Is named subject to that individual who is subject to the authority of a superior and therefore has the obligation to obey him in each of his demands. “The monarch demanded that his subjects accompany him in restoring order to the nation.”
Person who must obey a higher authority or inhabitant with respect to the governing authorities of his territory
And on the other hand, the term is also used to refer to the citizen of a nation x, who as such must submit to the decisions of the political authorities.
“The great weapon in favor of the president is the loquacity with which she manages to win the affection of her subjects.”
Now, we must say that the subject is not a slave, but he must strictly respect the decisions and orders that emanate from his superior, and will only have the rights that the authority grants him without being able to claim anything more than what is gives.
Differences between subject and citizen
To avoid recurring confusion between the terms, it will be necessary to highlight the differences between subject and citizen, because both are not synonymous in any way.
Being a subject implies a legal situation contracted for life by which a person will depend on the state throughout their existence, and with a limited exercise of civil and political rights. On the other hand, the citizen maintains a freer link with the state, since he enjoys various rights, and of course also obligations that his status quo demands.
The French Revolution makes the citizen born and forget the subject who obeyed everything in the Old Regime
After the triumph of the French Revolution, the character of citizen arises and that of subject will be forgotten.
Therefore, it is that the term subject had a more common use in ancient times than today, because not only was there a totally different conception of the state that did so, but also because the rights that human beings had compared to today they were far fewer.
Formerly, the monarch was the maximum head and holder of all the rights of a Nation and the subjects simply objects of it, had not achieved the entity of subjects that would come later thanks to the proclamation of various rights.
This state of affairs just described occurred at the behest of the so-called Old Regime, or monarchical Absolutism, which governed and reigned several European nations from the Middle Ages until the French Revolution, which occurred in 1789, and influenced by the ideas of the movement of the Enlightenment, ended up progressively animating and banishing this political system and would give way to the Republic, democracy and the division of powers, all issues that implied greater individual freedoms and the exit from an oppressive state.
The King, at the behest of monarchical absolutism, concentrated all power in his hands and it was considered that it came directly from the divinity that endorsed it and deposited it in him so that he could govern as he pleased.
As a consequence, they were arbitrary, limiting the individual freedoms of their subjects, especially those who contradicted them, and who, for each case, often had to suffer persecution, imprisonment and even death.
In the specific case of France, inequality reigned in these times, being the classes of the clergy and the nobility who enjoyed privileges and rights, to the absolute detriment of the third state, made up of the rest of the population, who not only suffered oppression but also did not have the possibility of having an opinion or participating in political decisions.
As a consequence, it is that this establishment was the one that most supported the revolutionaries, because of course, it implied coming out of the shadows and exclusion, and power from the implementation of another political system, more democratic, having an adequate participation and how they deserved, balanced, and equal to the rest of the estates.
