The levellers and democracy: an examination of Leveller notions of constitutional limitations, their implications for democratic theory and their relationship to mixed government theory in the first half of the seventeenth century

Abstract

This thesis sets out to examine Leveller notions of constitutional limitations, their implications for democratic theory and their relationship to mixed government theory in the first half of the seventeenth century. The aim is to resolve the once vehemently contested issues of Leveller democracy and the franchise question, and to determine where the Levellers belong in the history of political ideas. The Levellers emerge from this investigation as genuine republican democrats, proponents of a new, alternative tradition of rural republican thought as distinct from that tradition of thought involving urban classical republican theories on mixed government. Two vital errors in interpretation were evident in the MacPherson debate of the 1960's. Neither was detected, and the result was confusion. Manhood suffrage, as a standard of democracy by which to judge the Levellers, was a culturally, chronologically, and historically determined concept incapable of universal application and prone to anachronism. The Levellers' proposed franchise was also misinterpreted, its nature and extent having been determined upon an extremely incomplete picture of the proposed categories of exclusion. Professor MacPherson's thesis, that the Levellers were not democrats on the grounds that they had advocated a franchise more exclusive than that of manhood suffrage, had not been proved. A case for Leveller democracy was still wide open. This particular case depends upon the Levellers' ability to satisfy the requirements implicit in the two related principles of rule by and for the many from amongst the citizens. Here is an incontrovertible standard of democracy sufficiently flexible to be capable of a wide variety of specific applications without anachronism. The Levellers are seen as proponents of a republican form of government in which the many from amongst the citizens play an active participatory role in ruling themselves in the governing process. Having rejected the mixed balanced constitution as a traditional form of check against the rule of the many degenerating into anarchy, the Levellers are faced with the problem of providing alternative checks as a means of stabilising the rule of the many in the interests of the republic and the common good. One vital Leveller constitutional check is provided by the notion of citizenship as determined by the highly exclusive nature and extent of their proposed franchise which, in effect, gave political rights only to those men of proven republican conviction and possessed of a demonstrated capacity for self-rule. Citizenship was reinforced by additional constitutional checks in the form of annual Parliaments, rotation of office, election of all officials, recall of members, reserve rights, and the decentralisation of governing authority. The most significant feature of these alternative constitutional limitations is that while they are successful in stabilising the rule of the many they can be seen to do so with no apparent sacrifice to the vital notion of active self-ruling citizen participation in the governing process. Outside the traditional context of the mixed governing forms, the Levellers are seen to resolve successfully the problem of the danger of corruption into anarchy implicit within the nature of rule by the many in such a manner as to fully satisfy the requirements of our standard of democracy. They can also be seen as proponents of an alternative tradition of republican thought to that of classical republican ideas on mixed government. Apparently ignorant or indifferent to that assumed tradition of classical republican thought in early seventeenth century England in its mixed Monarchy form, the Levellers are seen as the architects of genuine English rural republicanism in line with democratic theory. This brings into question the practical relevance of urban classical republican theories on government to genuine republican thought in England's rural political setting in the early seventeenth century. It also brings into question J.G.A. Pocock's assumptions concerning James Harrington. While Harrington aspired to be a classical republican adhering to the traditional principles of mixed government and the balanced constitution, he failed to satisfy the requirements of this standard of democracy. It is true that classical republican theory on mixed government had a profound influence upon English political thought in the early seventeenth century, exemplified by James Harrington. It is equally true that classical republicanism was unable to function in a genuine republican democratic sense, in the context of England's rural political society. Contrary to Pocock's assertions, it is the Levellers, not Harrington, who are England's first genuine republican democrats. It is significant that they did not belong to that tradition of classical republican thought involving the principles of mixed government but, instead, recognised the need to provide alternative forms of constitutional limitations specifically designed to function in the context of a rural republican environment.