|
MORE POLITICS, THINKERS
Politics is the process
by which groups of people make decisions. It is the authoritative allocation of values. Although the term is generally applied
to behavior within governments, politics is observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious
institutions.
In its most
basic form, politics consists of "social relations involving authority or power".[1] In practice, the term refers to the regulation
and government of a nation-state or other political unit,[2] and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply government
policy.[3]
In a broader
sense, any situation involving power, or any maneouvring in order to enhance one's power or status within a group, may be
described as politics (e.g. office politics).[3] This form of politics "is most associated with a struggle for ascendancy
among groups having different priorities and power relations."[4]
Political
science (also political studies) is the study of political behavior and examines the acquisition and application of power.
Related areas of study include political philosophy, which seeks a rationale for politics and an ethic of public behavior,
and public administration, which examines the practices of governance.
================================
Political
philosophies
Aristotle
In
his book Politics, the Greek philosopher Aristotle asserted that man is, by nature, a political animal. He argued
that ethics and politics are closely linked, and that a truly ethical life can only be lived by someone who participates in
politics.[15]
Like Plato,
Aristotle identified a number of different forms of government, and argued that each "correct" form of government may devolve
into a "deviant" form of government, in which its institutions were corrupted. According to Aristotle, kingship, with one
ruler, devolves into tyranny; aristocracy, with a small group of rulers, devolves into oligarchy; and polity, with collective
rule by many citizens, devolves into democracy.[16] In this sense, Aristotle does not use the word "democracy" in its modern
sense, carrying positive connotations, but in its literal sense of rule by the demos, or common people.[16]
===========================
Niccolo
Machiavelli
In his work
The Prince, the Renaissance Italian political theorist Machiavelli put forward a political worldview which described practical
methods for an absolute ruler to attain and maintain political power. His work is sometimes viewed as rejecting traditional
views of morality for a ruler: "for Machiavelli, there is no moral basis on which to judge the difference between legitimate
and illegitimate uses of power."[17] It is from Machiavelli that the term Machiavellian is derived, referring to an amoral
person who uses manipulative methods to attain power; however, many scholars have questioned this view of Machiavelli's theory,
arguing that "Machiavelli did not invent 'Machiavellism' and may not even have been a 'Machiavellian' in the sense often ascribed
to him."[18] Instead, Machiavelli considered the stability of the state to be the most important goal, and argued that qualities
traditionally considered morally desirable, such as generosity, were undesirable in a ruler and would lead to the loss of
power.
Thomas Hobbes
In 1651,
Thomas Hobbes published his most famous work, Leviathan, in which he proposed a model of early human development to justify
the creation of polities, i.e. governed bodies. Hobbes described an ideal state of nature wherein every person had equal right
to every resource in nature and was free to use any means to acquire those resources. He claimed that such an arrangement
created a “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes). The book has been interpreted by scholars as
posing two "stark alternatives"; total obedience to an absolute ruler, or "a state of nature, which closely resembles civil
war...where all have reason to fear a violent death".[19] Hobbes' view can therefore be interpreted as a defense of absolutism,
arguing that human beings enter into a social contract for their protection and agree to obey the dictates of the sovereign;
in Hobbes' worldview, "the sovereign is nothing more than the personal embodiment of orderly government."[20] Hobbes himself
argued "The final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others) in the introduction
of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation,
and of a more contented life thereby."[21]
John Locke
The English
philosopher John Locke was "one of the greatest philosophers in Europe at the end of the seventeenth century".[22] His political
philosophy is contained primarily in his Two Treatises of Government. In the First Treatise of Government, Locke refutes the
theory of the Divine Right of Kings as put forward by Robert Filmer; he "minutely examines key Biblical passages"[23] and
concludes that absolute monarchy is not supported by Christian theology. "Locke singles out Filmer's contention that men are
not 'naturally free' as the key issue, for that is the 'ground'...on which Filmer erects his argument for the claim that all
'legitimate' government is 'absolute monarchy'."[23]
In the Second
Treatise of Government, Locke examines the concept of the social contract put forward by other theorists such as Thomas Hobbes,
but reaches a different conclusion. Although he agreed with Hobbes on the concept of a state of nature before existing forms
of government arose, he challenged Hobbes' view that the state of nature was equivalent to a state of war, instead arguing
that there were certain natural rights belonging to all human beings, which continued even after a political authority was
established. "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone...being all equal and independent,
no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, health or possessions".[24] According to one scholar, the basis of Locke's
thought in the Second Treatise is that "contract or consent is the ground of government and fixes its limits...behind [this]
doctrine lies the idea of the independence of the individual person."[25] In other words, Locke's view was different from
Hobbes' in that he interpreted the idea of the "state of nature" differently, and he argued that people's natural rights were
not necessarily eliminated by their consent to be governed by a political authority.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The 18th
century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his book The Social Contract, put forward a system of political thought
which was closely related to those of Hobbes and Locke, but different in important respects. In the opening sentence of the
book, Rousseau argued that "...man was born free, but he is everywhere in chains"[26] He defined political authority and legitimacy
as stemming from the "general will", or volonté generale; for Rousseau, "true Sovereignty is directed always at the public
good".[27] This concept of the general will implicitly "allows for individual diversity and freedom...[but] also encourages
the well-being of the whole, and therefore can conflict with the particular interests of individuals."[27] As such, Rousseau
also argues that the people may need a "lawgiver" to draw up a constitution and system of laws, because the general will,
"while always morally sound, is sometimes mistaken".[26]
Rousseau's
thought has been seen by some scholars as contradictory and inconsistent, and as not addressing the fundamental contradiction
between individual freedom and subordination to the needs of society, "the tension that seems to exist between liberalism
and communitarianism".[27] As one Catholic scholar argues, "that it [The Social Contract] contains serious contradictions
is undeniable...its fundamental principles--the origin of society, absolute freedom and absolute equality of all--are false
and unnatural."[28] The Catholic Encyclopedia further argues that Rousseau's concept of the general will would inevitably
lead to "the suppression of personality, the reign of force and caprice, the tyranny of the multitude, the despotism of the
crowd", i.e. the subordination of the individual to society as a whole.[28]
===================================
Karl
Marx
Karl Marx
was among the most influential political philosophers of history. His theories, collectively termed Marxism, were critical
of capitalism and argued that in the due course of history, there would be an "inevitable breakdown of capitalism for economic
reasons, to be replaced by communism."[32] He defined history in terms of the class struggle between the bourgeoisie, or property-owning
classes, and the proletariat, or workers, a struggle intensified by industrialisation: "The development of Modern Industry,
therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What
the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are
equally inevitable.[33]
Many subsequent
political movements have based themselves on Marx's thought, offering widely differing interpretations of communism; these
include Marxism-Leninism, Maoism and libertarian Marxism. Possibly the most influential interpreter of Marxist theory was
Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union, who created a revolutionary theory founded on Marxist thinking. However, libertarian Marxist
thinkers have challenged Lenin's interpretation of Marx; Cornelius Castoriadis, for instance, described the Soviet Union's
system as a form of "bureaucratic capitalism" rather than true communism.[34]
Other philosophers
There are
numerous other notable philosophers and political theorists who have influenced the development of contemporary political
thought, among them Thomas Jefferson (whose political theories were central to the foundations of the American system of government),
Edmund Burke, Ayn Rand, Baruch Spinoza, the Baron de Montesquieu, Thomas Paine, Jeremy Bentham and David Hume.
===================================
Political
power
Power is
a concept that is central to politics. Max Weber defined power as the ability to impose one's will "even in the face of opposition
from others",[35] while Hannah Arendt states that "political power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to
act in concert."[36] Many different views of political power have been proposed.
The multiple
notions of political power that are put forth range from conventional views that simply revolve around the actions of politicians
to those who view political power as an insidious form of institutionalized social control - most notably "anarchists" and
"radical capitalists". The main views of political power revolve around normative, post-modern, and pragmatic perspectives.
Normative faces of power debate
The faces
of power debate has coalesced into a viable conception of three dimensions of power including decision-making, agenda-setting,
and preference-shaping. The decision-making dimension was first put forth by Robert Dahl, who advocated the notion that political
power is based in the formal political arena and is measured through voting patterns and the decisions made by politicians.[37]
This view has been criticised by many as simplistic, notably by the sociologist G. William Domhoff,[38] who argues that political
and economic power is monopolised by the "elite classes".
A second
dimension to the notion of political power was added by academics Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz involving "agenda-setting".
Bachrach and Baratz viewed power as involving both the formal political arena and behind the scenes agenda-setting by elite
groups who could be either politicians and/or others (such as industrialists, campaign contributors, special interest groups
and so on), often with a hidden agenda that most of the public may not be aware of. The third dimension of power was added
by British academic Steven Lukes who felt that even with this second dimension, some other traits of political power needed
to be addressed through the concept of 'preference-shaping'. Lukes developed the concept of the "Three faces of power" - decision-making
power, non-decision-making power, and ideological power.[39]
This third
dimension is inspired by many Neo-Gramscian views such as cultural hegemony and deals with how civil society and the general
public have their preferences shaped for them by those in power through the use of propaganda or the media. Ultimately, this
third dimension holds that the general public may not be aware of what decisions are actually in their interest due to the
invisible power of elites who work to distort their perceptions. Critics of this view claim that such notions are themselves
elitist, which Lukes then clearly admits as one problem of this view and yet clarifies that as long as those who make claims
that preferences are being shaped explain their own interests etc., there is room for more transparency.
Postmodern challenge of normative views of power
Some within
the postmodern and post-structuralist field claim that power is something that is not in the hands of the few and is rather
dispersed throughout society in various ways. As one academic writes, "...postmodernists have argued that due to a variety
of inherent biases in the standards by which ”valid“ knowledge has been evaluated...modernist science has tended
to reproduce ideological justifications for the perpetuation of long-standing forms of inequality. Thus, it is the strategy
of postmodern science...to identify and, thereby, attack the ”deceiving“ power of universalizing scientific epistemologies."[40]
Pragmatic view of power
Samuel Gompers'
maxim, often paraphrased as,"Reward your friends and punish your enemies,"[41] hints at two of the five types of power recognized
by social psychologists: incentive power (the power to reward) and coercive power (the power to punish). Arguably the other
three grow out of these two.
Legitimate
power, the power of the policeman or the referee, is the power given to an individual by a recognized authority to enforce
standards of behavior. Legitimate power is similar to coercive power in that unacceptable behavior is punished by fine or
penalty.
Referent
power is bestowed upon individuals by virtue of accomplishment or attitude. Fulfillment of the desire to feel similar to a
celebrity or a hero is the reward for obedience. This is an example of incentive power as one rewards oneself.
Expert power
springs from education or experience. Following the lead of an experienced coach is often rewarded with success. Expert power
is conditional to the circumstances. A brain surgeon is no help when pipes are leaking.
Political
spectra
Left-Right
politics
Most political analysts and politicians divide politics into left wing and right wing politics, often also
using the idea of center politics as a middle path of policy between the right and left. This classification is comparatively
recent (it was not used by Aristotle or Hobbes, for instance), and dates from the French Revolution era, when those members
of the National Assembly who opposed the monarchy sat on the left, while those who supported it sat on the right.[42]
The meaning
of left-wing and right-wing varies considerably between different countries and at different times, but broadly speaking,
it can be said that the right wing is often linked to moral and social conservatism, law and order, and religion, while the
left wing is often linked with redistribution of wealth and resources towards the poorer or less successful sections of society
(which are generally perceived by the left as unfairly disadvantaged), and with secularism.[43] The right wing is more often
linked to the idea of social equity, and the left wing to the idea of social equality.
According
to Norberto Bobbio, one of the major exponents of this distinction, the Left believes in attempting to eradicate social inequality,
while the Right regards most social inequality as the result of ineradicable natural inequalities, and sees attempts to enforce
social equality as utopian or authoritarian.[44]
Some ideologies,
notably Christian Democracy, claim to combine left and right wing politics; according to Geoffrey K. Roberts and Patricia
Hogwood, "In terms of ideology, Christian Democracy has incorporated many of the views held by liberals, conservatives and
socialists within a wider framework of moral and Christian principles."[45] Movements which claim or formerly claimed to be
above the left-right divide include Gaullism in France, Peronism in Argentina, and National Action Politics in Mexico.
Authoritarian-Libertarian
While left
and right refer to different methods of developing an economically stable and just society, authoritarianism and libertarianism
refer to the amount of individual freedom each person possesses in that society relative to the state. One author describes
authoritarian political systems as those where "individual rights and goals are subjugated to group goals, expectations and
conformities",[46] while a libertarian political system is one in which individual rights and civil liberties are paramount.
More extreme than libertarians are anarchists, who argue for the total abolition of government, while the most extreme authoritarians
are totalitarians who support state control over all aspects of society.
Authoritarianism
and libertarianism are separate concepts from the left-right political axis. For instance, classical liberalism and contemporary
American libertarianism are socially liberal, but reject extensive governmental intervention in the economy and welfare. According
to the libertarian Institute for Humane Studies, "the libertarian, or 'classical liberal,' perspective is that individual
well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by 'as much liberty as possible' and 'as little government as necessary.'"[47]
Likewise, anarchists may be left-wing (anarcho-syndicalism) or right-wing (anarcho-capitalism).
Authority and legitimacy
Tripartite
classification of authority
Authority,
in a political sense, is different from political power in that it implies legitimacy and acceptance; it implies that the
person or state exercising power has a perceived right to do so.[48] Legitimacy is an attribute of government gained through
the acquisition and application of power in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles.
Max Weber identified three sources of legitimacy for authority, known as the tripartite classification of authority.[35]
He proposed three reasons why people follow the orders of those who give them:
Traditional
authority
Traditional authorities receive loyalty because they continue and support the preservation of existing values,
the status quo. Weber called this "the authority of the eternal yesterday".[35]Patriarchal (and more rarely matriarchal) societies
gave rise to hereditary monarchies where authority was given to descendants of previous leaders. Followers submit to this
authority because "we've always done it that way." Examples of traditional authoritarians include absolute monarchs.
Charismatic
authority
Charismatic authority grows out of the personal charm or the strength of an individual personality (see cult
of personality for the most extreme version). Charismatic regimes are often short-lived, seldom outliving the charismatic
figure that leads them. For a charismatic regime to survive the rule of the individual personality, it must transform its
legitimacy into a different form of authority. An example of this would be Augustus' efforts to create the position of the
Roman principate and establish a ruling dynasty, which could be viewed as a shift to a traditional form of authority, in the
form of the principate that would exist in Rome for more than 400 years after his death.
Legal-rational
authority
Legal-rational authorities receive their ability to compel behavior by virtue of the office that they hold. It
is the authority that demands obedience to the office rather than the office holder; Weber identified "rationally-created
rules"[35] as the central feature of this form of authority. Modern democracies are examples of legal-rational regimes. People
also abide by legal-rational authority because it makes sense to do so for their own good, as well as for the greater good
of society.
These three
forms of authority are said to appear in a "hierarchical development order"; states progress from charismatic authority, to
traditional authority, and finally reach the state of rational-legal authority which is characteristic of a modern liberal
democracy.
====================================================================================================
NOTES
politics
from die.net
^ http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=303454
^ a b Definition
of politics from "The Free Dictionary"
^ Rajan, Chella. "Global Politics and Institutions". Frontiers of a Great Transistion.
Vol. 3. Tellus Institute, 2006.
^ Political Analysis in Plato's Republic at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^
Constitution of North Korea on Wikisource
^ Freedom in the World 2006 at freedomhouse.org
^ Dictatorship at the Encyclopedia
Britannica
^ http://www.law.ufl.edu/faculty/publications/pdf/sov.pdf Nagan, Winston
and Hammer, Craig, Sovereignty in International Law and International Relations, University of Florida
^ Confucius on
Politics at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^ Lunyu 12.11, The Analects of Confucius (available in English here)
^ p113, Plato, The Republic, translated by Desmond Lee, 1955, Penguin Classics, ISBN 0-140-44914-0
^ Totalitarianism
in Plato's Republic at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^ Communism in The Republic at the Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy]
^ Aristotle's Politics at The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^ a b Aristotle's views on politics
at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^ Machiavelli's The Prince at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^
Niccolo Machiavelli at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^ Thomas Hobbes at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
^ Thomas Hobbes at Britannica's Philosophy Pages
^ Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan (available online here)
^ Historical
Background to John Locke's life at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^ a b John Locke's Two Treatises of Government
at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^ Locke, John, Second Treatise of Government
^ John Locke's Two Treatises
of Government at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^ a b Jean-Jacques Rousseau at the Encyclopedia Britannica online
^ a b c The Social Contract at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^ a b The Social Contract at the Catholic Encyclopedia
^ p11, Tansey, Stephen J., Politics: The Basics, 1995, London, ISBN 0-145-19199-8
^ a b Social and Political Philosophy
of John Stuart Mill at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^ p229, Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, ISBN 1-59986-973-X
(also available online here
^ Karl Marx at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^ Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1848),
The Communist Manifesto
^ The Strange Afterlife of Cornelius Castoriadis by Scott McLemee, Chronicle of Higher Education,
March 26, 2004.
^ a b c d Weber, Max,Politics as a Vocation
^ * Arendt, Hannah; On Violence 1970, A Harvest Book
^
Dahl, Robert A., Who Governs? : Democracy and Power in the American City, (Yale University Press, 1961)
^ Domhoff, G.
William, Who Really Ruled in Dahl's New Haven?
^ Lukes, Steven, Power: a Radical View, Macmillan, (1974)
^ McGettigan,
Timothy,[http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/mcgettigan.html Redefining Reality: Epiphany as a Standard of Postmodern
Truth], Electronic Journal of Sociology
^ Gompers, Samuel, “Men of Labor! Be Up and Doing,” editorial, American
Federationist, May 1906, p. 319
^ The Architecture of Parliaments: Legislative Houses and Political Culture Charles T.
Goodsell British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1988), pp. 287-302
^ p73 Tansey, Stephen J., Politics:
The Basics, 2000, London, ISBN 0-415-19199-8
^ Bobbio, Norberto, "Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction"
(translated by Allan Cameron), 1997, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226062465
^ Roberts and Hogwood, European Politics
Today, Manchester University Press, 1997
^ Markus Kemmelmeier et al. (2003). "Individualism, Collectivism, and Authoritarianism
in Seven Societies". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 34 (3): 304-322. DOI:10.1177/0022022103034003005.
^ What
Is Libertarian?, Institute for Humane Studies
^ "Authority" at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
=================================================
Copyright
© 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
