Hobbes versus Madison and Isaacs versus Baker: Contrary Theories and Practices in Australian Democracy

In his landmark work The Political Theory of a Compound Republic,* 1 the American political scientist Vincent Ostrom identified two theories of government which have contended in the intellectual and political history of modem civilisation. The first theory Ostrom associated with the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, although it can be traced back to ancient times. This is the idea that sovereignty is indivisible, and that in every state there must be some person or body in possession of the ultimate, final and overriding power. That repository of sovereignty may be the whole people gathered together, as in an Athenian democracy, or a representative assembly, or a king; but sovereignty must exist somewhere in the state and somebody must possess it, otherwise there is no government. The other theory Ostrom identified with the American founder James Madison, although again it is a theory with a very ancient lineage. This is the theory of countervailing power. It holds that the establishment of a system of government does indeed require that power be conferred on persons or bodies, but also holds that those persons or bodies will turn their powers to unexpected ends and abuse them unless they are subject to limitations and constraints. To vest all power in the whole people, as in an Athenian democracy, merely transfers and enlarges the problem. To give the people control over the government through the medium of election is not sufficient, because majorities can abuse their powers as well as kings. The way to guard against this is to confer different powers on different persons or bodies and set them to check and balance each other. It is not necessary to give supreme power to anybody. These differing ideas of government affect the way in which systems of government work, as people who follow the two theories of power attempt to put