INTRODUCTION
Political ideas is a certain ethical
set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, and or large group
that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural
blueprint for a certain social order. A political ideology largely concerns
itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it
should be used. Some parties follow a certain ideology very closely, while
others may take broad inspiration from a group of related ideologies without
specifically embracing any one of them. The popularity of an ideology is in
part due to the influence of moral entrepreneurs, who sometimes act in
their own interests. Political ideology and political action committee are in a
form related Political ideas have two dimensions:
- Goals: How society should be organized.
- Methods: The most appropriate way to achieve this goal.
An ideology is a collection of ideas.
Typically, each ideology contains certain ideas on what it considers to be the
best form of government (e.g. democracy, autocracy, etc.), and the best
economic system (e.g. capitalism, socialism, etc.). Sometimes
the same word is used to identify both an ideology and one of its main ideas.
For instance, "socialism" may refer to an economic system, or it may
refer to an ideology which supports that economic system.
Ideologies also identify themselves by
their position on the political spectrum (such as the left, the centre or the right), though this is
very often controversial. Finally, ideologies can be distinguished from
political strategies (e.g. populism) and from single
issues that a party may be built around (e.g. opposition to European integration or the legalization
of marijuana).
The following list attempts to divide
the ideologies found in practical political life into a number of groups; each
group contains ideologies that are related to each other. The headers refer to
names of the best-known ideologies in each group. The names of the headers do
not necessarily imply some hierarchical order or that one ideology evolved out
of the other. They are merely noting the fact that the ideologies in question
are practically, historically and ideologically related to each other. Note
that one ideology can belong to several groups, and there is sometimes considerable
overlap between related ideologies. Also, keep in mind that the meaning of a
political label can differ between countries and that parties often subscribe
to a combination of ideologies.
The list is strictly alphabetical.
Thus, placing one ideology before another does not imply that the first is more
important or popular than the second.
The five major
political ideologies have played a key role in history by shaping governments
and political movements.
Anarchism
The belief that the best government is
absolutely no government is known as anarchism. This ideology argues
that everything about governments is repressive and therefore must be abolished
entirely. A related ideology known as nihilism emphasizes that everything—both
government and society—must be periodically destroyed in order to start anew.
Nihilists often categorically reject traditional concepts of morality in favor
of violence and terror. Anarchism and nihilism were once associated with
socialism because many anarchists and nihilists supported the socialists’ call
for revolution and the complete overhaul of government and society in the early
to mid-twentieth century.
Traditionally,
much of Western civilization’s history was dominated by absolutism, the
belief that a single ruler should have control over every aspect of the
government and of the people’s lives. Absolute rulers had a variety of titles,
including chieftain, king, shah, pharaoh, emperor, sultan, and
prince. In some cultures, the absolute ruler was seen as a god in human
form. Other peoples believed that their ruler had the divine right of kings,
meaning that God had chosen the ruler to govern the rest. As a result, many
cultures with absolute rulers practiced some form of caesaropapism, the
belief that the ruler is head of both the governmental authority and the
religious authority.
Example:
In the Byzantine
Empire, the double-headed eagle symbolized caesaropapism. The two heads stood
for church and state. This symbol clearly and graphically portrayed the unity
of religious and secular power in one person.
Advocates
of Absolutism
A
number of political philosophers have advocated absolutism. The Greek
philosopher Plato, for example, firmly believed that the best government would
be run by a benevolent absolute ruler who would have the people’s best
interests at heart. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, meanwhile, was perhaps
the most persuasive proponent of absolutism. In his book Leviathan (1651),
he argued that life without governments was “nasty, brutish, and short” and
that people must willingly submit to absolute rulers—even tyrannical ones—in
order to live longer, more stable lives.
Absolutist Beliefs
Absolutism
emphasizes:
- A strong sense of order: Everything should be carefully structured, including society. Disorder and chaos are generally considered to be dangerous.
- A clear-cut law of nature (or law of God): This law must be obeyed. According to this law, some people are inherently better than others. A natural hierarchy (a power structure in which some people have authority over others) exists. Therefore, the superior should rule the inferior. This general view is called elitism, or elite theory.
- The wisdom of traditional values and institutions: New ideas are considered dangerous to the order of things.
Liberalism
In
the early modern age of the Western world (beginning roughly in the early 1500s
and running for about 200 years), a number of changes occurred that led to new
ideologies: The European discovery of the Americas, the rise of Protestantism,
the beginnings of the free-market economy, and the early stages of the
scientific revolution fundamentally altered Europe. People began developing
different ways of thinking to take account of these changes.
Perhaps
the most important of the new ideas is liberalism (also known as
classical liberalism). This type of liberalism, which began in England in
the 1600s, differs from American liberalism. Classical liberalism developed
when such thinkers as John Locke (in his Second Treatise of Government in
1690) rethought the relationship between the individual and society, as well
theorized about the rights and responsibilities of the individual. These ideas
formed the foundation for many political systems still operating today.
Liberalism
in Action
During
the French Revolution (1789–1799), the monarchy and much of the church were
destroyed, as were traditional laws and habits in different parts of the
country. The revolutionaries exalted reason, to the point of literally creating
a temple to it (the revolutionaries renamed the Church of Notre Dame in Paris
“the Temple of Reason”) in 1793. But as a result of the revolution, France
plunged into years of civil war and violence. Only the emergence of Napoleon—an
authoritarian ruler—brought stability back to the country.
Liberal Beliefs
Liberalism emphasizes:
- Individualism: The individual takes priority over society.
- Freedom: Individuals have the right to make choices for themselves. This freedom is not absolute, and some behaviors, such as murder, are prohibited. Freedom of religion is a particularly important freedom to come out of liberalism because so many governments at the time were very closely tied to a particular religious creed.
- Equality: No person is morally or politically superior to others. Hierarchies are rejected.
- Rationalism: Humans are capable of thinking logically and rationally. Logic and reason help us solve problems.
- Progress: Traditions should not be kept unless they have value. New ideas are helpful because they can lead to progress in the sciences, the economy, and society.
- The free market: Liberalism and capitalism go hand in hand. Liberals like the free market because it more easily creates wealth, as opposed to traditional economies, which often have extensive regulations and limits on which occupations people can hold.
These
basic characteristics of liberalism have led liberals to argue in favor of a
limited government, which draws its power from the people. In practice, this has
meant favoring a democratic government.
Conservatism
Conservatism (also known as classical
conservatism) began as a reaction against the liberal ideas taking hold of
Europe during the French Revolution in the late eighteenth century. This type
of conservatism differs from American conservatism. Edmund Burke, a British
member of Parliament, observed the early stages of the French Revolution with
great distress and predicted the violence and terror that would ensue. His
book, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), is one of the
founding texts of classical conservatism.
Burke
and other conservatives attacked liberalism for many reasons. They argued that
liberalism destroyed tradition. In its rush to overturn the old and bring in
the new, liberalism and capitalism ruthlessly attacked traditional institutions
and beliefs.
Conservative Beliefs
Conservatism
emphasizes:
- Stability: Stability is a precious thing, and change must be made gradually in order to preserve it. Undermining stability is very dangerous because societies can easily fall into chaos and violence. Classical liberals frequently called for revolution, which opens the door to great turbulence, according to the classical conservative view.
- Concreteness: Liberalism is too abstract. It focuses on freedom and equality, not on the concrete way people live every day.
- Human fallibility: Liberalism overestimates human beings. Humans are frequently ignorant, prejudiced, and irrational. By ignoring these defects, liberalism becomes unrealistic.
- Unique circumstances: There is no universal answer to the problems of society; the circumstances are unique in each country.
Classical Conservatism and Democracy
Many
early conservatives favored authoritarian government. In the aftermath of the
Napoleonic Wars (roughly 1792–1815), for example, most European governments
actively worked to stop the spread of liberalism and democracy. Nevertheless,
conservatives were not necessarily hostile to democracy. Generally these
conservatives argued that some sort of monarchy was necessary, but some were
more open to popular government. Burke, in particular, thought that limited
democracy was a good form of government for England, as long as it maintained
the customs and mores it inherited from its predecessors.
Classical Conservatism Today
For
the most part, classical conservatism has faded. Most people who label
themselves conservatives are more like American conservatives than classical
ones. But there are still some classical conservatives. Many of them in Europe
have ties to old noble families, and some advocate monarchism. Classical
conservatives can also be found in other parts of the world.
CONCEPTUALIZATION
OF POLITICS
If
used in the realm of “is,” the term “law” denotes regularity of interrelations.
Propositions intended to describe regularities (laws) are, in principle, always
subject to challenge in view of conflicting observations. Strictly speaking,
therefore, there are no “statements” of laws but only “hypotheses” about laws.
If used in the realm of “ought,” the term “law” denotes a “norm of conduct”
that has been set by someone, man or God. To enumerate “nature” among the
potential originators of moral norms is logically objectionable unless nature
is conceived of as itself having a moral will or purpose; otherwise the moral
norms cannot be logically regarded as “set” by nature. If, however, moral norms
are conceived of as set by God, it is not in conflict with logic to look to
nature for intimations of the moral intentions of its creator. Theories of this
kind, therefore, are not blocked by the demands of logic; but they are
“nonscientific” (except in hypothetical terms) because of their reference to
premises that can be neither confirmed nor refuted with scientific means.
POLITICAL
CONCEPTUALIZATION IS THE SAME AS POLITICAL THEORY, Political theory looks at
philosophical questions such as: What is the proper role of government? What
makes a legitimate government? And what duties do citizens owe to their
state and to each other? The study of political theory also encompasses a
number of different themes, such as democracy, as well as different political
concepts, such as the concept of rights and the concept of justice. Political
theory, as an academic study, is built upon a foundation laid by the work of
indisputable classic philosophical thinkers: Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine,
Aquinas, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Mill, Marx, and
Nietzsche.
Many
courses on political theory begin with the work of Thomas Hobbes, who
established the foundation of Western political theory from the perspective of
social contract theory, outlined in his 1651 book Leviathan. Hobbes’ advocated for the
absolutism of state sovereignty; however, these views were moderated in part by
his recognition of some liberal fundamentals, such as the right of the
individual. John Stuart Mill later championed these fundamentals of liberty.
Contrary to Hobbes, Mill asserted that the concept of freedom justified an
individual’s opposition to unlimited state control. Mill’s ideas of freedom
continue to be championed by American politicians today.
Thus
politicians often champion ideas found in political theory. When these ideas
are promoted as a coherent system of beliefs, we refer to these systems of
beliefs as political ideologies. Political ideologies are typical derived from
particular themes or concepts in political theory, and are established as a set
of ethics, morals, philosophies, doctrines, myths, and symbols that are adopted
by a social movement or a particular class of people.
Political
ideologies often contain ideas about the best form of government (such as democracy)
and the best economic system (such as capitalism). As a result, ideologies are
often identified by their position on the political spectrum: fascism and
conservatism are considered right wing; and socialism and communism are
considered left wing. Politicians, activists, voters and citizens who subscribe
to a particular ideology often view political events and debates through the
particular lens that their ideology provides. For example, in the current
American gun debate, conservatives see the right to bear arms as an expression
of their individual freedom, and liberals view the same right as threatening
collective security. Thus it is in the form of political ideology that
political theory manifests itself in real-life domestic (and international) politics.
TEN
BASIC UNIT OF POLITICAL THEORY (CONCEPTUALIZATION)
There has been a growing
trend recently toward “conceptualization” in political theory, especially a
search for “basic” concepts apt to be useful as building stones for a mature
political theory. To be useful they have to be not only clear but realistic in
the sense that they or their analytical derivatives correspond to carefully
observed and politically relevant facts. The following concepts have been
suggested as basic:
Equilibrium (same authors). Borrowed from
physics and economics, this concept is considered particularly useful for
political theory as well, although some writers have wondered whether
“disequilibrium” would not be more realistic as a focal point in politics since
no full equilibrium ever seems to be established.
Power,
control, influence
(George E. G. Catlin, Charles Merriam, Harold Lasswell, C. Wright Mills,
Bertrand Russell, Hans Morganthau, James G. March, et al.). These have been
called the “most basic” concepts for political theory.
Action (Talcott Parsons, Edward Shils,
Hannah Arendt, et al.). This concept, in the sense of a deliberate new start
from a given situation directed toward some anticipated goal and engaged in
with intelligence and expense of energy, puts emphasis on a distinctly human factor.
Elite (Vilfredo Pareto, Harold Lasswell,
Milovan Djilas, et al.). The idea of elite emphasizes the basic relevance of
the phenomenon that there are leading groups or strata in any system of
society.
Choice
and decision making
(Max Weber, Gustav Radbruch, Chester I. Barnard, Herbert Simon, Talcott
Parsons, Arnold Brecht, et al.). These are concepts that have risen sharply in
the esteem of political theorists as basic ones for descriptive as well as
theoretical work .
Anticipated
reaction (Carl J.
Friedrich) and game
(John von Neumann, Oskar Morgenstern, et al.). Both are subconcepts within the
general theory of choice and decision making—and they have led to a
particularly intensive, highly technical series of studies .
Function (Robert K. Merton, Talcott Parsons,
et al.). In the sense of a function or dysfunction performed—either purposively
or with no purpose —for or against society as a whole or some part of it by any
socially relevant factor (including usage, belief, behavior pattern,
institution, science), this is primarily a sociological concept apt to serve
descriptive purposes, but it also has some explanatory merit .
There
is, furthermore, a marked tendency to form concepts that are apt to serve as
basic units not for one field alone but for all the social sciences or indeed
for all science.
Useful
as the newly developed concepts are, it would be misleading to expect that they
will supplant the continuing relevance of older concepts, such as institution, government, justice,
liberty, equality, and—more basic perhaps than all others —cause and effect, consequences,
risks, possibility and impossibility (see section 8), and universal human features.
No all-comprehensive political theory can be based on only one of the older or
newer concepts in isolation, and no single concept is likely to emerge as the
most basic, most constructive one. Each deals with a different aspect of the
multifaceted phenomena referred to when we say “political.”
This
warning applies, in particular, to overestimating the concept of “power” as the basic unit of
political science. This concept, not unlike that of happiness, which previously
had long dominated Anglo-American political theory, is too broad and too vague
to serve as a well-defined basic unit. It disregards the great variety of both
means and purposes of power. Brute force or threat of its use, prestige,
authority, persuasion, wealth, personal attraction, beauty, charisma, heroic
deeds, prominence in sports or arts, humility, altruism—all give “power.” Even
ideas have often been called powers. Furthermore, a person may not have sought
the power he has and may not use it for political purposes. Although not apt to
be treated as the
basic unit in political theory, the concept of power, if used with care and
qualification, is indispensable for it. We must, in particular, distinguish
between that type of power (“p-power”) that denotes the constitutional or legal
right or authority to do something (for example, the power of a legislature to
issue valid laws), and the factual power (“7r-power”) to influence the use of
the legal power or to circumvent it .
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
Historical context is the
political, social, cultural, and economic setting for a particular idea or
event. In order to better understand something in history, we must look at its
context--those things which surround it in time and place and which give it its
meaning. In this way, we can gain, among other things, a sense of how unique or
ordinary an event or idea seems to be in comparison to other events and ideas.
History of political theory
Writing
on the history of political theory has rarely if ever been limited to
“explanations” and even less so to strictly “scientific” efforts in this
direction. Rather; employing the term “theory” in its broadest sense, it has
generally included (a) nonscientific types of explanation, especially those of
a religious and philosophical character, (b)
nonscientific value judgments, especially moral ones, (c) proposals offered for
the selection of political goals and for political actions, and (d) mere descriptions of
phenomena as seen by political philosophers of the past. It has, therefore,
been a blend of philosophy, scientific theory, and description, with far more
space and emphasis given to nonscientific philosophical aspects than to
strictly scientific ones. Typical issues have included Plato’s “ideas”
conceived of as essences having some sort of reality, Christian theological
dogmas based on revelation and tradition, and philosophical doctrines that
claim to constitute superior knowledge, especially those ascribing to pure
reason the power to reveal truth independently of experience. They have
included, more specifically, the doctrines of natural law in the sense of a
code of moral prescriptions allegedly to be found in nature or reason, and its
progeny, the doctrines of natural rights. Indeed, natural law constituted the
very core of political science and political theory from about 1600 to 1900.
The main topics treated under the guidance of the various doctrines and
approaches were the state, its nature, origin, and proper ends; the theory of
social contract; the proper relationship between church and state; sovereignty;
the best form of government; and the implications of natural law for politics.
Many
of these historical efforts have been important stages in the development of
human thought and Western civilization; they have influenced ideals, actions,
and the history of institutions. As theories, however, most of them were based
on belief rather than science in the narrower sense of the term. This is not
meant to say that their results must have been false or that religious or
philosophical reasoning ought to be abandoned. The only concern here is with
the fact that the history of “scientific” political theory must be culled from
its fusion with nonscientific religious or philosophical thought.
Ideas
and methods of a strictly scientific character have rarely been entirely absent
in political thought. The ancient Greek ability of abstraction and of logical
and mathematical thinking laid the foundation of modern science. Sophists and
their opponents amply referred to empirical observations. The Socratic method
of confronting debaters with questions on the meaning and the implications of
their propositions and with objections that led them to reconsideration,
modification, or selfcontradiction was the early prototype of good scientific
method (“clarification of the meaning of propositions and of their
implications”). Plato’s and Aristotle’s works abound in psychological
observations that, although not subjected to tests in the modern sense, still
offer valuable scientific contributions or cues. Aristotle cultivated the methodical
gathering of factual data as the base for theoretical work; he carefully
examined the risks and consequences involved in institutional arrangements,
actual or imagined ones. There has hardly been a political philosopher who did
not take some time off from speculation to examine facts and human motives. The
preponderance of religious authority in medieval thought, however, beginning
with St. Augustine (354–430), led to a millennium of dearth in strictly
scientific work. There was a partial revival when reason and Aristotelian
thought were being readmitted into scientific work as supplementary sources of
knowledge to the extent that they were not in conflict with revealed religious
truth (Thomas Aquinas, 12257–1274). But several centuries were still to pass
before the typically modern type of scientific theory emerged in the realistic
examination of actual conditions and motivations by Machiavelli (1469–1527),
the emphasis on inductive methods by Bacon (1561–1626), the experimental and
mathematical approaches of Galileo (1564–1642), Kepler (1571–1630), and Newton
(1642–1727), and the ensuing ascendancy of empiricism. These new methods
stimulated scientific reflection in political theory. No sharp lines, however,
were being drawn yet between religion, philosophy, and science. The various
approaches were used side by side, often queerly intermingled and, even if
scientific in intent, frequently based on erroneous factual assumptions (for
example, social contract) or fallacious logical thinking (for example, inferring
“ought” from “is,” as in natural law, or necessity from consistency, as in
theories of sovereignty [see section 11]).
Important
further steps toward modern scientific theory include the emphasis on the
significance of “doubt” in the works of Descartes (1591–1650) and Hume
(1711–1776), and the rejection of “pure reason” as a source of knowledge by
Hume and, less radically, by Kant (1724–1804). Kant restricted the reliability
of pure reason as a source of theoretical knowledge in the realm of “is” to
only a few conditions and steps of thought, such as the “categories” of mental
operations; in moral (“practical”) questions, however, his doctrine that we
have a priori knowledge of the basic moral law still maintained an absolutistic
approach. Another great scientific impulse for political theory sprang from the
work done by Montesquieu (1689–1755) on the political influence of environment
(geography, milieu, etc.) and on methods that are apt to check the abuse of
power (separation of powers). The vigor with which, pursuing these approaches,
the founding fathers of the United States studied the implications, risks, and
consequences of institutions and the methods by which the abuse of power could
be checked (separation, federalism, a bill of rights) highlighted the
development of scientific political thought. For this reason, the Federalist became a
milestone in the evolution of scientific political theory. But the authors
blended scientific with religious and philosophical approaches (trust in God,
natural law, natural rights). Characteristic of this promiscuity are the
celebrated words in the Declaration of Independence that proclaim not that all
men are equal but that they are “created” equal, and not that they possess
certain inalienable rights but that they are “endowed by their Creator” with
them. Indeed, to an extent seldom fully realized, our Western values are based
not on science but on religion, history, tradition, and the creative idealism
of man intent on forming a world in which he considers life worth living.
The
separation of philosophical and scientific ways of thinking from religious ones
began in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in England and France.
Philosophical and scientific approaches remained interwoven, however, until, in
the course of the nineteenth century, they, too, began to part company; indeed,
their separation did not grow sharp and consistent until the end of the
nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth. What finally brought it
to completion, at least within a broad and influential section of social
theorists, was the deliberate elimination of nonscientific elements in what
came to be called “scientific method” and in its offspring, “scientific value
relativism”