Creativity and the Political Community

Abstract

I HE EXISTENCE of political communities is a fact. The causes and sources of their origins and demise is beclouded with fantasy as well as fact. Modern behavioural political science in accounting for the emergence of nations tends for the most part to focus upon the analyses of processes at the expense of individual creative efforts. Contemporary studies have ignored or bypassed an important aspect of their intellectual heritage, the tradition of the Law-Giver, the uniquely creative individual. Since that tradition is enigmatic, burdened with overlapping legends, historical accounts and conflicting definitions, its absence from current literature might be excused since it would appear too obscure to be of relevance. Yet, the achievements of a Napoleon, a Nasser, or a Lenin demonstrate that individuals can have an impact on law-giving in reality as well as in mythology. So social scientists should account for them. Since traditional political philosophers have studied the art, if not the science, of the Law-Giver, they could provide a useful point of departure. Their writings are not, however, directly comparable to current studies of emergent communities without a substantial analysis of their content. Therefore this article is devoted to the development of one framework of analysis which should bridge ancient and modern approaches to the rise of political communities. That past and present foci of study may not be mutually exclusive has found currency in the work of C. J. Friedrich. While acknowledging the validity of current emphases on process, he maintains that such preoccupation does not of itself account for the existence of political communities. He advises his readers to distinguish acts of foundation, which give rise to groups, from acts of institution, which establish order.' Thus he offers a means of salvaging the tradition of the Law-Giver from obscurity. He claims that acts of foundation are susceptible to impersonal treatments while acts of institution do establish an arena in which conscious human enterprise may directly contribute.2 This suggests the introduction of three categories of Law-Giver: the hero-founder, the constitution-maker and the codifier. The hero-founder forms a political community from chaos and void while the constitution-maker transforms that community into a political order. The codifier compiles and revises existing laws and practices into a unified coherent body. Initially, we can expect that it is the hero-founder whose efforts have been glorified in fantasy while the less exaulted role of constitution-maker or codifier remain closer to fact and modern usage. With these categories we will explore traditional treatments of the Law-Giver and thereupon undertake a salvage expedition.