Michael Gogatishvili
Free government versus Authority
(Discourse of the Political Freedom of The Federalist)
“It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been
reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question,whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.”

The Federalist No. 1 HAMILTON
These words written more than 200 years ago, if not considering that historical context when they were being written, can be regarded as a certain evaluation of the political situation existing in our country. Hamilton’s above mentioned passage makes us evaluate the current political situation of our country and then respond why we are applying to Federalists.
Maybe Federalists are able to answer us how we have to envisage the future of Georgia, what responsibility towards the future of nation means and what is “Government based on reflection and choice”. This can reduce the political problems existing in Georgia and help us determine the choice between correct and incorrect.
The history of the struggle for independence of our country showed us that without taking into consideration the current processes of the world, the development of the country becomes impossible. When agitations and illusions of the first year of independence abated, the following questions still stay urgent: Where are we going and what will be our future? What type of  government should be established in modern Georgia? The answer can be only one – the democratic development of Georgia has no alternative.
In this paper I would like to emphasize another thing. Owing to historical circumstances, understanding of the concept of democracy in Georgia is in less correspondence not only with its historical-philosophical sense, but with the practice existing in western countries which we consider to be models . Consequently, it is impossible to speak about democracy without taking into account our national context. Namely the national context makes it possible to understand the sense of the concepts – freedom, dignity, justice and virtue, without which democracy cannot be considered.
The most difficult task for nowadays Georgian organizations and institutions is to achieve social consensus between political forces. The greatest aim is to establish such tendencies which lead us to unity. Otherwise, any political crisis developed in Georgia will be accompanied by spiritual crisis and finally, the ambitiously opposite forces will be able to start to torment the political body of Georgia on behalf of a certain idea what can be called even independence of Georgia. There is no difference who will come to the political authority. The result will be only one – we’ll have to live not under “the government based on reflection and choice”, but to accept the distorted  form of democracy – authoritarian  government .
Those who suppose to take political responsibility for the present and future of the country, won’t be able to avoid the responsibility because of their political past. Consequently, any political agent is responsible not only for his own political past, but for the future as well as the past of the country.
Georgian society witnessed the destructions of the foundations of not yet established statehood by the influence of inner and outer political danger. They also witnessed the fall of the authority of the state. It was noticeable how the social factors formed as a result of spontaneous and disorderly collision slipped away from the space of public control.
Probably the latter is the necessary payment for those political changes in conditions of which we had to live. But society won’t be able to live in the regime of convulsion for a long time. Some people tried to find the answer in revealing and criticizing “the evils” of our culture which, in its turn, impeded the establishment of democracy; but some people thought they could find the answer seeking for our own original way which would avoid the current social-political tendencies of the world. But the criticism of the cultural past of a nation cannot be the acceptable and safe means for obtaining political dividends. In this case we speak about the political past of the nation which forms its spiritual genetics and virtue. The problem refers to the principles which concern national consciousness and the basis of the statehood. It’s worth mentioning that not only the facts of archaic culture should be evaluated fairly, but also that form of social political life where we have to live. Consequently, the question arises: What is our present political life based on? Why can’t we understand what is just and what is unjust in our political life? We can only state the following: neither the criticism of the cultural past of a nation for the purpose of establishing democracy, nor seeking for the way of the development of Georgia isolated from the world can be the best remedy for our political reality.
Now we’d like to return to our question and remark that the dispute which took place in our educated or less educated circles because of the “evils” of some moments of our culture does not give a reasonable answer to our political problems. The strategy of the future development of our country is not of theoretical character, but of ideological and is mostly based on willfully discussed practical results. The acuity of this latter is mainly caused by dissatisfaction of the political cases existing in society. This fact indicates that the isolated political forces existing in Georgia do not have political background. They, unfortunately, cannot understand what the problem of “political” is for Georgia. Consequently, they push us not to the dialogue, but as Hannah Arendt writes – of  “logicality of tyranny”.  
The political knowledge which the Soviet regime preached in our country offered us only one type of “logicality of tyranny”.  It required the struggle of classes to be the secret of history.
According to Arendt “    "What convinces masses are not facts, and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system which they are presumably part. Repetition, somewhat overrated in importance because of the common belief in the 'masses' inferior capacity to grasp and remember, is important because it convinces them of consistency in time."”.  At present we have many isolated branches of “logicality of tyranny” which comes from the willful view of the political past and present of Georgia and is allocated among a lot of political forces. Consequently, political agents require not the dialogue in relation with political actors , but they require actors to obey them and witness any political process accomplished by political agents. Thus, we have systematically distorted political dictionary compiled on the basis of the “Soviet political education” which operates with democratic concepts, but in its non-thematic sense are noticed the experience of the history of Bolshevik Party and the secret layer of the foundations of knowledge.
If the vital force of the nation sees its future in democratic freedom and economic prosperity, it should overcome wrong ideological obstacles and express willingness to study from history. If one does not study from history, history will pass strict verdict to everybody. Logicality of tyranny and the stream of uncontrollable predispositions having spontaneous, unnecessary, reckless character are equally unknown to true innovation and spiritual growth. But life experience and the knowledge of the historical roots of kindness and evil are the necessary conditions for the nation to create the world field of the political life. But the fact is that own historical experience cannot be enough to create absolutely new.
The reason why we apply to the Federalists is the fact the democracy in the USA started on the empty place – in the country which did not have the century-old history of political life. The newly formed nation of America, to be more precise its political leaders were based on the experience of enlightenment and antiquity as well as on their own inventions. They initiated the political experiment which had no analogues in the past. But they loved their country, bore responsibility for the nation’s future and had the virtue of selfless service. On the other hand, it is the universal nature of the political experience where the political freedom ensures the civil freedom and the attempt of its implementation without any violence.
. In 80s of XVII century, as soon as the United States of America gained the independence, it became clear that the confederation of the States was not ready for independent administration. The united executive and court authority did not exist; the weak legislative, whose main task was to give advice, complicated the accomplishment of coordinated home and foreign policy as well as the understanding of different social, religious and regional interests. Consequently, not only the realization of civil freedom is under threat, but also the existence of the USA as the united independent state. To find the way out from the existing situation, a small group of the influential statesmen gathered at the constitutional Convention. High on agenda was the issue of further state arrangement. The process of the ratification of the constitution was going on together with the dramatic political struggle. After the Convention completed its work on September 17, 1787, when the text of the future constitution was revealed, debates were held against the proposed project. During half a year, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and john Jay wrote a series of letters for independent newspapers. The letters were published under the pseudonym “Publius” – afterwards known as “The Federalists”.
The authors greatly contributed to establishing a new conception and a new type of the political discourse, designed to prevent the occurrence of political violence.
Particularly these are  the issues that distinguish the American and French revolutions. Any European revolution of that period finally turned into tyranny. Unfortunately, the philosophers of Enlightenment spread the opinion about the fact that freedom does not imply denying all formal prohibitions and restrictions. It is the possibility to do what one wants. But denying formal prohibitions turn into willfulness of individual desires. But if a person does not know what the restriction of inner willfulness is, he/she does not want to understand what the obligation is. Domination of desires related to nothing and nobody is the intention about the French revolution expressed by Hegel in “Phenomenology of Spirit”, that “ Absolute freedom as pure self-identity of the universal will has within it negation”, i.e. absolute freedom destroys itself in the process of realization and with it persuades people that it can never be accomplished. Hegel writes the following lines about the Jacobin terror and horror which is a kind of quintessence of  revolutionary practice – “The sole work and deed of universal freedom is therefore death, a death which has no inner significance or filling, for what is negated is empty point of the absolutely free self”.
The USA Founding Fathers strove not only to set themselves free from tyranny, but also to eradicate tyranny once and forever. In this aspect the experience of the American federalists is unique. The attempt of the federalists differs from that of the initiators of the French revolution. Federalists tried to persuade the citizens of the correctness of their position by presenting arguments. They used no other means than the power of their words. And their words never suggested the necessity of creating a new person that would correspond to the new revolutionary-theoretical doctrine.
Thus, what the American federalists offer their countrymen is not the creation of an ideal-utopian state, but a state system designed to serve and protect the people’s prosperity. Publius writes in the paper 45: Is “the solid happiness of the people to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. ”.
Thus, the aim of the future government should be to serve the people’s interests and contribute to their prosperity. Consequently, the free government becomes the main  organizational theme of the political discourse.
Republicanism, separation of powers, and federalism are the characteristics of free government. These are the three major principles which should contribute to accomplishing political freedom and free government. According to the federalists, free government is the means of defense from a threatening danger – tyranny of the majority over the minority. With it the federalists establish a new type of discourse. For the federalists liberal government is a new form conversation concerning authority From this viewpoint free government is the verbal conceptualization of a new type of authority which is free from tyranny and violence. For the Federalist’s concept of free government becomes the object of reflection which is one of the most important issues in their political discourse. Free government becomes the object of intention, interpretation and criticism.
The federalists establish a new language. But the federalists’ “language power” is not expressed willfully – to establish the language interpretation of the world from the considered facts and demagogically force the citizens to follow their world outlook. Those who give names to objects, posses them. But when the federalists gave names to objects they did not mean to create such language reality  of the political field which are based on lie and the manifestation of the countrymen’s consciousness. The federalists’ attempt is a kind of rebellion against the tyranny of logic and demagogy. Thus, a figure of demagogue becomes essential that makes such threat to freedom as tyranny to violence: “a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”.
According to the English thinker and poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge,” if words are not things, they are “living powers” by which the things of more importance to mankind are actuated, combined and “humanized”.  Those who penetrate into the principles of the word combination are able to penetrate into the universe, as righteously expressed world of words has the feedback between a saying and activities. The federalists’ discourse is a kind of anticipation of turning the right world into a right Activity. In Plato’s dialogue “Cratylus” the creators of names and words are at the same time founders of the polity. Their policy is the anticipation of explicitly worded truth. With this the federalists are writing the book of the future political destiny. Namely such attempt makes them as the Founding Fathers of the new polity.
The authors of “The Federalist” rely on historical experience. They use the pseudonym “Publius” to substantiate the idea of a new type of free government and federalism. This pseudonym is chosen consciously – it  refers to the founder of the Republic of Rome Publius Velerius Publicola. Professor Thomas Pangle writes: “even the pseudonym “Publius” epitomizes old/new in the Federalist Papers. The authors wrote under the “old” name of the founder of the Roman Republic but did so “ as rather proud, radical, innovators within that tradition” .
Publius quite often indicates the experience of the antique democracy. However, the sorrowful experience of antique republics is the condition of establishing new. In the 9th issue of “The Federalist” is written: “It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrast to the furious storms that are to succeed. If now and then intervals of felicity open to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret, arising from the reflection that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage. If momentary rays of glory break forth from the gloom, while they dazzle us with a transient and fleeting brilliancy, they at the same time admonish us to lament that the vices of government should pervert the direction and tarnish the luster of those bright talents and exalted endowments for which the favored soils that produced them have been so justly celebrated.”.
In the federalist papers Publius moves from old to new, creates “a narrative genre” from which Publius distilled republican political thought. Thus, Publius presents himself as the “authority of the new” as his position shows “the natural and tried course of human affairs” and considers every ever existing experience. Thus, the Constitution is a manifestation of its "'oldness' since it reflected long historical experience" and criticizes the "utopianism of its detractors".
Antique Greece and Rome are often mentioned in the papers of “The Federalist”. A new way of  understanding Roman virtue introduced by Publius is emphasized. The classical understanding of virtue is based on four principles – bravery (the ability to face death despite fear on the battlefield), temperance (restriction of carnal pleasure), justice (obedience to law and service to the native country), vital wisdom (taking care of homeless and weak people). According to “The Federalist”, supporters of the republican government possess all these qualities. Antique virtue is recognized on new soil where virtue and freedom are merged. Thus, the distance between old and new republics will be overcome and casual relationship between past, present and future will be renewed, which takes society from the existing situation to a new one. The new Constitution establishes the new situation as free government, i.e. Popular goverment  which is expressed in the idea of republicanism.
The idea of republican government forms the new understanding of the federalists’ authoritative construction. A new form of authority is considered within the frame of confrontation of people and authority. Namely the confrontation of the source of authority, i.e. people and the authority itself gives the opportunity the major aim of the authoritative relations to be revealed, i.e. citizens’ political freedom which serves as a basis for the text paradigms and political discourse created by them. That’s why the federalists create a new language model of the civil authorities where caring of freedom is expressed not only by the conceptual system of signs, but it also implies the possibility of its realization with the help of the new political language. That’s why for Publius the main difficulty was the following: “Combining the requisite stability and energy in government, with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form ”. It was very difficult to keep the necessary proportion for uniting them. “The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those entrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but a number of hands. Stability, on the contrary, requires that the hands in which power is lodged should continue for a length of time the same. A frequent change of men will result from a frequent return of elections; and a frequent change of measures from a frequent change of men: whilst energy in government requires not only a certain duration of power, but the execution of it by a single hand. ”.
The characteristic feature of federalists is construction of new democratic reality. In “The Federalist” is suggested a new understanding of democracy. According to Publius, those who supposed the republican government was possible only on small territories, confused old direct democracy and republic. In old democracies people gathered together and governed themselves. But in the republic the Popular  representatives of the country gathered and governed the country. According to Publius, pure democracy has one great defect which is expressed in the fact that it  “can admit of no cure for the mischief of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property;”   As for the idea of public representation, it is tightly connected to the deepest understanding of freedom. While choosing a public representative, an individual manages to realize his/her inner independence in correlation with already discovered entities (corporation, guild, group, neighborhood, etc.). While choosing a public representative, each individual votes for something private, personal and at the same time very intimate which he/she didn’t realize earlier and possibly would never realize otherwise. In this respect choosing a public representative serves to the personalization of people. Choosing a public representative at the same time is the personal, sustained and stable interest. That’s why according to the federalists, “The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. ”.
It’s certain that not every representative government is democratic. Things become worse when power over people becomes totalitarian, which does not leave a gap for free action and thinking. As Hannah Arendt wrote: “"Power and violence are opposites, where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent. Violence appears where power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course it ends in power's disappearance ... to speak of nonviolent power is actually redundant. Violence can destroy power; it is utterly incapable of creating it ”.
In these conditions the authority alienated from people reaches its extremes. The authority in its alienated form is not the defender of human freedom, but the instrument of violence over people, the mechanism of their submission with all possible means. Power and obediance are of critical importance in any social system and if people do not understand who orders and who subordinates and how everything is accomplished, the situation becomes very difficult. That’s why Publius defines the republican government in the following way: “If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic”.
Publius remarks that  “liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power; that there are numerous instances of the former as well as of the latter; and that the former, rather than the latter, are apparently most to be apprehended by the United States". Publius indicates that the worst enemies of the republican government are plots, intrigues, corruption which must be avoided by all possible means. According to Publius, the source of this evil was the absolutely unjustified desire of foreign states to have influence on a country’s leaders. To avoid this, the Convention took a number of measures of security which were introduced into the Constitution.
The constitution project, which was defended by the federalists, implies the separation of powers according to the scheme offered by Montesquieu. The federalists enlarged the Montesquieu’s scheme and turned it into the effective instrument of political authority. The main reason for separation of powers was the necessity of avoiding possible degeneration of authority into authoritarianism as well as avoiding tyranny and free government where republicanism, federalism and separation of powers are the means of its realization. Thus, the federalists consider that authority should be restricted by means of its separation . “ The legislative, executive, and judiciary powers ought to be kept as separate from, and independent of, each other AS THE NATURE OF A FREE GOVERNMENT WILL ADMIT; OR AS IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT CHAIN OF CONNECTION THAT BINDS THE WHOLE FABRIC OF THE CONSTITUTION IN ONE INDISSOLUBLE BOND OF UNITY AND AMITY. ”
In the Federalists’ political discourse free government becomes the basic intention. According to the Federalists, in order to accomplish the aim of this basic intention, arbitrary authority should be restricted. Such mechanism is the mechanism of general restrictions of the authority in order society to be protected from the violence of the authority: a mechanism of balances and checks, division of the state mechanism between horizontal and vertical parts what ensures the stability of the territorial arrangement of the country.
  The major topics of the discourse of Federalists’ free government comes from the above issue: the quality of citizens’ life, their security, freedom and property.
Owing to the fact that in the Federalists’ discourse the phenomenon of authority is closely connected with coercion and violence, the federalist consider authority as the possibility to impose one’s will on others in spite of resistance. That’s why first of all the criterion for the government should be the quality of citizens’ life, their security, property and freedom. Secondly, while forming the state bodies, the sinfulness of human nature should be taken into consideration. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions”.
A person should be accepted such as he/she is: with his/her positive and negative sides. A person naturally strives for freedom as well as for carnal desires. “Publius” shares Thomas Hobbes’s view that a man is a person who is potentially inclined to evil. That’s why it is necessary to restrict his passions and covetousness . It is a result of a person’s sinful nature that people constantly struggle with each other to accomplish their egotistic intentions. Though, in the hidden layers of the federalists’ discourse this idea is expressed in a different way. A person has his/her function. The only right way of his existence is the choice between good and evil. This is the way of searching for kindness. Following the way of kindness a man will acquire real life in civil as well as political dimension. If the real life does not exist, then every device of the political life has the equal value, i.e. it doesn’t matter what choice we make to achieve our goal. In this case the only thing we have to do is to differentiate what is permitted and what is punishable by law, by society and traditions. Such statements are very conditional and changeable. But the difference between good and evil, just and unjust is much more fundamental than people’s evaluations and viewpoints. The federalists’ moral values have onto-theological bases. Their roots can be found in the order of the nature of things, in Biblical onto-theological cosmogenesis which generated a man and determined for him these limits within the scope of which he can live. There are natural laws of human race. Man is a son of the nature and his essential dimension should necessarily be taken into consideration. “Man is not an angel”, he is a fleshy creature having passions and aspirations. On the other hand, there is a dimension of a man as that of God’s creature who has free will and is able to choose between kind and evil. From this viewpoint, there exists punishment for evil and reward for kindness in the theological layer as well as in the civil space. In the civil space a man’s essential power is given in material and carnal dimension. Inanimate demiurge of this space, of materialism and carnal, makes greater and greater demands of a man which he has to satisfy and becomes its captive. Consequently, the federalists’ attempt taking into consideration a man’s positive and negative sides is an attempt of political arrangement of the civil space.
According to Publius, “the great principle of self-preservation”, also “the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed ” should be deeply understood. While establishing a system of new government, a man’s sinful nature should be taken into consideration. In spite of this, “there are men who could neither be distressed nor won into a sacrifice of their duty; but this stern virtue is the growth of few soils ”. While accomplishing any kind of righteous aim, means should coincide with aims. The federalists have namely a righteous aim – to accomplish free government and political freedom. But a man should accomplish these aims. A man is a man and he can violate a law for his personal benefit. There are even such people who violate a law with evil intentions, especially then when society is corrupted and split into different groups. Then “This position will not be disputed so long as it is admitted that the desire of reward is one of the strongest incentives of human conduct; or that the best security for the fidelity of mankind is to make their interests coincide with their duty. Even the love of fame is the ruling passion of the noblest minds, which would prompt a man to plan and undertake extensive and arduous enterprises for the public benefit  ”. That’s why according to Publius “the aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”
Thus, a public official’s personal interests should be related to the interests of society. “The defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other; that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State. ”. Besides, personal motives should be related to and strengthened by constitutional rights. “The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions ”.
Formation of the authority bodies and appointment o posts should be free from the influence of outside forces and controlled by people. “In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another ”.
Publius considers that society always was divided into “factions”, i.e. groups which defend their specific interests. This is what impedes the accomplishment of free government most of all. If it is so, then how can the lacking  spirit of clannishness be avoided. Hamilton suggested that strong republican government which has strong immunity will manage to control the spirit of faction in relation to human passions and suppress the expected disorder. But Madison thought that the only way to suppress the spirit of faction is that on the one hand, they should be known directly and vividly and on the other hand, their legal interests should be supposed. When any group is given the same legal right as any other, its diversity becomes the guarantee of the security of society. It means that the more groups exist in society the more difficult it is to unite them in one big group which can expose to danger the security of society. Thus, popular government should ensure the equal defense rights of every social group. This latter can serve as a remedy to tyranny of the majority. That’s why the assurance of political and religious variety is the task of the government and society, as  “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority, that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable  ”.
The second level of the restriction of authority which has to contribute to free government is presented in the mechanism of checks and balances . This is the system within which all the branches of the authority maintain the constitutional control between each other. According to the federalists, the constitution should be became foundation of thenew political system. Authority and competence of the governing body and high rank statesmen should be limited by the constitutional norms. They also regulate people’s sovereign right over the supremacy of the authority. “IT MAY be contended, perhaps, that instead of OCCASIONAL appeals to the people, which are liable to the objections urged against them, PERIODICAL appeals are the proper and adequate means of PREVENTING AND CORRECTING INFRACTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION”. This principle should be considered by all representatives of the authority. The constitution should be written in such a way that it could serve as the only remedy to all political diseases that the polity can be sick of.
The theory of bicameral government is a significant element in the mechanism of checks and balances . Its most important thesis is the restriction of the legislative authority. “All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands, is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation, that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one... As little will it avail us, that they are chosen by ourselves. An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others ”.
In one of the branches of the authority the legislative body was suggested to be divided into several parts in order to avoid the dangerous concentration. Practially was suggested the idea of the Parliament of two Houses. “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions ”.
The difference between “different branches” and “two Chambers” should be emphasized. It seems that the federalists deliberately underline the personal will of the branches of the authorities on property  what makes these bodies of the authorities dependent subjects in correlation to the bodies of another authority. Consequently, the division of power requires division of governmental authority not among several groups of people, but among different groups having different interests and motivations. Only on the basis of it the elements of the state machine could manage to restrict each other effectively.
The third element which develops the free government is the federative arrangement of a state.The mechanism of balances and checks is the base of the idea of the American federalism. “In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself ”.
Interference of the federal government in the internal affairs of the States can be accomplished only within the scope of the personal competence and on the basis of the statements of the USA constitution. The States should have significant internal freedom and the constitutional government. “The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for antirepublican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance ”.
Federal government could serve as a guarantee to avoid conflicts and crises. “In cases where it may be doubtful on which side justice lies, what better umpires could be desired by two violent factions, flying to arms, and tearing a State to pieces, than the representatives of confederate States, not heated by the local flame? To the impartiality of judges, they would unite the affection of friends. Happy would it be if such a remedy for its infirmities could be enjoyed by all free governments; if a project equally effectual could be established for the universal peace of mankind! ”.
Everything that the federalists offer seems to be the right remedy to heal our state.
Finally, the idea of freedom is one of the strongest rudimental tools. But human freedom exists only in the place where it is realized, i.e. in the political life world when the idea of freedom is reificated. But if it is not realized in the righteous way or is not conceived in the space of political obligation, it can ruin a man’s consciousness and life what will cause the deformation and distortion of the governmental relations. In this case the authority can “bury” the idea of freedom and substitute it by the elements of humans’ biological self-survival. The idea of democracy and freedom can be turned into the fixed concept or Simulakrum serving the ambitions of the governing body.
According to the Federalists understanding of the idea of political freedom implies free government and various aspects of the political socialization of individuals. It means that this is the area where political freedom is realized. The Federalists often debate about the issue of authority as the latter is the only form that can regulate and keep the political discourse within the civilized framework. Authority either serves nation’s interests and its welfare or expresses the interests of dominated groups of the society. While interpreting the issue of authority, the Federalists logically develop the idea of free government and determine not only the concept of freedom and human rights, but also aspects of founding a civil govermnt.
The inner political responsibility of the Federalists is mixed with the process of political democracy what contributes to revealing their just positions more vividly and also to acknowledging their historical mission (responsibility towards the nation’s future). For democracy, free government and republic acknowledging of political responsibility serves as a segmental matrix on the basis of which the state authority cannot be raised up to the top position. The federalists do not anticipate a miracle from the government . It is just a tool that encourages human’s individual and social self-expression - to create a high level mechanism in order to satisfy people’s requirements as well as to defend their rights. The federalists are well aware of the fact that the highest ideas of humankind can become a nightmare if the government gives the uncontrollable and omnipotent authority full scope. That’s why the federalists address not the utopian social engineering which is in resistance with the multilayer human existence, but the theological anthropology of a human being. A human’s sinful nature and its restriction are transformed in rooting out human passions by the constitution and law also in restricting the authority as the source of human passions. Political freedom and free government are accomplished when the political authority is restricted. 


Copyright © 2008 Grigol Robakidze University
Created by Gr.Robakidze University Design Group