Politics
(from Greek: πολιτικός politikos,
meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and
theory of influencing other people on a global, civic or individual level. More
narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance —
organized control over a human community, particularly a state. Furthermore,
politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and resources
within a given community (a hierarchically organized population) as well as the
interrelationship(s) between communities. A variety of methods are employed in
politics, which include promoting one's own political views among people,
negotiation with other political subjects, making laws, and exercising force,
including warfare against adversaries. Politics is exercised on a wide range of
social levels, from clans and tribes of traditional societies, through modern
local governments, companies and institutions up to sovereign states, to the
international level.
UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL IDEAS
Ideology is . . . a system of definite
views, ideas, conceptions, and notions adhered to by some class or political
party. [Ideology] is always a reflection of the economic system predominant at
any given time. (Soviet
Philosophical Dictionary, 1954).
Political debate is widespread in society. Whether we are
aware of it or not, most of us are, at a very simple level, political
philosophers. In democratic societies like the UK and the USA citizens are
expected to have opinions on a wide range of issues that either directly as
individuals or collectively as citizens affect their lives.
Even at a simple, unsophisticated level we have views on
the ‘correct’ form of government, freedom, equality and equal rights, the
‘proper’ role of government in society, how ‘democratic’ one’s own political
system is, the right levels of public spending, and so on. How we think about
these and many other subjects will be influenced by the kinds of ideological
beliefs we carry around in our heads, the product of our social conditioning,
our life experiences and our reflections on them, the nation we live in, our
educational level and our social class. We regularly draw on this store of
ideological beliefs when we try to make sense of the world. They may not be
logical, well structured or even consistent (tortured are those who try to
force their experiences into an ideological straitjacket; and, given enough
power, they will often similarly torture others into wearing the same garment),
but one’s opinions and actions will make reference to those beliefs. Ideologies
can be seen as a form of intellectual ‘map’ to help us find our way about the
world, understand our place in it, analyse the political and social events
going on around us. Maps vary in their degree of accuracy. One can assess their
value by comparison with objective reality and debate with others.
Ideologies are associated with power structures.
Politicians seek power. Their ideology and the social, economic and political
circumstances of the time influence what they do with that power when they have
achieved it. Indeed, it is impossible to separate the two. This applies even to
those who deny having an ideology. The use of power always takes place in a
framework of ideology. Modern politics can only be properly understood by
reference to the great ideological movements: conservatism, liberalism,
socialism, fascism, and so on.
Ideologies tend to have a bad press. They are often
dismissed as ‘errors’ or
‘untruths’. If ideology is ‘a window on the world’ it is
a window with glass that distorts the vision. The viewer has difficulty
thinking beyond these distortions and assumes what he or she believes to be the
‘truth’. Ideology often distorts ‘reality’ and encourages conflict: ‘One man’s
ideology is another man’s falsehood.’ Nevertheless, one must not fall into the
trap of assuming that all ideologies are of equal validity. They should be
respected as important ways of understanding the world. One should also attempt
to examine one’s own ideological beliefs, to better understand the role of
ideology in politics and society.
MEANING OF
IDEOLOGY IN POLITICS
So, given that ideology is very important in politics,
what is ‘ideology’? Is there something about ideological thought
that is distinct from other forms of thinking? David Joravsky provides a useful
starting point:
When we call a belief ideological, we are saying at least three
things about it: although it is unverified or unverifiable, it is accepted as
verified by a particular group, because it performs social functions for that
group.1
In other words, holders of beliefs do not need to have
had them ‘proved’ by some rational, scientific form of testing. To the
believers they are the ‘truth’, the ‘reality’. All political ideologies claim
‘true’ definitions of liberty, equality, justice, rights and the ‘best’
society. The ‘particular group’ mentioned above might be any social group:
class, nation, profession, religious organisation, party or pressure group. All
will have sets of ideological assumptions that are unquestioningly accepted as
‘proper’. The ‘social functions’ ideologies perform are numerous. They will
include the creation of a sense of group solidarity and cohesion for members of
that group through shared ideological values; an explanation of the past, an
analysis of the present, and, usually, a vision of the future with some
description of how a better future will come about. There has always been a
widely held view in politics and political philosophy that ‘ideology’ merely
provides a cloak for the struggle for power, the real stuff of politics. To
justify their power and to persuade the people to obey, follow and support
them, rulers use ideologies of various kinds. Machiavelli advised, in The Prince (1513),
that religion was a very useful tool for the ruler. To Machiavelli the real
objective of politics was the getting and keeping of power. Appeals to the
welfare of the people were merely part of what we would call the ideological
window-dressing, hiding the raw struggle for power. Machiavelli put his finger
on one of the most important roles of ideological belief systems (if we may
include religion as one of these, for the moment). Until the last couple of
centuries, in most societies the dominant form of belief was religion. During
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries rational and scientific forms of
thought provided a growing challenge to religion. By the eighteenth century
there were sharp and bitter tensions between religious and secular attitudes.
One of the features of the Enlightenment was a strong, rational critique of
religious beliefs and the perceived baleful influence of religion on politics.
It was hoped that one could use reason to discover the laws governing the
organisation and functioning of society as the laws of science were being used
to discover the workings of nature. Once religion and other forms of irrational
thought were removed from political discourse, it was believed, rational
programmes would enable human society to improve dramatically.
These ‘rational’ forms of thought contributed to the
criticism of the ancient régime in France, the French Revolution, and the development of
what we now call ‘political ideologies’ that dominated political
debate in Europe and the world during the following two centuries. Far from
introducing new forms of rationality into politics, ideological forms of
thinking tended to create new
forms of ‘irrational’ thinking,
stirring up and releasing deep political passions that in many ways resembled
the emotional commitment to religion. Indeed, political ideologies for many became
‘pseudo-religious’ belief systems that had many of the hallmarks of religious
commitment: ‘heretics’ were persecuted, ‘true’ interpretations of the creed
formulated, ideological ‘prophets’ identified and definitive texts written to
direct the ‘faithful’ into ‘correct’ ways of thought.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
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”
POLITICAL
CLASSIFICATION
The
world has seen many numerous political systems. Some have included great
participation by the general public, while others are run by royal leaders or dictators.
Some political systems have carefully planned out the economy, while others
allow for market fluctuations. Indeed, the laws, priorities and governing
styles of nation states are quite varied.
Monarchy
One
type of political government is a monarchy. The word monarch literally means
"single ruler" and in these systems a king or a queen is generally
the leader of the country. Royal leaders are sometimes appointed by preceding
leaders, often based on hereditary. In modern times, some royal families, such
as in England, have lost control of political society to parliaments and other
democratic institutions, leaving them with largely symbolic roles. Other
monarchies, however, such as Saudi Arabia, still yield absolute power.
Currently, 44 nations are monarchies, although 16 of them still recognize Queen
Elizabeth of England, which is a relic from the days of the British Empire.
Socialism
Socialism
is another form of government. While various models exist, the basic concept is
the shared ownership of property and the means of production and equality
between people. Karl Marx, the theoretical founder of socialism, argued that in
a socialist state the people are expected to give according to ability and take
according to need. The most famous socialist state was Russia which had a
revolution from 1917 to 1922 and had a socialist state until the late 20th
century. This was a highly centralized government that had complete control of
the economy and military. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, socialism has
ebbed in influence, though some Latin American leaders, such as Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela, are attempting to create "21st Century Socialism." Chavez
and others are trying to create more socialist nations in the region and are
also allied with Cuba, which has practiced a form of socialism for decades.
Republic
·
A
republic is a form of government where people have the ability to elect
representatives to govern in their interests. This is a form of democracy --
which means rule by the people -- although it is not a direct form of
democracy, as the people do not vote on all issues via national referendums,
but instead elect leaders to do so. The United States is a republic, which is
quite secular. Other forms of republics also exist, such as Islamic republics
(which allows voting in an Islamic society) and socialist republics(which has
existed in places like Ethiopia and Burundi).
Dictatorship
A
dictatorship is a state that is ruled by one person with absolute power. This
can be part of a Monarchy but does not have to be. Examples of recent dictators
are Saddam Hussein of Iraq (who was toppled in 2003 and eventually executed),
and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya. Dictators have a reputation for brutal, deadly
repression.
Anarchism
Anarchism
is a society without a recognized state power. Anarchy does not mean complete
chaos, contrary to conventional wisdom, but is largely viewed as a form of
decentralized socialism, where workers own their own factories and make
decisions collectively without coercive power. There have been no examples of
long-standing anarchist societies, although, as George Orwell highlighted in
his book "Homage to Catalonia," anarchists in 1930's Spain did
briefly topple a government and led a society without a centralized state
apparatus. This society lasted only briefly due to military interventions from
the likes of Russia.