|
Politics is the
process by which groups of people make decisions. Although
the term is generally applied to behavior within civil
governments, politics is observed in all human group
interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious
institutions. |
Politics consists of "social relations involving
authority or power"[1] and refers to the regulation
of a political unit, [2] and to the methods and tactics
used to formulate and apply policy.[3]
|
|
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
Power |
| Max Weber defined
power as the ability to impose one's will "even in
the face of opposition from others",[4] while Hannah
Arendt states that "political power corresponds to
the human ability not just to act but to act in concert."[5]. |
| Pragmatic
view of power |
| Samuel Gompers'
maxim, often paraphrased as,"Reward your friends
and punish your enemies,"[6] 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. A policeman
has no power outside his own jurisdiction. |
| 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. Power is conditional to the circumstances.
A brain surgeon may not be of any help when there are
pipes leaking. |
| Authority
and legitimacy |
| 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.[7] 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.[4]
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".[4]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"[4]
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. |
| Sovereignty |
| Sovereignty is
the ability of a government to exert control over its
sphere of influence free from outside interference. Politics |
| Confucius |
| The Chinese philosopher
Confucius(551-471 BCE) was one of the first thinkers to
adopt a distinct approach to political philosophy. His
philosophy was "rooted in his belief that a ruler
should learn self-discipline, should govern his subjects
by his own example, and should treat them with love and
concern."[8] His political beliefs were strongly
linked to personal ethics and morality, believing that
only a morally upright ruler who possessed "de",
or virtue, should be able to exercise power, and that
the behavior of an individual ought to be consistent with
their rank in society. He stated that "Good government
consists in the ruler being a ruler, the minister being
a minister, the father being a father, and the son being
a son."[9] |
| Plato |
| The Greek philosopher
Plato(428-328 BC), in his book The Republic, argued that
all conventional political systems (democracy, monarchy,
oligarchy and timarchy) were inherently corrupt, and that
the state ought to be governed by an elite class of educated
philosopher-rulers, who would be trained from birth and
selected on the basis of aptitude: "those who have
the greatest skill in watching over the community."[10]
This has been characterised as authoritarian and elitist
by some later scholars, notably Karl Popper in his book
The Open Society and its Enemies, who described Plato's
schemes as essentially totalitarian and criticised his
apparent advocacy of censorship.[11] The Republic has
also been labelled as communist, due to its advocacy of
abolishing private property and the family among the ruling
classes; however, this view has been discounted by many
scholars, as there are implications in the text that this
will extend only to the ruling classes, and that ordinary
citizens "will have enough private property to make
the regulation of wealth and poverty a concern."[12] |
| Aristotle |
| In his book Politics,
the Greek philosopher Aristotle(384–322BC) 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.[13] |
| 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.[14]
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.[14] A more accurate view of Aristotle denouncing
democracy was that it was described as mob rule, or
ochlocracy. |
| Niccolò
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."[15]
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."[16]
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. Critics of Machiavelli have often pointed out
his works were studied and put into practice by leaders
such as Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Benito Mussolini, and
Adolf Hitler, who all argued their brutal programs were
needed for security of the state just as Machiavelli recommended.
|
| 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".[17]
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."[18] 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."[19] |
| John
Locke |
| The English philosopher
John Locke was "one of the greatest philosophers
in Europe at the end of the seventeenth century".[20]
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"[21] 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'."[21] |
| 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".[22]
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."[23] 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"[24]
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".[25] 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."[25] 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".[24] |
| 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".[25]
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."[26] 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.[26] |
| John
Stuart Mill |
| In the 19th century,
John Stuart Mill pioneered the liberal conception of politics.
He saw democracy as the major political development of
his era[27] and, in his book On Liberty, advocated stronger
protection for individual rights against government and
the rule of the majority. He argued that liberty was the
most important right of human beings, and that the only
just cause for interfering with the liberty of another
person was self-protection.[28] One commentator refers
to On Liberty as "the strongest and most eloquent
defense of liberalism that we have."[28] Mill also
emphasised the importance of freedom of speech, claiming
that "we can never be sure that the opinion we are
attempting to stifle is a false opinion, and if we were
sure, stifling it would be an evil still."[29] |
| 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."[30]
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.[31] Utopia for Marx was the classless society
in which the state and the church would be very weak or
nonexistent. The workers ultimately would own the means
of production, state ownership would be a mere transition
period, therefore the people would be free. Because the
state as Marx knew it would practically disappear over
time, there would be no need for borders so individuals
would be free to move from nation to nation without prosecution.
This latter idea of internationalism is the direct opposition
to the Nazi utopia of the pure race and national socialism.
Although Marxism is mostly associated with the Soviet
Union for obvious reasons, one may also see in the European
Union many but not all of Marx's ideas such as universal
health care, open border and the free movement of people,
and less economic inequality. |
| 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.[32] |
| 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.[33] This view has been
criticised by many as simplistic, notably by the sociologist
G. William Domhoff,[34] 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.[35] |
| 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."[36] |
| 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.[37] |
| 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.[38] 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.[39] |
| 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."[40]
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, [citation needed] 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",[41]
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.'"[42]
Likewise, anarchists may be left-wing (anarcho-syndicalism)
or right-wing (anarcho-capitalism). |
| 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. |
|
|
|
