Three Rival Versions of Political Enquiry

Abstract

Johannes Althusius is usually identified as the father of federalism, who was concerned with the division of powers within the sovereign state. The general argument is that Althusius’ federalist principle is the principle of subsidiarity, which states that no higher authority can legitimately claim responsibility for something that a lower authority could do. This paper attempts to show that this vision of Althusius is incorrect. It is here argued that Althusius is not a federalist, sovereignist, or subsidiarity thinker, but that he developed his own alternative to both federalism, sovereignty and subsidiarity. This alternative is known as sphere sovereignty. By presenting sovereignty, subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty as three rival versions of political alternatives, it is shown why Althusius cannot be understood in terms of federalism, sovereignty and subsidiarity. The focus of this paper is therefore on sphere sovereignty, as a key to understanding Althusius.