How to Evaluate a Government: Criteria & Philosophy

The Question of Legitimacy

The first criterion for evaluating a government is legitimacy. A legitimate government is one that has the right to rule — that is, the moral authority to make laws and to enforce compliance with them. The question of legitimacy is distinct from the question of effectiveness. A government may be effective at maintaining order and promoting prosperity but still lack legitimacy if it rules without the consent of the governed.

John Locke argued that legitimate government is based on the consent of the governed. In Two Treatises of Government (1689), Locke argued that individuals in the state of nature are free and equal, and that they consent to political authority in order to protect their natural rights to life, liberty, and property. A government that violates these rights — that rules arbitrarily or without the consent of the people — loses its legitimacy and may be rightfully overthrown.

The Criterion of Justice

The second criterion for evaluating a government is justice. John Rawls provided the most influential contemporary account of justice in A Theory of Justice (1971). Rawls argued that a just society is one that would be chosen by free and equal persons under fair conditions — behind a "veil of ignorance" where they do not know their social position, talents, or conception of the good.

Rawls's two principles of justice provide a framework for evaluating governments: first, each person has an equal right to the most extensive scheme of basic liberties; second, social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and attached to positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

The Criterion of Freedom

The third criterion is freedom. A government should be evaluated by the extent to which it protects and promotes the freedom of its citizens. Isaiah Berlin distinguished between negative liberty (freedom from interference) and positive liberty (freedom to act on one's own choices). A good government must protect both forms of freedom.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that legitimate government must be based on the general will — the collective will of citizens who are governed by laws they have given to themselves. On Rousseau's view, freedom is not the absence of constraint but obedience to laws that one has prescribed to oneself.

The Criterion of Well-Being

The fourth criterion is the well-being of citizens. Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum have argued that governments should be evaluated by their success in expanding the capabilities of citizens — what people are actually able to do and be. The capability approach shifts the focus from resources and utilities to the actual opportunities that people have to live flourishing lives.

The Criterion of Security

The fifth criterion is security. Thomas Hobbes argued that the primary purpose of government is to provide security against the violence and chaos of the state of nature. A government that cannot provide basic security for its citizens fails in its most fundamental function. However, security must be balanced against other values — a government that provides security at the expense of all other values is a tyranny.

A Comprehensive Framework

A comprehensive evaluation of a government must consider all of these criteria. A good government is legitimate (it rules with the consent of the governed), just (it treats citizens fairly), free (it protects individual liberty), prosperous (it promotes the well-being of citizens), and secure (it provides protection against violence and threats). The challenge is to balance these sometimes competing values and to recognize that different societies may need to balance them in different ways.