Philosophers (including religious leaders) have been immensely influential in moulding human perceptions of the role of humans in society and their relationship with government.
Philosophers have been influential in the development of the western democratic order. The democratic order has no Marx and Engels. There is no one theory which could be said to constitute its basis. The values and institutions of the tradition are essentially the product of an historical evolution in which philosophers were influential. This is in striking contrast to Marxist and socialist philosophers who believe that they understand the scheme of human interaction, have the answers to complicated human problems and wish to use the police power of the state to impose their ideas on society.
Constitutional developments in Britain and in the United States form the basis of modern constitutionalism, the rule of law and the civil liberties, with the culmination of progressive removal of the arbitrary powers of the Crown. They constitute attempts to place limits on the wide-ranging power of the executive. This was a progressive and evolutionary development. The compromises which were made at various stages in history were responses to grievances and problems which arose in relation to particular and concrete political disputes. They were not based on philosophies, a theory or specific documents.
This is not to deny that writers, theorists and philosophers were not influential. Political and constitutional crises invariably led to pamphleteering and writing. Some of the grievances were fuelled by the pamphlets. The consequent settlements were perhaps influenced by the writings. As S Ratnapala says,
"But the grievances related to felt conditions and the responses were those to which men had been drawn throughout history when faced with arbitrary or despotic government". S Ratnapala, The Constitutional Lawyer and the Protection of Liberty, unpublished paper, p 7.
The significant influence of the Judeo-Christian ethic and moral values is considered in section 8.
The answer requires more of a "common sense" rather than a philosophical approach. "Common sense" is more complex than the crude hunch or so-called intuition. It is a characteristic of the human mind which assimilates countless experiences and suggestions. These experiences and suggestions are so numerous that they cannot be reduced or articulated into explanations. Nevertheless common sense is based on real cumulative experience which the human mind translates into propositions. Intellectuals today dismiss anything that cannot be explained. The truth is that as a consequence of the infinite variability of circumstances, not everything can be explained and articulated by verbal means. This is particularly true in the area of human action and conduct (as distinct from the area of investigation of the scientist). This does not mean that the human mind does not schematise experience and that all opinions which cannot be explained are unfounded in reality. The truth is often the converse. It is for this reason that "common sense" is entitled to respect.
The accumulated experience encapsulating the wisdom and foolishness of the values and institutions of the western tradition provides guidance. The role of philosophers and the importance of common sense are briefly referred to above. The common law — statute law delineation of freedom as well as the basis on which legislative change could legitimately be introduced are relevant in this context. See analysis in section 18.5.