   #copyright

Politics

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Politics and government

   The Politics series
     * Consent of the governed
     * Politics by country
     * Political economy
     * Political history
     * Political philosophy
     * Political science

          International relations

                International relations theory

          Political scientists
          Comparative politics

     * Public administration

          Bureaucracy

                Street-level bureaucracy

     * Separation of powers

          Executive
          Judiciary
          Legislature

     * Sovereignty
     * Theories of political behaviour

   Subseries of Politics
     * Elections

          Electoral systems
          Voting

     * Federalism
     * Forms of government
     * Ideology
     * Political campaign
     * Political parties

   Politics Portal

   Politics is the process by which groups make decisions. It is the
   authoritative allocation of values. Although the term is generally
   applied to behaviour 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". In practice, the term refers to the
   regulation and government of a nation-state or other political unit,
   and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply government
   policy.

   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). This form of politics "is
   most associated with a struggle for ascendancy among groups having
   different priorities and power relations."

   Political science (also political studies) is the study of political
   behaviour 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 behaviour, and public
   administration, which examines the practices of governance.

Key political concepts

Government

   A government is the body that has the authority to make and enforce
   rules or laws. Government may be classified in numerous ways; the
   philosopher Plato classified governments into monarchy (the rule of one
   individual), oligarchy (rule by a small elite), timocracy (rule by one
   race or group over another) and democracy (rule by the whole people).

   In more recent times, the distinction between forms of government has
   become more complex; in a constitutional monarchy, for instance, there
   is a monarch as head of state, but actual power is typically held by a
   parliament or legislative assembly of some description. A republic is
   the term usually used to describe nations without a monarchy.

   Likewise, the definition of "democracy" has become less clear in more
   recent times; many nations with widely differing forms of government
   describe themselves as democratic. The North Korean constitution, for
   instance, describes North Korea as a democratic state, but some
   commentators in Western nations have described it as a totalitarian
   dictatorship.

   Dictatorship is a form of government in which unlimited or
   near-unlimited power is held by an individual or group, without
   effective constitutional limitations, who derive their power from
   force, rather than legitimacy. The term is frequently viewed as
   pejorative, and many nations described as "dictatorships" have disputed
   this claim.

Sovereignty

   Sovereignty is the ability of a government to exert control over its
   territory free from outside influence. One commentator highlights the
   difficulty of precisely defining sovereignty, but describes it as
   possessing meanings including "absolute, unlimited control or power",
   "a symbol of political legitimacy", "self-determined national
   independence", and " constitutional order".

Political philosophies

Confucius

   The Chinese philosopher Confucius, who lived from 551 to 479 BCE, was
   one of the first non- Western thinkers to adopt a distinct approach to
   political philosophy. His philosophy, according to one scholar, 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." 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 behaviour 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."

Plato

   The Greek philosopher Plato, 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." 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. 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."

Aristotle

   Aristotle
   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.

   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. 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.

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." It is from Machiavelli that the term Machiavellian is derived,
   refering 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." 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". 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."
   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."

John Locke

   The English philosopher John Locke was "one of the greatest
   philosophers in Europe at the end of the seventeenth century". 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" 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'."

   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". 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." 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" 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". 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." 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".

   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". 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." 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.

   John Stuart Mill
   John Stuart Mill

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 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. One commentator refers to On Liberty as
   "the strongest and most eloquent defense of liberalism that we have."
   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."

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." 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.

   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.

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,
   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", while Hannah Arendt states that "political power
   corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in
   concert." 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. This view has been
   criticised by many as simplistic, notably by the sociologist G. William
   Domhoff, 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.

   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."

Pragmatic view of power

   Samuel Gompers' maxim, often paraphrased as,"Reward your friends and
   punish your enemies," 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 behaviour 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 centre 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.

   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. 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.

   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." 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",
   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.'"
   Likewise, anarchists may be left-wing ( anarcho-syndicalism) or
   right-wing (anarcho-capitalism).

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. 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. 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". 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 behaviour 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" 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.
   Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
