MYTHS AND CONCEPTS: Property and the franchise

There is a "political myth" which survives to this day that property owners have a right to the vote which is either better founded than, or exclusive of the franchise of those who do not own property. It is understandable that such an idea arises; this is not, however, evidence that the concept is justified. In the earliest polities, in which personal property does not extend beyond one's personal effects, the right of participation in decision-making and judgment is likely only to attach to adulthood and good standing within the clan, the band, the sept or the tribe. However, with the advent of settled agriculutre, the need arises for a delineation of real property (in the sense of real estate) and chattels-one could hardly expect the husbandman to herd sheep for the benefit of the community in terms of wool and mutton, without assurance of exclusive interest in the livestock. The same notion would apply to raising grain and other food crops.

However, the process then develops a step further. When a war-like band-whether simply of the size of a band of people, or an entire tribe or "nation,"-conquers a settled district of farmers and artisans, those people surviving the process will be made chattels of the new property owners. All real property and chattels are considered to be owned by right of conquest. This is neither an idle nor an abstract consideration. When the Elector of Brandenburg sought to rise to the dignity of King, to be recognized by the Holy Roman Empire as such, he chose to be King of Prussia, as the Hohenzollerns held Prussia by right of conquest, and would not therefore be obliged to the Emperor in any way for the dignity of their position. When the United States stole so much of our current continental possession from Mexico, although there was the fig leaf of payment after the war, we basically claimed what is now known as the Southwest by right of conquest.

All of the evidence now available suggests that the early Keltic and Germanic tribes were egalitarian with regard to their own members. No higher authority existed in most times and places unless dictated by emergency. Within the polity, the members had an equality of status which was very real-Kings or Grafs were chosen to serve in a specified situation, and had no authority beyond that necessary to military undertakings. With the conquest of western Europe, these basic concepts were much mutated. The Roman concept of classes of society dovetailed nicely with the conquest of peoples who were made chattels by the conquerors, and degrees of "nobility" were established within the polity, relative to the amount of property and chattels which had fallen to the lot of any particular member. With an aristocratic hierarchy, and a vast underclass of peasants (who if not actually reduced to slavery were at the least bound to the land owned by another), a notion of political rights in degrees arose as well. At such a time, women who might well have previously enjoyed a parity of rights with men within the polity (for which there is ample textual evidence), were now marginalized, as they rarely would have property acquired by conquest. (Women did participate in war in pre-christian, "barbarian" Europe-but were also exempted from military service if of child-bearing years.) Obviously, the peasant bound to the land had no political rights other than those granted to him or her by a "higher authority."

The custom of seeking legitimacy from the polity as a whole, however, did not fade away entirely, even though greatly enervated by feudalism. Some form of "national assembly" existed within almost every European polity-although usually restricted to the conquering "race," and often "unbalanced" with power concentrating toward the "top of the heap." From such informal institutions of assembly, formal bodies such as Parliament or the Estates Generales derive. With the formalization of such bodies, the notion of the franchise takes on a reality which had been languishing since the times before the age of "barbarian" conquest and the rise of feudalism. Now, however, simple membership in the polity as an adult no longer necessarily qualifies one for the franchise. It is at such a time that the centuries long focus on political right derived from property ownership comes to be considered a criterion for the franchise. The concept can be stated (disingenuously, to my mind) that the property owner has responsibilities which the "propertyless" do not have, and therefore should enjoy political privilege in comparison to these others. Owing to the growth in importance of commerce throughout the middle ages, and its greatly increased importance during the "age of exploration," those with political rights in property is extended to the mercantile class, and the professional classes which derive from that class and occupy the same relative position within the polity. This would be what we would call a middle class-although known to earlier ages simply as the Commons, with the peasants on the land being out of consideration altogether. There were exceptions, of course, the most notable which comes to my mind being the Swedish fourth estate of Bonde, an acknowledgement of the stake which the peasant on the land has in the polity. By and large, however, it continues to be the concept that only property owners have political rights.

Such was the principle in Colonial America as well. There were variations, such as when John Winthrop extended the franchise to all adult males who were members in good standing of a recognized congregation. Largely, however, the franchise continued to rest with those who owned property, and any complaint against such a system would have been met with indignation by those who would likely have replied that as they paid the taxes, they got to make the decisions. This is, in my opinion, a very facile attitude. Those who pay property tax on property which is rented or leased assure that they include the cost of their taxes in the lease or rental fee. The capitalist is sure to emphasize the risks he or she takes, and the many burdens of producing a good or service for sale-a notion which i once again consider facile, in that considerable benefit accrues to the capitalist, and usually directly through the productiveness of hired labor, and at the least indirectly through the purchase of the good or service by hired labor. The propertyless men and women are essential to the success of a capitalist in a consumer economy. All successful economies have been consumer economies, despite the fact being unrecognized until quite recently in history. Underpaid, sweated labor simply assures that the market for the goods or services of the capitalist is much smaller than it otherwise would be, and restricts the circulation of added value and credit. People such as Henry Ford recognized this, the evidence being Ford's determination to produce automobiles for his workers as well as for the "propertied classes." The introduction of "payments on account," to allow the purchase, first of furniture and later of a variety of goods, was also a recognition of the potential of a consumer economy.

And yet, to this day, the notion persists of a special interest in the polity, even to the point of exclusivity, on the part of property owners. When after the American Revolution, the franchise was extended to all adult, white males (not a large franchise by our standards, for obvious reasons to our eyes), it was a political move to co-opt the simmering resentment of veterans, such as Daniel Shays in Massachusetts; and it was, in its times, a very radical broadening of the franchise. In Pennsylvania, the advent of the revolution had lead to the adoption of what was then arguably the most radical constitution of any government then existing. Mostly, however, the extension of a "universal franchise" (as it was considered to be, given the mores of the time), took place after the revolution, when it became clear that such a move was politically expedient. Many people today would still contend that the franchise ought only reside with those who own property. As i have already mentioned, i consider this facile, as it ignores the productive and financial contribution of those who labor in but do not own the vinyard. So i would like to solicit your thoughts on this aspect of political power-is there, can there be, ought there to be a complete equality of potential political involvement among the population of a nation?