom Sjevera u "anti-Nebraska" pokret koji je ubrzo institucionaliziran kao Republikanska stranka, sa svojom čvrstom posvećenošću zaustavljanju širenja ropstva.

Također, elementi koji su bili za i protiv ropstva doselili su se u Kansas s namjerom da dozvole ili zabrane ropstvo, što je dovelo do bjesnjećeg građanskog rata na nivou države, poznatog kao "Krvavi Kansas". Abraham Lincoln je ciljao na narodni suverenitet u debatama Lincoln-Douglas 1858. godine, što je Douglasa dovelo u poziciju koja je otuđila južnjačke demokrate koji su se zalagali za ropstvo, a koji su ga smatrali slabim u njegovoj podršci ropstvu. Južni demokrati su se odvojili od stranke i 1860. godine kandidovali vlastitog kandidata protiv Lincolna i Douglasa.^[7]

Također pogledajte

Napomene

↑ Leonard Levy notes of the "doctrine" of popular sovereignty that it "relates primarily not to the Constitution's [actual] operation but to its source of authority and supremacy, ratification, amendment, and possible abolition" (Tarcov 1986, v. 3, p. 1426).
↑
- Paul K. Conkin describes "the almost unanimous acceptance of popular sovereignty at the level of abstract principle" (Conkin 1974, p. 52);
- Edmund S. Morgan, concludes that the American Revolution "confirmed and completed the subordination of government to the will of the people" (Morgan 1977, p. 101);
- Willi Paul Adams asserts that statements of the "principle" of the people's sovereignty "expressed the very heart of the consensus among the victors of 1776" (Adams 1980, p. 137).
Additional support for the centrality of popular sovereignty include:
- Ronald M. Peters, Jr., suggests the following as embodying the meaning of popular sovereignty for Americans – "The concept of popular sovereignty holds simply that in a society organized for political action, the will of the people as a whole is the only right standard of political action" (Peters, Jr. 1978, p. 1);
- Donald S. Lutz suggests that popular sovereignty came to have meaning in "the way Americans viewed themselves as a people. They firmly believed that on their own authority they could form themselves into a community, create or replace a government to order their community, select and replace those who hold government office, determine which values bind them as a community and thus which values should guide them those in government when making decisions for the community, and replace political institutions at variance with these values" (Lutz 1980, p. 10);
- Joel H. Silbey, states "The justification of the American Revolution and republican government—-as opposed to the monarchical forms of government in Europe—rested on the theory of popular sovereignty. In essence, that theory established the basic premise of American political life: the ultimate and sole legitimacy of government rests on the consent of 'the people.' Defining 'the people' became one of the central issues in the development of the American experience, but soon after declaring independence, American revolutionaries came to agree that popular sovereignty underlay America's republican governments. If identifying 'the people' and their role in changing government took many decades, the problem of how to locate popular sovereignty was solved relatively quickly by the institutional device of the constitutional convention" (Silbey 1994, v. I, p. 37).

↑ Benjamin Franklin (2003). The Political Thought of Benjamin Franklin. Edited by Ralph Ketchum; Hackett Publishing. str. 398. ISBN 0872206831.
↑ Alan Gewirth, "Marsilius of Padua", in Paul Edwards, ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 5. New York: Macmillan, 1967, p. 167.
↑ Mayall, James (2013). "International Society, State Sovereignty, and National Self-Determination". u Breuilly, John (ured.). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. str. 542. ISBN 978-0-19-876820-3.
↑ Christian G. Fritz, American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War (Cambridge University Press, 2008) at p. 290, 400. ISBN 978-0-521-88188-3
↑ On the English origins of the sovereignty of the people and consent as the basis of government, see: Reid 1986–1993, v. III, pp. 97–101, 107–110; Morgan 1988, passim
↑ "Kansas-Nebraska Act (Sections 5 and 23)" (PDF). US Statutes at Large. Pristupljeno 13. 5. 2025.
↑ Childers 2011, pp. 48–70

Reference

Adams, Willi Paul (1980), The First American Constitutions: Republican Ideology and the Making of the State Constitutions in the Revolutionary Era, University of North Carolina Press, ISBN 978-0-7425-2069-1
Childers, Christopher (March 2011), "Interpreting Popular Sovereignty: A Historiographical Essay", Civil War History 57 (1): 48–70
Conkin, Paul K. (1974), Self-Evident Truths: Being a Discourse on the Origins & Development of the First Principles of American Government—Popular Sovereignty, Natural Rights, and Balance & Separation of Powers, Indiana University Press, ISBN 978-0-253-20198-0
Lutz, Donald S. (1980), Popular Consent and Popular Control: Whig Political Theory in the Early State Constitutions, Louisiana State Univ. Press, ISBN 978-0-8071-0596-2
Lutz, Donald S. (1988), The Origins of American Constitutionalism, Louisiana State University Press, ISBN 978-0-8071-1506-0
Morgan, Edmund S. (1977), "The Problem of Popular Sovereignty", in Aspects of American Liberty: Philosophical, Historical and Political: Addresses Presented at an Observance of the Bicentennial Year of American Independence (The American Philosophical Society, 1977) ISBN 978-0-8716-9118-7
Morgan, Edmund S. (1988), Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America, W.W. Norton and Company, ISBN 0-393-30623-2
Peters, Jr., Ronald M. (1978) The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780: A Social Compact, University of Massachusetts Press, ISBN 978-0-8071-1506-0
Reid, John Phillip (1986–1993), American Revolution III (4 volumes ed.), University of Wisconsin Press, ISBN 0-299-13070-3
Silbey, Joel H., ed. (1994), "Constitutional Conventions", Encyclopedia of the American Legislative System (3 volumes ed.) (Charles Scribner's Sons) I, ISBN 978-0-684-19243-7
Tarcov, Nathan (1986), "Popular Sovereignty (in Democratic Political Theory)", in Levy, Leonard, Encyclopedia of the American Constitution 3, ISBN 978-0-02-864880-4

Dopunska literatura

Childers, Christopher (2012), The Failure of Popular Sovereignty: Slavery, Manifest Destiny, and the Radicalization of Southern Politics, University of Kansas Press, str. 334
Etcheson, Nicole (Spring–Summer 2004), "The Great Principle of Self-Government: Popular Sovereignty and Bleeding Kansas", Kansas History, 27: 14–29 links it to Jacksonian Democracy
Johannsen, Robert W. (1973), Stephen A. Douglas, Oxford University Press, str. 576–613.

[1] Leonard Levy notes of the "doctrine" of popular sovereignty that it "relates primarily not to the Constitution's [actual] operation but to its source of authority and supremacy, ratification, amendment, and possible abolition" (Tarcov 1986, v. 3, p. 1426).

[sovereignty-of-the-people-6] 
Paul K. Conkin describes "the almost unanimous acceptance of popular sovereignty at the level of abstract principle" (Conkin 1974, p. 52);

Edmund S. Morgan, concludes that the American Revolution "confirmed and completed the subordination of government to the will of the people" (Morgan 1977, p. 101);

Willi Paul Adams asserts that statements of the "principle" of the people's sovereignty "expressed the very heart of the consensus among the victors of 1776" (Adams 1980, p. 137).

[mwhw] Paul K. Conkin describes "the almost unanimous acceptance of popular sovereignty at the level of abstract principle" (Conkin 1974, p. 52);

[mwiA] Edmund S. Morgan, concludes that the American Revolution "confirmed and completed the subordination of government to the will of the people" (Morgan 1977, p. 101);

[mwiQ] Willi Paul Adams asserts that statements of the "principle" of the people's sovereignty "expressed the very heart of the consensus among the victors of 1776" (Adams 1980, p. 137).

[centrality-of-popular-sovereignty-10] Additional support for the centrality of popular sovereignty include:
Ronald M. Peters, Jr., suggests the following as embodying the meaning of popular sovereignty for Americans – "The concept of popular sovereignty holds simply that in a society organized for political action, the will of the people as a whole is the only right standard of political action" (Peters, Jr. 1978, p. 1);

Donald S. Lutz suggests that popular sovereignty came to have meaning in "the way Americans viewed themselves as a people. They firmly believed that on their own authority they could form themselves into a community, create or replace a government to order their community, select and replace those who hold government office, determine which values bind them as a community and thus which values should guide them those in government when making decisions for the community, and replace political institutions at variance with these values" (Lutz 1980, p. 10);

Joel H. Silbey, states "The justification of the American Revolution and republican government—-as opposed to the monarchical forms of government in Europe—rested on the theory of popular sovereignty. In essence, that theory established the basic premise of American political life: the ultimate and sole legitimacy of government rests on the consent of 'the people.' Defining 'the people' became one of the central issues in the development of the American experience, but soon after declaring independence, American revolutionaries came to agree that popular sovereignty underlay America's republican governments. If identifying 'the people' and their role in changing government took many decades, the problem of how to locate popular sovereignty was solved relatively quickly by the institutional device of the constitutional convention" (Silbey 1994, v. I, p. 37).

[mwjA] Ronald M. Peters, Jr., suggests the following as embodying the meaning of popular sovereignty for Americans – "The concept of popular sovereignty holds simply that in a society organized for political action, the will of the people as a whole is the only right standard of political action" (Peters, Jr. 1978, p. 1);

[mwjQ] Donald S. Lutz suggests that popular sovereignty came to have meaning in "the way Americans viewed themselves as a people. They firmly believed that on their own authority they could form themselves into a community, create or replace a government to order their community, select and replace those who hold government office, determine which values bind them as a community and thus which values should guide them those in government when making decisions for the community, and replace political institutions at variance with these values" (Lutz 1980, p. 10);

[mwjw] Joel H. Silbey, states "The justification of the American Revolution and republican government—-as opposed to the monarchical forms of government in Europe—rested on the theory of popular sovereignty. In essence, that theory established the basic premise of American political life: the ultimate and sole legitimacy of government rests on the consent of 'the people.' Defining 'the people' became one of the central issues in the development of the American experience, but soon after declaring independence, American revolutionaries came to agree that popular sovereignty underlay America's republican governments. If identifying 'the people' and their role in changing government took many decades, the problem of how to locate popular sovereignty was solved relatively quickly by the institutional device of the constitutional convention" (Silbey 1994, v. I, p. 37).

[Franklin2003-2] Benjamin Franklin (2003). The Political Thought of Benjamin Franklin. Edited by Ralph Ketchum; Hackett Publishing. str. 398. ISBN 0872206831.

[3] Alan Gewirth, "Marsilius of Padua", in Paul Edwards, ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 5. New York: Macmillan, 1967, p. 167.

[4] Mayall, James (2013). "International Society, State Sovereignty, and National Self-Determination". u Breuilly, John (ured.). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. str. 542. ISBN 978-0-19-876820-3.

[Fritz-5] Christian G. Fritz, American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War (Cambridge University Press, 2008) at p. 290, 400. ISBN 978-0-521-88188-3

[7] On the English origins of the sovereignty of the people and consent as the basis of government, see: Reid 1986–1993, v. III, pp. 97–101, 107–110; Morgan 1988, passim

[8] "Kansas-Nebraska Act (Sections 5 and 23)" (PDF). US Statutes at Large. Pristupljeno 13. 5. 2025.

[9] Childers 2011, pp. 48–70

[a]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[b]

[5]

[6]

[7]