Here is another example of how an idea, born in one set of conditions, turns into something incoherent and even practically opposite in meaning when placed in different conditions.
I think everyone has heard of the sovereignty of the people, that it is the source of power and so on. This idea lies at the very foundation of modern democracy. However, if one recalls its origins, many questions immediately arise—and with them, answers. The thing is that (not counting the Romans) in its practical form, the idea of people’s sovereignty manifested itself among the English Levellers during the revolution and civil war of the 17th century. Prior to this time, the question was more of a theological nature (which, in those times, was almost equivalent to political). The essence of the problem lay in the divine origin of the king’s power. Revolutionaries, inspired by certain theologians, argued that political power has its source in the people, not in God. That is, the idea of people’s sovereignty is an opposition to the idea of the divine right of the king; it arose from monarchical practice and is inseparably linked to it. It is a product of the political situation of 17th-century England, an ideological, political, and polemical device used in the struggle against monarchy. Not the king, but the people is the sovereign—this is the essence of the idea. For such polemics, the level of generalization of “the people” is quite acceptable, because at this stage the discussion is simply about replacing single-handed, uncontrolled rule with collective elective rule.
The United States brought the English revolution to its logical conclusion and wrote in their constitution “we, the people…” However, in the absence of opposition in the form of a “divine” monarchy, the idea of people’s sovereignty immediately began to “sag.” Who is this people? Where can they be seen, and how can they practically exercise their right as sovereign? Very well, in English “people” means rather “people,” that is, simply a collection of individuals. But once it arrived in our parts, where “the people” is conceived of as some kind of unified monolith, the idea gained a new and terrible life, manifesting itself in some sense in Russian Bolshevism.
Today the theory of “people’s sovereignty” is the main ideological foundation, the main justification for the existence of the modern type of state and the omnipotence of bureaucracy. However, I think it is clear to everyone that the sovereignty of the people is a fiction. If the people is some kind of whole, then their opinion can only be the consensus of the individuals comprising it. If there is no consensus, then it is the opinion of a part of the people and, consequently, has no legitimate force. I am not even mentioning the fact that formulating questions for the people, establishing procedures, and so on will always be done by comrade bureaucrats. All told, the Levellers fell a bit short, though it is hard to blame them for it. Among the thinkers of that era, Locke had already nearly formulated the following idea—individual sovereignty. And the Levellers themselves, it seems, did not conceive of the people as some kind of whole, but, I repeat, as a set of individuals. There may be another circumstance at play here. As a political slogan of the moment, “sovereignty of the king versus sovereignty of the individual,” would not have “worked.” A sole ruler and certainly a caprice-driven king who has stolen sovereignty from an entire people—that is powerful rhetoric. But one individual, even if a royal one, against another—who among them is still worse is unknown. They were waging war over there, and we here are still sorting through the mess…