Locke
argued that people tended to be biased in their own cases, and
that (to avoid the disorder that resulted from partial
judgments) they would accept the arbitration of a common
authority.
17.
The idea of Legitimacy in classical religious and modern
political thought.
Political
legitimacy is a virtue of political institutions and of the
decisions—about laws, policies, and candidates for political
office—made within them. This entry will survey the main
answers that have been given to the following questions. First,
how should legitimacy be defined? Is it primarily a descriptive
or a normative concept? If legitimacy is understood
normatively, what does it entail? Some associate legitimacy
with the justification of coercive power and with the creation
of political authority. Others associate it with the
justification, or at least the sanctioning, of existing
political authority. Authority stands for a right to rule—a
right to issue commands and, possibly, to enforce these
commands using coercive power. An additional question is
whether legitimate political authority is understood to entail
political obligations or not. Most people probably think it
does. But some think that the moral obligation to obey
political authority can be separated from an account of
legitimate authority, or at least that such obligations arise
only if further conditions hold.
This
section lays out the different ways in which legitimacy,
understood normatively, can be seen as relating to political
authority and political obligations.
18.Justice
and the rule of law.
The rule
of law (also
known as nomocracy)
primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within
society, especially as a constraint upon behavior, including
behavior of government officials.[2] The
phrase can be traced back to the 16th century, and it was
popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A.
V. Dicey.
The concept was familiar to ancient philosophers such
as Aristotle,
who wrote "Law should govern".[3] Rule
of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law,
including law makers themselves. It stands in contrast to the
idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine
right.
Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule
of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive
notion"[4] giving
rise to a "rampant divergence of understandings ...
everyone is for it but have contrasting convictions about what
it is."[5]
It
has been argued[2] that
‘systematic’ or ‘programmatic’ political and moral
philosophy in the West begins, in Plato’s Republic,
with the question, ‘What is Justice?’[3] According
to most contemporary theories of justice, justice is
overwhelmingly important: John
Rawls claims
that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions,
as truth is of systems of thought."[4] In
classical approaches, evident from Plato through
to Rawls,
the concept of ‘justice’ is always construed in logical or
‘etymological’ opposition to the concept of injustice. Such
approaches cite various examples of injustice, as problems
which a theory of justice must overcome. A number of post-World
War II approaches do, however, challenge that seemingly obvious
dualism between those two concepts.[5] Justice
can be thought of as distinct
from benevolence, charity, prudence, mercy, generosity,
orcompassion,
although these dimensions are regularly understood to also be
interlinked. Justice is the concept of cardinal
virtues,
of which it is one. Justice has traditionally been associated
with concepts of fate, reincarnation or Divine
Providence,
i.e. with a life in accordance with the cosmic plan. The
association of justice with fairness is thus historically and
culturally inalienable.[6]
19.
Phenomenon of Power
Power
is a prime ingredient of politics
Power
is the ability of one person to get another to do his bidding
Power
is a connection between the ruler and the ruled. Power in
politics is identical with money in economy
Power
is man’s control over the mind and action of the man (Hans J.
Morgenthau)
Power
is a sort of enabling device to carry out or implement policies
or and decisions (Michael Roskin, et.al.)
Power
is the capacity to influence behaviour through the threat of
coercion. Power depends upon the use, or threat of use, of
negative or positive sanctions (Mark R. Amstutz)
Power
is the ability to use the source of influence to influence the
process of political decision making for the benefit of the
whole society (Ramlan Surbakti)
20.The
state – its origins and nature
The state
of nature is
a concept in moral and political
philosophy used
in religion, social
contract theories
and international law[1] to
denote the hypothetical conditions of what the lives of people
might have been like before societies came
into existence. In some versions of social contract theory,
there are no rights in the state of nature, only freedoms, and
it is the contract that creates rights and obligations. In
other versions the opposite occurs: the contract imposes
restrictions upon individuals that curtail their natural
rights.
The
state origins are the perpetual issue in social studies. The
contemporary conceptions of the state formation differ in
multiple ways from the classical theories. The state was
resulted by two interrelated processes – consolidation of the
society (integrative theory) and regulating of structural clash
in the society (conflict theory). At present there are several
most popular theories revealing the different ways of the state
origin. In recent years many scholars believe that the
societal complexity is not always related to the formation of
statehood. They adhere to the multilinear theory of social
transformation and identify several forms of political systems
alternative to the state.
The state
of nature is
a term in political
philosophy used
in social
contract theories
to describe the hypothetical condition that preceded
governments. There must have been a time before government, and
so the question is how legitimate government could emerge from
such a starting position,1"[1] and
what are the hypothetical reasons for entering a state
of society by
establishing a government. In some versions of social contract
theory, there are no rights in the state of nature, only
freedoms, and it is the contract that creates rights and
obligations. In other versions the opposite occurs: the
contract imposes restrictions upon individuals that curtail
their natural
rights
.
21.Functions
of the state
The
state plays a crucial part in society today and is central to
the study of economic and political geography. In order to
define the functions of a state, it is at first necessary to
define the `state’ and what it, in itself represents. In
short, the state is seen as being the governing body of a
nation exerting supreme and unrestricted power over its people,
within a designated area. In a capitalist system the term
‘government’ is applied to the elected officials in charge
of the state and its functions. A state can also be one of a
number of areas or communities having their own governments and
forming a federation under a sovereign government, as in the
United States. Academics, politicians and political
commentators, to name a few, have studied the nature of the
state, and theories have been developed over time explaining
its functions. These various philosophies suggest that the
state performs at least one of the six following duties. The
first presents the state as a protective entity, that is,
acting as a protector for the members of its nation. These can
be physical, economic and social functions such as restrictions
on immigration or the introduction of tariffs and duties. This
protective function also forms a safeguard over its members
from each other as punishment for crimes and crime prevention.
The second duty displays the state as an arbitrator, that is,
it acts as a third party in disputes where an agreement cannot
be reached between two parties alone. Along such lines there
are marital disputes where decisions about property and
children have to be determined. The state, in order to make
these decisions, sets up various organizations and institutions
where agreements can be made.
22.Political
institutions
Political
institutions are organizations which create, enforce, and apply
laws; that mediate conflict; make (governmental) policy on the
economy and social systems; and otherwise provide
representation for the populous. Examples of such political
institutions include political parties, trade unions, and the
(legal) courts. The term 'Political Institutions' may also
refer to the recognized structure of rules and principles
within which the above organizations operate, including such
concepts as the right to vote, responsible government, and
accountability.
23.Ideology
and propaganda
Ideology
The
terms was coined by French philosopher Destutt de Tracy in
1795.
According
to Destutt de Tracy ‘ideology’ is a general "science
of ideas" - the study of "how we think, speak and
argue”...
Something
what today probably would be called psychology, or even
'cognitive science’.
Political
ideology - political ideas with the power to control the
present agenda and affect political decisions of individuals,
societies and states.Since ideology is a system of beliefs and
ideas that provides coherent and organised political action all
ideologies offer account of:
24.Human
rights
Human
rights is
the idea that all people should have rights.
These rights are seen as universal, which
means they are meant for everyone, no matter what
their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, age, sex (also women's
rights), political beliefs
(or any other kind of
beliefs), intelligence, disability, sexual
orientation,
or gender
identity are.
The idea of human rights originated from ideas found
in religion and philosophy in
Western Europe. The modern Western idea of human rights started
in the European Enlightenment.
In the 16th
century,
some people started suggesting that everyone had the religious
and political right to choose their religion and
their leaders.
This sort of thinking was important in the English
Civil War.
After the war, thephilosopher John
Locke argued
that people should have these rights; he was one of the first
people to call them "human rights." These ideas were
also important in the American
revolution and
the French
revolution in
the 18th
century.
In
the 19th century, John
Stuart Mill was
an important philosopher who thought about human rights. He
said that people should be able to control their
own bodies and minds.
He talked about three special ideas:
Freedom
of speech
Freedom
of assembly
25.
Civil society is
composed of the totality of many voluntary social
relationships, civic and social organizations, and institutions
that form the basis of a functioning society,
as distinct from the force-backed structures of
a state (regardless
of that state's political system), the commercial institutions
of the market,
and private criminal organizations like the mafia.
Together, state, market, and civil society constitute the
entirety of a society, and the relations between these
components determine the character of a society and its
structure. Civil society refers to the arena of
uncoerced collective
action around
shared interests,
purposes and values.
In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of
the state,
and market,
though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil
society, and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated.
Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors
and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality,
autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by
organizations such as registered charities, development of
non-governmental organizations, community groups, women's
organizations, faith-based organizations, professional
associations, trade
unions,
self-help groups, social
movements,
business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups.[1]
From a historical perspective, the actual meaning of the
concept of civil society has changed twice from its original,
classical form. The first change occurred after the French
Revolution, the second during the fall of communism in Europe.
19.
Phenomenon of Power
Power
is a prime ingredient of politics
Power
is the ability of one person to get another to do his bidding
Power
is a connection between the ruler and the ruled. Power in
politics is identical with money in economy
Power
is man’s control over the mind and action of the man (Hans J.
Morgenthau)
Power
is a sort of enabling device to carry out or implement policies
or and decisions (Michael Roskin, et.al.)
Power
is the capacity to influence behaviour through the threat of
coercion. Power depends upon the use, or threat of use, of
negative or positive sanctions (Mark R. Amstutz)
Power
is the ability to use the source of influence to influence the
process of political decision making for the benefit of the
whole society (Ramlan Surbakti)
20.The
state – its origins and nature
The state
of nature is
a concept in moral and political
philosophy used
in religion, social
contract theories
and international law[1] to
denote the hypothetical conditions of what the lives of people
might have been like before societies came
into existence. In some versions of social contract theory,
there are no rights in the state of nature, only freedoms, and
it is the contract that creates rights and obligations. In
other versions the opposite occurs: the contract imposes
restrictions upon individuals that curtail their natural
rights.
The
state origins are the perpetual issue in social studies. The
contemporary conceptions of the state formation differ in
multiple ways from the classical theories. The state was
resulted by two interrelated processes – consolidation of the
society (integrative theory) and regulating of structural clash
in the society (conflict theory). At present there are several
most popular theories revealing the different ways of the state
origin. In recent years many scholars believe that the
societal complexity is not always related to the formation of
statehood. They adhere to the multilinear theory of social
transformation and identify several forms of political systems
alternative to the state.
The state
of nature is
a term in political
philosophy used
in social
contract theories
to describe the hypothetical condition that preceded
governments. There must have been a time before government, and
so the question is how legitimate government could emerge from
such a starting position,1"[1] and
what are the hypothetical reasons for entering a state
of society by
establishing a government. In some versions of social contract
theory, there are no rights in the state of nature, only
freedoms, and it is the contract that creates rights and
obligations. In other versions the opposite occurs: the
contract imposes restrictions upon individuals that curtail
their natural
rights
.
21.Functions
of the state
The
state plays a crucial part in society today and is central to
the study of economic and political geography. In order to
define the functions of a state, it is at first necessary to
define the `state’ and what it, in itself represents. In
short, the state is seen as being the governing body of a
nation exerting supreme and unrestricted power over its people,
within a designated area. In a capitalist system the term
‘government’ is applied to the elected officials in charge
of the state and its functions. A state can also be one of a
number of areas or communities having their own governments and
forming a federation under a sovereign government, as in the
United States. Academics, politicians and political
commentators, to name a few, have studied the nature of the
state, and theories have been developed over time explaining
its functions. These various philosophies suggest that the
state performs at least one of the six following duties. The
first presents the state as a protective entity, that is,
acting as a protector for the members of its nation. These can
be physical, economic and social functions such as restrictions
on immigration or the introduction of tariffs and duties. This
protective function also forms a safeguard over its members
from each other as punishment for crimes and crime prevention.
The second duty displays the state as an arbitrator, that is,
it acts as a third party in disputes where an agreement cannot
be reached between two parties alone. Along such lines there
are marital disputes where decisions about property and
children have to be determined. The state, in order to make
these decisions, sets up various organizations and institutions
where agreements can be made.
22.Political
institutions
Political
institutions are organizations which create, enforce, and apply
laws; that mediate conflict; make (governmental) policy on the
economy and social systems; and otherwise provide
representation for the populous. Examples of such political
institutions include political parties, trade unions, and the
(legal) courts. The term 'Political Institutions' may also
refer to the recognized structure of rules and principles
within which the above organizations operate, including such
concepts as the right to vote, responsible government, and
accountability.
23.Ideology
and propaganda
Ideology
The
terms was coined by French philosopher Destutt de Tracy in
1795.
According
to Destutt de Tracy ‘ideology’ is a general "science
of ideas" - the study of "how we think, speak and
argue”...
Something
what today probably would be called psychology, or even
'cognitive science’.
Political
ideology - political ideas with the power to control the
present agenda and affect political decisions of individuals,
societies and states.Since ideology is a system of beliefs and
ideas that provides coherent and organised political action all
ideologies offer account of:
24.Human
rights
Human
rights is
the idea that all people should have rights.
These rights are seen as universal, which
means they are meant for everyone, no matter what
their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, age, sex (also women's
rights), political beliefs
(or any other kind of
beliefs), intelligence, disability, sexual
orientation,
or gender
identity are.
The idea of human rights originated from ideas found
in religion and philosophy in
Western Europe. The modern Western idea of human rights started
in the European Enlightenment.
In the 16th
century,
some people started suggesting that everyone had the religious
and political right to choose their religion and
their leaders.
This sort of thinking was important in the English
Civil War.
After the war, thephilosopher John
Locke argued
that people should have these rights; he was one of the first
people to call them "human rights." These ideas were
also important in the American
revolution and
the French
revolution in
the 18th
century.
In
the 19th century, John
Stuart Mill was
an important philosopher who thought about human rights. He
said that people should be able to control their
own bodies and minds.
He talked about three special ideas:
Freedom
of speech
Freedom
of assembly
25.
Civil society is
composed of the totality of many voluntary social
relationships, civic and social organizations, and institutions
that form the basis of a functioning society,
as distinct from the force-backed structures of
a state (regardless
of that state's political system), the commercial institutions
of the market,
and private criminal organizations like the mafia.
Together, state, market, and civil society constitute the
entirety of a society, and the relations between these
components determine the character of a society and its
structure. Civil society refers to the arena of
uncoerced collective
action around
shared interests,
purposes and values.
In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of
the state,
and market,
though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil
society, and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated.
Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors
and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality,
autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by
organizations such as registered charities, development of
non-governmental organizations, community groups, women's
organizations, faith-based organizations, professional
associations, trade
unions,
self-help groups, social
movements,
business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups.[1]
From a historical perspective, the actual meaning of the
concept of civil society has changed twice from its original,
classical form. The first change occurred after the French
Revolution, the second during the fall of communism in Europe.
Typological
questions
1.Give
the idea of the theory of ‘recurrent cycles’.
1.
Greek political science studied constitutions and generalized
the relation between human nature and political associations.
Perhaps its most powerful instrument was the theory of
recurrent cycles. Monarchies tend to degenerate into tyranny,
tyrannies are overthrown by aristocracies, which degenerate
into oligarchies exploiting the population, which are
overthrown by democracies, which in turn degenerate into the
intolerable instability of mob rule, whereupon some powerful
leader establishes himself as a monarch and the cycle begins
all over again. This is the version of political science we
find influentially expounded by a later Greek called Polybius
whose main concern was to explain the character of Roman
politics to his fellow Greeks; other versions of a political
cycle are to be found in Plato and Aristotle.
2.
Give different typologies of ‘class’.
2.
Human nature does not automatically lead to class behaviour
with necessary hierarchy.
Class
- a term used to indicate an economic, social, or political
group.
Plato’s
Republic divides society into three
natural classes
conforming to individuals’ natural dispositions:
Rulers,
soldiers and workers.
The
rulers,
for Plato, are distinguished by the virtue of wisdom
(Philosopher-Kings);
the
soldiers
have the virtue of courage;
and
the workers
or business people have the virtue of moderation.
St.
Thomas Aquinas’s conception of classes reflects the social
structure of the European Middle Ages:
Monarchy
(royalty), Aristocracy,
Peasants,
and churchmen
or priests.
According
to Aquinas each class is important to the functioning of the
whole society, but each is different and requires distinct sets
of laws to govern it.
3.
Contrast despotism and democracy.
3.
Despotism is a form of government in which a single entity
rules with absolute power. That entity may be an individual, as
in an autocracy, or it may be a group, as in an oligarchy. The
word despotism means to "rule in the fashion of a despot"
and does not necessarily require a singular "despot",
an individual.
Democracy
- a political system in which political power is exercised
freely expressing their will on the majority of citizens.
4.
Forms of power.
4.
If
politics is distribution and allocation of values in society,
the political power is about how the distribution and
allocation of values is achieved.
INFLUENCE
- A
person is said to have influence over another person when
he/she can get him to do something he/she would not do
otherwise. Influence can be brought about coercive or
non-coercive means. Non-coercive means = non-threatening means,
such as persuasion, discussion, argumentation etc.
COERCION
is
show of force or the use of threat to intimidate other person
or group. Man’s capacity to coerce the behaviour of another
through the threat of sanctions.
FORCE
is
the application of coercion or the use of physical pressure.
The application of force is required when all other extreme
forms of influence have failed. When people refused to accept
the authority of government or to be influenced by threat of
sanctions, the only tool left to government to ensure
compliance is force. Force is the Ultima
Ratio (the last resort, the final argument)
of politics.
PERSUASION
is
the capability to convince a person to do (or not to do)
something.
AUTHORITY
is
the capacity of a person or institution to command obedience
without coercion.
is
a legitimate power. Political Power is not always in close
relation with legitimacy as the authority. is not based on the
superior force of those issuing command but derives from the
popular recognition that some people and institutions have the
right to issue commands. Since government authority is based on
voluntary acceptance of the right to rule, the degree of
authority is directly proportional to level of legitimacy.
5.
Sovereignty.
Forms of sovereignty.
5.
Sovereignty
means absolute and unlimited power.
Sovereignty
endows a ruler with authority and coercive power.
So
he can tell people what to do
And
when it is not enough it makes people do what is needed by
force.
Internal
sovereignty refers
to the location of a final authority within the state. Although
much of political theory involves a debate about where such
sovereignty should be located, the idea may be in applicable to
fragmented and pluralistic modern societies.
External
sovereignty
refers to a state’s autonomy in international affairs. Fused
with the idea of democratic government, this has developed into
the principle of national sovereignty, embodying the ideals of
independence and self-government.
Critics
nevertheless argue that in view of the internationalisation of
many areas of modern life, the idea may now be redundant or,
since it gives a state exclusive jurisdiction over its people,
dangerous.
6.
Major forms of rule (political systems).
6.
There
are major forms of rule political systems:
Autocracy
- Rule by One individual
Democracy
- Rule by Many - Popular vote
Aristocracy
- Rule by Few (Originally - Rule by the ‘Best’) for the
good of Many. Has considerable resemblance to Meritocracy -
authority rests with those judged on their merits - Virtue,
social input and achievements.
Oligarchy
- Rule by Few for the good of Few. Not valid on crucial points,
but may exist in form of representation of a single class or a
group.
Plutocracy
- Rule by Wealth, therefore holding office is the occasion for
acquiring wealth. Alternatively the Rule of Thieves.
Ochlocracy,
and Anarchy - Rule of Mob, and No Rule at all.
7.
Political
regimes.
7.
Political regime - political governance, ie a set of methods ,
techniques and forms of the political relations in society (
the state) , or its method of functioning of the political
system .Political regime characterized by the methods of
political power , a measure of citizen participation in
governance , the ratio of state institutions to the legal basis
of its own activities, the degree of political freedom in
society , opening or closing of the political elites in terms
of social mobility , the actual state of the legal status of
the individual.Political regime - a set of tools and methods by
which the ruling elite are realizing the economic , political
and ideological power in the country ; a combination of the
party system , methods of voting and decision-making principles
, forming a specific political order of the country for a
certain period . The phrase " political regime "
appeared in Western literature in the XIX century , and in a
scientific revolution came in the second half of XX century.
Researchers account for the existence in the modern world 140 -
160 different political regimes , many of which differ from
each other very slightly . It defines a large variety of
approaches to the classification of political regimes .
Authoritarian
|
-
“In government, authoritarianism denotes any political
system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a
small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the
body of the people”.
|
Totalitarian
|
- “form
of government that theoretically permits no individual
freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of the
individual’s life to the authority of the government.
Benito Mussolini - early 1920s - totalitario - new fascist
state of Italy, which he further described as: “All within
the state, none outside the state, none against the state.”
|
Democratic
|
-
form of government ruled directly through representation of
and subordinated to the will of majority
|
8.
Political crises.
8.
Political crises is the state of the political system of the
society , expressed in deepening and exacerbating existing
conflicts in a sharp intensification of political tensions.
Distinguish foreign policy crises resulting from international
conflicts and contradictions, internal political crises
(governmental, parliamentary , constitutional ,
etc.).Government crisis - particularly frequent, characterized
by loss of support by the government majority in parliament or
that his room , in front of which the government is responsible
. If the government cannot cope with the situation , the
Parliament cannot reject her support, expressing no-confidence
vote , and send the cabinet resigned. The government's crisis
may be accompanied by a change of form of government leaders ,
etc. Parliamentary crisis - is changing the balance of power in
the legislative bodies , when the parliament's decision at odds
with the will of the majority of citizens. Result - the
dissolution of Parliament and call new elections .
Parliamentary crisis may occur in the case when the main
warring factions there are about equal in strength, and this
hinders decision-making and implementing the work of the
legislature. And as a result - the dissolution of parliament
call new elections .Constitutional crisis is effective
termination of the Basic Law ( constitution ) . The previous
constitution loses its legitimacy and quality requires revision
.Gearbox characterized delegitimization of power structures ,
the lack of interaction between the various centers of power,
blocking one other center , the formation of the parliamentary
structures of power , reduction in the efficiency of social and
political regulation and control, escalation of natural forms
of political protest ( rallies , strikes, demonstrations ,
etc.).
9.
Political reform.
9.
Political reform means improving the laws and constitutions in
accordance with expectations of the public. Requirements of
all the segments of the society are included in ‘public
expectations’. Like the rich or poor, right wing or left
wing, cattiest or communalist, centrist or decembrist,
extremist or moderate, theist or atheist, domestic or foreign,
social or selfish. In a democracy, everybody bears equal
rights of a single vote, but their equal participation in
decision-making process of the state is not ensured. Hence, for
political reform to ensure minimum economic equity is needed.
10.
Forms of resistance to state - strike, uprising, riot, coup
d’etat, revolution.
10.
A resistance movement is an organized effort by some portion of
the civil population of a country to resist the legally
established government or an occupying power and to disrupt
civil order and stability. It may seek to achieve its objects
through either the use of nonviolent resistance (sometimes
called civil resistance) or the use of armed force. In many
cases, as for example in Norway in the Second World War, a
resistance movement may employ both violent and non-violent
methods, usually operating under different organizations and
acting in different phases or geographical areas within a
country.
The
term resistance is generally used to designate a movement
considered legitimate (from the speaker's point of view).
Organizations and individuals critical of foreign intervention
and supporting forms of organized movement (particularly where
citizens are affected) tend to favor the term. When such a
resistance movement uses violence, those favorably disposed to
it may also speak of freedom fighters.
11.
Political elites.
11.
Political Elites are the best educated, best-informed and most
politically active people nationwide with an outsized influence
on public officials.
Political
Elites are often the first of the public to become aware of an
issue. The position taken by Political Elites of all stripes
are often an excellent barometer and a good way to anticipate
which way political winds will be blowing in the near future.
Through online focus groups and surveys, YouGov delivers
insights into what the most active Americans, those most likely
to shape policy debates in their home towns, are thinking about
the issues that will be in the headlines tomorrow.
Political
Elites consist of the top 7%-9% of adults nationwide,
comprising:
Those
with a four-year college degree or an advanced degree.
The
top quartile of income ($80,000 or more USD annually).
The
top socioeconomic class by occupation (owners, company
presidents, professionals).
Politically
active and identified by holding elective office in community
organizations, writing articles, contacting elected officials,
or serving on policy committees in their local communities.
12.
Leadership, forms of leadership.
12.
Political leadership it is a symbol of community and political
behaviour of the sample group that can implement its interests
with the help of the authorities.
Leadership - the
phenomenon of power, and according to Blondel (1978):
‘leadership is ‘ability to make others do what they would
not otherwise do’. Leadership is exercise of coercive power.
Warren
Bennis formulated it as follows: “Leaders
provide a sense of purpose to help create goals and objectives.
People want leaders to provide context.”
Therefore, ‘public leadership’ inevitably has a strongly
prescriptive character.
The Harvard professor,
Howard Gardner argues that the leader is “he
who wishes to lead influences the thoughts and feelings of
large groups of people. The key to this lies in telling a
convincing story”.
On
the basis of the emotional relationship of the leader with his
followers
C. Gibb
formulated three types of leaders:
1. "Patriarch",
in relation to which members of the public at the same time
experiencing the feeling of love and fear;
2 . "Tyrant",
in relation to which the dominant feeling is fear;
3 .
"Ideal"
leader, which is sympathised by most social groups.
13.
Political charisma (an example).
13.
A leader who can get you all excited about a vision and the
means to achieve it. It's a common human instinct. But while
leaders can be effective without being charismatic, possessing
charisma that winning combo of charm, passion and
persuasiveness can be a huge asset. It's awfully hard to resist
a charismatic person. Take Cesar Chavez. The labor and civil
rights activist was a thoughtful speaker, but it was his
passion when speaking, plus an ability to relate to ordinary
people his charisma that made so many flock to his cause.
14.
Imperialism and hegemony.
14.
Hegemony
is an indirect form of government, and of imperial dominance in
which the hegemon (leader state) rules geopolitically
subordinate states by the implied means of power, the threat of
force, rather than by direct military force. In Ancient Greece
(8th century BCE – 6th century CE), hegemony denoted the
politico–military dominance of a city-state over other
city-states.
In
the 19th century, hegemony denoted the geopolitical and the
cultural predominance of one country upon others; from which
derived hegemonism, the Great Power politics meant to establish
European hegemony upon continental Asia and Africa. In the 20th
century, Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) developed the philosophy
and the sociology of geopolitical hegemony into the theory of
cultural hegemony, whereby one social class can manipulate the
system of values and mores of a society, in order to create and
establish a ruling class Weltanschauung, a worldview that
justifies the status quo of bourgeois domination of the other
social classes of the society.
Imperialism
is an unequal human and territorial relationship, usually in
the form of an empire, based on ideas of superiority and
practices of dominance, and involving the extension of
authority and control of one state or people over another."
Lewis Samuel Feuer identifies two major subtypes of
imperialism; the first is the "regressive imperialism"
identified with pure conquest, unequivocal exploitation,
extermination or reductions of undesired peoples, and
settlement of desired peoples into those territories. The
second type identified by Feuer is "progressive
imperialism" that is founded upon a cosmopolitan view of
humanity, that promotes the spread of civilization to allegedly
backward societies to elevate living standards and culture in
conquered territories, and allowance of a conquered people to
assimilate into the imperial society, an example being the
British Empire which claimed to give their "citizens"
a number of advantages.
15.
Forms of democracy.
15.
This highlights two contrasting models of democracy:
1.
Direct democracy
2.
Representative democracy.
Direct
democracy
The
cornerstone of Athenian democracy was the direct and continuous
participation of all citizens in the life of their polis or
city-state.
Form
of government by mass meeting, and each citizen was qualified
to hold public office if selected to do so by lot or rota.
By
removing the need for a separate class of professional
politicians, the citizens themselves were able to rule
directly, obliterating the distinction between government and
the governed and between the state and civil society.
So-called
“town-meeting democracy” continue to be practised at a
local level in some parts of the USA, notably in New England,
and in the communal assemblies employed in Switzerland.
Plebiscite
or referendum
- the other means to enable direct democracy.
Used
to direct a popular vote on a specific issue which enables
electors
to make
decisions directly,
instead of selecting politicians to do so on their behalf.
-
Constitutional amendments
-
Membership in organisations and in the state
-
Public propositions
-
Interactive televised public debates
Besides
advantages of having decisions made by public the public
participation is limited by infrequency, briefness, by the
length of political terms of elected officials and with the
scope of issues covered on referendums and plebiscites.
Representative
Democracy
Government
is left in the hands of professional politicians who make
decisions on behalf of the people.
Representative
democracy is, at best, a limited and indirect form of
democracy.
However,
the act of voting remains a vital source of popular power.The
public has the ability to ‘kick the rascals out’, a fact
that ensures public accountability.
16.
Forms of representation.
16.
In
politics, representation suggests that an individual or group
somehow stands for, or on behalf of, a larger collection of
people.
Political
representation therefore acknowledges a link between two
otherwise separate entities – government
and the governed
–
and
implies that through this link the people’s views are
articulated or their interests are secured.
In
practice, there is no single, agreed model of representation
but rather a number of competing theories, each based upon
particular ideological and political assumptions.
There
are two forms of representation:
Representation
through mandate
Characteristic
representation
Representation
through mandate
The
mandate is held to be a sufficient (some say also necessary)
condition for the legitimacy of acts performed in fulfilment of
it.
Mandate
is given by public to elected politicians.
Being
elected means endowment of the politician with the mandate - an
authoritative instruction or command.
Victory
in the election is therefore a reflection of the popularity of
one set of proposals over its rivals.
Characteristic
representation
Another
view of representation that it is based upon the belief that
only people who are drawn from a particular group can genuinely
articulate its interests.
To
represent
means to speak for, or on behalf of, others, something that is
impossible if representatives do not have intimate and personal
knowledge of the people they represent.
Connection
with the electorate is the key factor.
17.
Contrast socialism and capitalism.
17.
Capitalism and socialism are somewhat opposing schools of
thought in economics. The central arguments in the
socialism/capitalism debate are about economic equality and the
role of government: socialists believe economic inequality is
bad for society and the government is responsible for reducing
it via programs that benefit the poor. e.g. free public
education, free or subsidized healthcare, social security for
the elderly, higher taxes on the rich. On the other hand,
capitalists believe that government does not use economic
resources as efficiently as private enterprise and therefore
society is better off with the free market determining economic
winners and losers.
The
U.S. is widely considered the bastion of capitalism and large
parts of Scandinavia and Western Europe are socialist
democracies. However, the truth is every developed country has
some programs that are socialist.
18.
Contrast political liberalism and fascism.
18.
Liberalism in terms of fascism.
Liberalism
( fascism ) - political science term that is an umbrella name
specific extremist political movements , ideologies and
political regimes they headed elitist dictatorial (
authoritarian or totalitarian ) type. Under liberalism (
fascism ) is understood a mass political movement that existed
in Italy, Germany , Spain, Portugal , Brazil, Chile, Argentina,
Israel, USA, Russia , Ukraine and other countries of the world
.Liberal policy ( fascist ) states characterized by extreme
amplification or attenuation of extreme regulatory role of
public administration in the economic, political and social
life , which is called a public corporation acting through
public organizations and social institutions for the violent
repression of liberal not ( not fascist ) dissent , explicit
open bureaucratic repression and extreme extremist form of
terrorism against manufacturing , business and working
relationships in society.
Fascism
in terms of liberalism.
Fascism
(liberalism) - philosophical , political and economic ideology
emanating from the fact that the individual is the basis of
social and economic order. Fascism (liberalism ) differs at
condescension ( tolerance ) to display in the society of
individualism and selfishness , just arbitrary relation to law
and legitimate ways of organizing relations in the state .That
is, ideologeme fascism ( liberalism ) is the proposition that
if that state is not allowed or specifically , it should be
prohibited and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, even
if it contradicts the prosecution civil rights and freedoms ,
to the point , has not yet entered into force , or which state
a special decision on the case.
19.
Typologies of state by strength.
19.
Not all states really achieve the civil society ad not all even
function as states; some hardly function at all.
Just
because a country has a flag and sits in the UN does not prove
that it is a serious state.
Analysts
see at least three categories of States, based
on the strength:
Effective
states control and tax their entire territory. Laws are mostly
obeyed. Government looks after the general welfare and
security. Corruption is fairly minor. Effective states tend to
be better off and to collect considerable taxes (25 to 50
percent of GDP). Effective states include Japan, the United
States, and Western Europe. Some put the best of these states
into a “highly effective” category.
Weak
states are characterised by the penetration of crime into
politics. You cannot tell where politics leaves off and crime
begins. The government does not have the strength to fight
lawlessness, drug trafficking, corruption, poverty, and
breakaway movements. Justice is bought. Democracy is preached
more than practiced and elections often rigged. Little is
collected in taxation. Revenues from natural resources, such as
Mexico’s and Nigeria’s oil, disappear into private pockets.
Much of Asia, Africa, and Latin America are weak states.
Failed
states have essentially no national government, although some
pretend they do. Warlords, militias, and opium growers do as
they wish. There is no law besides the gun. Territorial breakup
threatens. Education and health standards decline (as in the
increase of HIV/AIDS). (Afghanistan, Somalia)
20.
Theories of state.
20.
Most European medieval and Renaissance political thinkers took
a religious approach to the study of government and politics.
Which
was strictly normative,
seeking to discover the “ought” or “should” and rarely
descriptive
about the “is,” the real-world situation.
-
Informed by religious, legal, and philosophical values,
-
Sought to discover which system of government would bring
humankind closest to the city of God, to the God’s will.
Niccolò
Machiavelli
in the early sixteenth century introduced what some believe to
be the central issue of modern political science:
the
focus on power.
His
great work The
Prince
was about the getting
and using
of political
power.
Many
philosophers rate Machiavelli as the first modern philosopher
because his motivations and explanations were distant from
religion.
Machiavelli
was not as wicked as some people say. He was a realist who
argued that to accomplish anything good—such as the
unification of Italy and expulsion of the foreigners who ruined
it—the Prince had to be rational and tough in the exercise of
power. A state is an organized community living under one
government. States may be sovereign. The denomination state is
also employed to federated states that are members of a federal
union, which is the sovereign state. Some states are subject to
external sovereignty or hegemony where ultimate sovereignty
lies in another state. The state can also be used to refer to
the secular branches of government within a state, often as a
manner of contrasting them with churches and civilian
institutions.
Many
human societies have been governed by states for millennia,
however for most of pre-history people lived in stateless
societies. The first states arose about 10,000 years ago at the
same time as agriculture, patriarchy, slavery, and organized
religion. Over time, a variety of different forms developed,
employing a variety of justifications for their existence (such
as divine right, the theory of the social contract, etc.).
Today, however, the modern nation-state is the predominant form
of state which people are subject to.
21.
Characteristics of state.
21.
First, the state is all-comprehensive.
Its organisation embraces all persons, natural or legal, and
all associations of persons. There are no stateless persons
within the territory of the state.
Second,
the state is exclusive.
Political science and public law do not recognise the existence
of an imperium in imperio.
Third,
the state is permanent.
It does not lie within the power of men to create it today and
destroy it tomorrow, as caprice may move them. Anarchy is a
permanent impossibility.
Fourth
and last, the state is sovereign.
This is its most essential principle. An organisation may be
conceived which would include every member of a given
population, or every inhabitant of a given territory, and which
might continue with great permanence, and yet it might not be
the state. If, however, it possesses the sovereignty over the
population, then it is the state.
22.
Aims and functions of ideology.
22.
According to Marxism ‘ideology’ is what serves the social
function of consolidating a particular
economic order
(which is explained by that fact alone, and not by its inherent
truth or reasonableness).
Aims
of ideology
-
to naturalise the status quo
-
to justify class rule and power (by persuading oppressed
classes to accept the descriptions of reality which render
their subordination).
The
functions of ideology
It
therefore has three principal functions:
Ideologies
are the basis of dominant group members' practices (say of
discrimination).They provide the principles by which these
forms of power abuse may be justified, legitimised, condoned or
accepted.
23.
Left-wing and right-wing ideologies.
23.
Right
wing politics:
-
anticommunist;
-
pro-economic development.
Left
wing politics:
-
sympathetic to communism.
-
pro-environmentalism.
Both
ideological dimensions have radical forms.
Radical
views tend to arise when the existing political order no longer
functions effectively (as in prerevolutionary France and
Russia), so periods of order and prosperity tend to discourage
radicalism.
Left-wing
ideologies: Liberalism; Socialism; Communism
The
Left politically tends to be progressive (for social change),
in favor of
central
government control or regulation of the economy (especially to
benefit the poor and working class),
rights
of “oppressed” people and minorities (blacks, women,
Native Americans, homosexuals, gays, lesbians, transsexuals,
the disabled, the poor of the developing world)
increased
welfare-state socialism
regulation
of business
social
equality.
24.
Types of political culture according to Almond and Verba.
24.
Political culture refers to the distinguishing beliefs, values,
attitudes, habits, and behaviour patterns that characterise a
political community.
Political
culture is constructed of cognitive, affective and evaluative
orientations towards the political system.
The
Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five
Nations (1963),
the American political scientists Gabriel Almond and Sidney
Verba proposed three basic models of political culture based on
their cross-national survey research on five democratic
countries: Italy, Germany, Mexico, US, and UK.
Political
culture is determined by three main factors:
-
Awareness
of
government
-
Expectations
of
government
-
Political
participation
Three
types of political culture:
Parochial
(limited,
narrow) cultures (low awareness, expectations, and
participation) Example: Mexico
Subject
(higher
levels of awareness and expectation but low participation)
Examples: Italy, Germany
Participant
(high
levels of awareness, expectations and participation) Examples:
USA, UK
25.
Agents of political socialisation.
25.
Through the process of political
socialisation,
the
central values of the political culture are transmitted from
one generation to another.
Political
culture becomes ‘popular’, and is shared through means of
‘socialisation’.
Socialisation
happens both directly and indirectly.
-
The persons by which and the setting in which the process of
political socialisation is accomplished are called the agents
of political socialisation.
There
are agents of political socialization: Family, school, peers,
clubs/social groups, religion, government, media, work, ethnic
background.
The
family
is
responsible for, among other things, determining one’s
attitudes toward religion and establishing career goals.
-
The school
is
the agency responsible for socialising groups of young people
in particular skills and values in society. In all states,
there
is some degree of guidedsocialisation
through the schools.The
schools attempt to mould the citizenry according to the ideals
of the state.
Peer
groups refer
either to a group of people who are friends or to people of
similar age and characteristics (e.g., students in a college
class). Peer groups are extremely influential in developing
adolescents' tastes and their view of the world but they vary
considerably in their political impact.
Mass
Media include
newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, Internet, etc. We are
dependent on the media for what
we
know and how
we
relate to the world of politics because of the media-politics
connection. We read or watch political debates followed by
instant analysis and commentary by “experts.”
Other
Agents:
State, Religion, Political Events, Art
Pragmatic-professional
questions
Comparative
politics is a subfield of political science, characterized by
an empirical approach based on the comparative method. When
applied to specific fields of study, comparative politics may
be referred to by other names, such as for example comparative
government (the comparative study of forms of government) or
comparative foreign policy (comparing the foreign policies of
different States in order to establish general empirical
connections between the characteristics of the State and the
characteristics of its foreign policy). Sometimes, especially
in the United States, the term "comparative politics"
is used to refer to "the politics of foreign countries."
This usage of the term, however, is often considered incorrect
while sometimes political research must be conducted by
analysing the behaviour of qualitative variables in a small
number of cases. The case study approach cannot be considered a
scientific method according to the above definition, however it
can be useful to gain knowledge about single cases, which can
then be put to comparison according to the comparative method
Political
science is a social science discipline concerned with the study
of the state, nation, government, and politics and policies of
government. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state.[1]
It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics,
and the analysis of political systems, political behavior, and
political culture. Political scientists "see themselves
engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political
events and conditions, and from these revelations they attempt
to construct general principles about the way the world of
politics works."[2] Political science intersects with
other fields; including economics, law, sociology, history,
anthropology, public administration,public policy, national
politics, international relations, comparative politics,
psychology,political organization, and political theory.
Although it was codified in the 19th century, when all the
social sciences were established, political science has ancient
roots; indeed, it originated almost 2,500 years ago with the
works of Plato and Aristotle.[3]
Political
science is commonly divided into distinct sub-disciplines which
together constitute the field:
•
political theory
•
comparative politics
•
public administration
•
international relations
•
public law
•
political methodology
3. Why
it is said that the first democracy was created in Greece?
in
1859 b.cAthenian democracy was developed in the Greek
city-state of Athens, comprising the central city-state of
Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica, around 500 BC.
Athens was one of the very first known democracies. Other Greek
cities set up democracies, and even though most followed an
Athenian model, none were as powerful, stable, or as
well-documented as that of Athens. It remains a unique and
intriguing experiment in direct democracy where the people do
not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on
legislation and executive bills in their own right.
Participation was by no means open, but the in-group of
participants was constituted with no reference to economic
class and they participated on a scale that was truly
phenomenal. The public opinion of voters was remarkably
influenced by the political satire performed by the comic poets
at the theatres
4. Who
had the political agency in Ancient Greece? Why?
Political
freedom (also known as political autonomy or political agency)
is a central concept in Western history and political thought
and one of the most important (real or ideal) features of
democratic societies. It has been described as a relationship
free of oppression or coercion; the absence of disabling
conditions for an individual and the fulfillment of enabling
conditions; or the absence of lived conditions of compulsion,
e.g. economic compulsion, in a society.Although political
freedom is often interpreted negatively as the freedom from
unreasonable external constraints on action, it can also refer
to the positive exercise of rights, capacities and
possibilities for action, and the exercise of social or group
rights. The concept can also include freedom from "internal"
constraints on political action or speech (e.g. social
conformity, consistency, or "inauthentic"
behaviour.)The concept of political freedom is closely
connected with the concepts of civil liberties and human
rights, which in democratic societies are usually afforded
legal protection from the state.
5.
Describe the role of ‘class’ in politics.
Political
class, or political elite is a concept in comparative political
science originally developed by Italian political theorist
theory of Gaetano Mosca (1858–1941). It refers to the
relatively small group of activists that is highly aware and
active in politics, and from whom the national leadership is
largely drawn. As Max Weber noted, they not only live "for
politics"—like the old notables used to—but make their
careers "off politics" as policy specialists and
experts on specific fields of public administration.[1] Mosca
approached the study of the political class by examining the
mechanisms of reproduction and renewal of the ruling class; the
characteristics of politicians; and the different forms of
organization developed in their wielding of power.Elected
legislatures may become dominated by subject-matter
specialists, aided by permanent staffs, who become a political
class. The presence or absence of a political class in a
country depends on its history. For example Germany (since
1945) has a very weak political class, with a "striking
taboo" against the sort of elitism that dominated Germany
before 1945, including Imperial Germany, Weimar and the Nazi
regime.[3] In sharp contrast France has a very prestigious
political class trained in special elite schools.
6.
Can a society sustain itself without the state?
Primitive
societies are societies without a State. This factual judgment,
accurate in itself, actually hides an opinion, a value judgment
that immediately throws doubt on the possibility of
constituting political anthropology as a strict science. What
the statement says, in fact, is that primitive societies are
missing something - the State - that is essential to them, as
it is to any other society: our own, for instance.
Consequently, those societies are incomplete; they are not
quite true societies--they are not civilized--their existence
continues to suffer the painful experience of a lack--the lack
of a State--which, try as they may, they will never make up.
Whether clearly stated or not, that is what comes through in
the explorers' chronicles and the work of researchers alike:
society is inconceivable without the State; the State is the
destiny of every society. One detects an ethnocentric bias in
this approach; more often than not it is unconscious, and so
the more firmly anchored. Its immediate, spontaneous reference,
while perhaps not the best known, is in any case the most
familiar. In effect, each one of us carries within himself,
internalized like the believer's faith, the certitude that
society exists for the State. How, then, can one conceive of
the very existence of primitive societies if not as the rejects
of universal history, anachronistic relics of a remote stage
that everywhere else has been transcended? Here one recognizes
ethnocentrism's other face, the complementary conviction that
history is a one-way progression, that every society is
condemned to enter into that history and pass through the
stages which lead from savagery to civilization. "All
civilized peoples were once savages," wrote Ravnal. But
the assertion of an obvious evolution cannot justify a doctrine
which, arbitrarily tying the state of civilization to the
civilization of the State, designates the latter as the
necessary end result assigned to all societies. One may ask
what has kept the last of the primitive peoples as they are.
When, in primitive society, the economic dynamic lends itself
to definition as a distinct and autonomous domain, when the
activity of production becomes alienated, accountable labor,
1evied by men who will enjoy the fruits of that labor, what has
come to pass is that society has been divided into rulers and
ruled, masters and subjects--it has ceased to exorcise the
thing that will be its ruin: power and the respect for power.
Society's major division, the division that is the basis for
all the others, including no doubt the division of labor, is
the new vertical ordering of things between a base and a
summit; it is the great political cleavage between those who
hold the force, be it military or religious, and those subject
to that force. The political relation of power precedes and
founds the economic relation of exploitation. Alienation is
political before it is economic; power precedes labor; the
economic derives from the political; the emergence of the State
determines the advent of classes.
7.
Marxist and liberal theories of society - which is more
suitable to understanding of present society.
The
liberal conception of the state is of a limited organization
that represents popular will. The state plays a minimal role in
the directing of society and economic affairs, but can play a
significant supporting role in modern liberal (social liberal)
theories. Classical Liberals favor a minimal state that only
provides for basic services such as defense, enforcing
contracts and protecting property rights. Social liberals
accept more roles for the state, primarily in the economic
sphere, such as regulation of capitalism in order to protect
consumers and workers, welfare programs to help the poor and
disadvantaged in society and public services that benefit
everyone. To liberals, the state plays a supporting role in
society, and is usually left to operate in the political and
social spheres. Marxists conceive of the state as an
institution ofcapitalism that can be transformed to benefit the
working class, as the state isthe only institution that is
capable of organizing and managing the economy on alarge scale.
The state would be radicalized in that the workers and people
wouldcontrol it through direct democracy or council democracy.
The state becomes anintegral part of the economy in that it
owns the means of production in the phase of socialism.
Marxists see the state as becoming unnecessary when the
productive forces develop and authority on the state level is
no longer required, leading to the disappearance of the state
and social class. This society is called communism, where the
means of production is owned communally but operated and
managed by cooperatives. Socialism is an economic system
whereby either the state or worker cooperatives own and control
the means of production, strategic resources and major
industry. The principle of socialismis to organize the economy
in a rational manner that avoids the pitfalls ofcapitalism and
the free market through planned or state directed
economicsystems. Socialism can also utilize the market
mechanism to distribute goods andservices in the form of market
socialism, while the state or public retainsownership of major
economic institutions. The revenue generated by the state
economy would be used to finance government programs,
potentially eliminating the need for taxation. A private sector
for non-heavy industry can exist in asocialist system, but the
state, public or cooperative sector would play thedominant role
in the economy. To socialists, the state is a part of the
economyand the state plays a dominant role in structuring
economic and politicalaffairs.
8.
How do you understand the ‘distribution of power’?
Political
power is a point of power in the United States that puts
certain individuals in charge of the decision-making process
for the overall benefit of the nation. It is distributed in the
United States by the process of election. Distribution of power
in government can be found with the different sections of it.
For example, in the United States, there is Congress, the
President, and more. In Britain, there are different houses of
Parliament. The distribution of political power between
Congress and the presidency has fluctuated to extremes at
numerous points in the history of the United States. These
changes have occurred all within the formal framework of the
U.S. Constitution. The books below include some of the
classical accounts of the ebb and flow of the legislative and
executive powers.
9.
Do separate ‘classes’ have separate political cultures? Why
do you think so?
Political
culture - the constantly changing and evolving phenomenon that
are sensitive to dynamics of the world. If to understand all
sum of results of material and spiritual production of human
society as culture, the political culture represents that part
of the general culture which unites historical experience,
memory of social communities and certain people in the sphere
of policy, their orientation, installation, the skills defining
political behavior. Besides universal types of political
culture in society also there is a political culture of the
certain social, ethnic, confessional, regional subjects
differing in political life with specific views and
preferences. It is accepted to call them political subcultures.
In socio-political literature such subculture is considered as
set political by orientation of many people within this culture
or, at least, different from the cultural orientations
dominating in society.
10.
Why the control of political socialisation matters?
Political
socialization is a particular type of political learning
whereby people develop the attitudes, values, beliefs,
opinions, and behaviors that are conducive to becoming good
citizens in their country. Socialization is largely a one-way
process through which young people gain an understanding of the
political world through their interaction with adults and the
media. This section will define what is meant by political
socialization and detail how the process of political
socialization occurs in the United States. It will outline the
stages of political learning across an individual’s life
course. The agents that are responsible for political
socialization, such as the family and the media, and the types
of information and orientations they convey will be discussed.
Group differences in political socialization will be examined.
Finally, the section will address the ways that political
generations develop through the political socialization
process.
11.
Give a characteristic to relations between agents of political
socialisation, is there a rivalry for influence?
Agents
of political socialization — it is institutes which form
political culture. These include primarily the State
represented by its legislative, executive and judiciary. The
state determines the important parameters of political culture:
develops legislative norms that determine political behavior of
citizens; forms the and establishes national political symbols;
etc. Most of the named of agents perform a function in the
later stages of socialization, when the foundations of
political knowledge and models of behavior already included in
the consciousness of man. In the early stages of political
socialization of this role is family, school, immediate
environment, as well as opinion leaders. Agents of political
socialization are among not only actually political, but also
non-political institutes: family, groups of contemporaries,
church, education system, professional and women's
organizations, cultural and sports associations, etc. It is
known, for example, what big role groups of popular actors or
athletes at propaganda for or against can play this or that
political leader on elections.
12.
Democracy - is it just an idealist utopia or something more?
Democracy
is a form of government in which all eligible citizens
participate equally—either directly or indirectly through
elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and
creation of laws. It encompasses social, religious, cultural,
ethnic and racial equality, justice, liberty and fraternity.
The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία
(dēmokratía) "rule of the people",[1] which was
found from δῆμος
(dêmos) "people" and κράτος
(kratos) "power" or "rule" in the 5th
century BCE to denote the political systems then existing in
Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to
ἀριστοκρατία
(aristokratia) "rule of an elite". While
theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice
the distinction has been blurred historically.[2] The political
system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic
citizenship to an elite class of free men and excluded slaves
and women from political participation. In virtually all
democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history,
democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class until full
enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern
democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th
centuries. The English word dates to the 16th century, from the
older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents. Democracy
contrasts with forms of government where power is either held
by one person, as in a monarchy, or where power is held by a
small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless,
these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy,[3] are now
ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed
democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl Popper
defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus
focusing on opportunities for the people to control their
leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.
13.
What do you think is the ideological meaning of democracy?
The
truest definition of Democracy involves defining an ideology
rather than a method of government, although the government
application is most frequently used. Democracy as ideology
represents the notion that the people, in their majority, will
decide all group issues or plans of action by voting. As a form
of government, Democracy describes the process of election or
referendum by which law and policy is passed, which is open to
and representative of the entire populace.That is about as far
as pure Democracy goes, definitively, and that presents an
impossible method of government for any but the very smallest
organizations. Very large organizations or nations need, as a
matter of simple practicality, some form of representative
body, elected by and representative of the whole populace, to
make and enforce law and national policy. In its truest and
most effective governmental forms, Democracy may be better
described as a Republic, or it may be described as a Liberal
Democracy, or it may be described as a Social Democracy. In
actual practice, governments that describe themselves as
Democratic are so diverse as to nearly defy any all
encompassing definition.Absolute Democracy is quite impossible
for all but small groups, as might fit around a conference
table. Even then some external rule (such as a Constitution)
is required to keep proceedings from degenerating into chaos.
An example of an unrestrained Democracy might be a lynch mob.
Do we hang this man or not? The ayes have it; get the rope.
Truth suffers as much when the majority rules as when a
dictator rules. The majority can be just as wrong as any
dictator. Perfection is not of this world, but the next; and
recognizing that a "pure" Democracy is unlikely to
exist, the Pure Democracy link will describe the IDEAL that the
notion of a pure Democracy represents.For the counter-point
ideal of those who oppose representative government, go to the
Pure Socialism link to see the current political positions of
those who label themselves Liberal or Leftist, or, these days,
Moderate.
14.
How political ideology influences society, what do you think
are the main contributing factors?
Political
ideologies influence social policy as the government
establishes the rules by which companies are to abide by. They
can provide or even purchase services such as national health
services, state education and public housing. They can also
offer subsidies to producers and consumers. Sometimes they may
also persuade their people through propaganda and exhortation.
They can therefore provide favourable or unfavourable policies
to govern their country. Ideologies refer to a set of ideas and
values that provides a base for organised political action.
They justify and influence the different theories of society
and human nature. Ideologies have a big impact on policy
making, as the government of the day will base their policies
around these political ideologies. Political ideologies are
normative in the sense that they hold values about human nature
and how society should live their lives, and politically
motivated in being supported by political interests.
15.
Why leaders are more than just manipulators and demagogues?
A
politician, political leader, or political figure (from
Classical Greek πόλις,
"polis") is a person who is involved in influencing
public policy and decision making. This includes people who
hold decision-making positions in government, and people who
seek those positions, whether by means of election,
inheritance, appointment, conquest, or other means. Politics is
not limited to governance through public office. Political
offices may also be held in corporations. In civil uprisings,
politicians may be called freedom fighters. In media campaigns,
politicians are often referred to as activists. People who are
politically active, especially in party politics.A person
holding or seeking political office whether elected or
appointed, whether professionally or otherwise. Positions range
from local offices to executive, legislative and judicial
offices of state and national governments.[1] Some law
enforcement officers, such as sheriffs, are considered
leaders.A political leader, or a politician, can be anyone who
has taken up the responsibility of governing a tribe, city,
state, region or even an entire nation. History has given us a
plethora of political leaders, both good and bad, who have
dedicated their lives to the betterment of their countries and
the people living in the country. Political leaders are not
just people who govern nations during peace times but also
during times of crisis. They are people who are responsible for
making and implementing strategies and policies meant to better
serve the interests of the country they govern. These leaders
are chosen through various processes, some examples of which
would be through elections, in a democratic nation, and through
lineage or birthright, in case of a monarchy, or even
dictatorships wherein one individual declares himself the head
of state. A look at the political leader’s hall of fame would
reveal names like Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Adolf
Hitler, Winston Churchill and even Genghis Khan. What follows
next are the biographies of some of the most famous politicians
along with information on their life’s story, trivia about
them, their timelines and some other interesting facts about
their professional and personal lives.
16.
Why do all politicians want power?
Politicians
are people who want power. Further they want power more than
others want power. Generally the people who achieve something
are the ones who want it most - the ones who are prepared to
give up the most to get it. This makes politicians the worst
possible people for running a country.This does not change from
party to party. Politicians recognize that openly promoting a
command economy is too unpalatable for their constituents, but
they try to impose more and more rules and regulations on the
population to try to control more and more aspects of the lives
of those they rule - and use the word 'freedom' to promote the
policies. Power in a democracy is votes, so the question
becomes 'where are the most votes for this person at the next
election', and that will be the best indication.Few politicians
have a long term view of politics - they are resigned to the
notion that they have just a few tries at success. Like Olympic
athletes who may only get one or two shots at Olympic gold
before they are too old and off-peak, politicians will usually
sacrifice everything to win the next election, because they
often don't get another try.They have short shelf-lives, and
they tolerate this. They eventually outlive their usefulness,
their past catches up with them - the dirty back-room deals,
and they fall on their swords.Long term politicians are far
more scary. Some politicians refuse to make dirty back-room
deals which may catch up for them because they take the long
term view. They tend to stay in power a long time, and it is
very hard to remove them.Fortunately, politicians in a
democracy do not really have a lot of power. They are merely
the conduits for the wishes of the special interest groups they
represent. This tends to limit the damage they can do to the
(not insignificant) stupidity of their support base of minority
groups.
17.
How political and economic crises relate and interact?
Political
and economic stability of keystone to success development of
any nation. For a stable state are characteristic 1) a shared
sense of belonging to the nation; 2) succession forms of
governance; 3) the gradual and orderly changing of the ruling
elites; d) the presence the checks and balances for the balance
of power structures of, 4) the functioning multiparty system,
under which opposition is effectively acts; 5) The presence of
a large middle class. At the same time, they are interconnected
in the sense that the one factor instability can lead to
instability other. All spheres of life of any society,
especially of modern, closely interrelated. Most closely the
policy intertwines with economy. It is well-known that the
policy and economy are the bases of all system of public
relations. For this reason their interaction plays a crucial
role in development of any society. The policy is deeply
mediated by the economic sphere, the economic relations and
economic interests of society. In turn, impact of policy on
economic life of society is essential and many-sided.
18.
Does the right cause for war exist?
Wars
are fought for survival, or to prevent one group from being
subjugated by another. In the age of empires, wars are fought
to increase the power or wealth of one nation at the expense of
others. They are also fought over differences in culture,
religion, and ideology.
Reasons
for war include:
Resolving
Problems
Often,
men have conflicting desires, wants, and war is seen as one of
the options used to resolve these differences. These desires
are far-ranging but usually relate to power or control in some
way. Some examples include wars over slavery, resources, or
other ideologies.
Unity
War
is a force that gives us meaning. War helps unite people
against a common enemy, even if the enemy is no different from
themselves. When wars end, people often feel empty and less
united than before.
Glory
Some
people have fought war for the sake of accomplishing something.
Examples of such men include Alexander the Great, Julius
Caesar, Genghis Khan, and men who fought under
them.
Establishing
Superiority
Often
wars are fought when one side is dehumanized, and seen as
inferior or unequal to one's own country, race, or religion.
When this happens, personal value judgments are more likely to
cause conflicts between the two sides. These conflicts can
escalate to wars.
19.
Why politics can often be aptly summed up in famous words of
Niccolo Machiavelli: “The end justifies the means”?
The
question of the interaction of ends and means in politics is
generally considered, depending on their moral evaluation, and
distinguishes three positions of their relationship. The first
is that the moral character of the policy carried out in its
aim. The founder of this approach was the Italian N.
Machiavelli, who put forward the thesis: "The end
justifies the means." For the sake of achievement of goals
he considered justified and applicable any means, including
perfidy, insidiousness, cruelty, deception of the political
opponent. The second approach proceeds from subject influence
of means on the moral importance of policy, its purpose. The
third is that between the purposes and means there is an
interference at which both the purpose, and means of its
achievement complement each other. Although very rare to find a
politician who professes formula "the end justifies the
means", but invested with in a soft and attractive
clothing, it has a wide application in politics and very often
serves as a cover for immoral political action. All greatest
political crimes - wars, mass terror, bloody revolutions, etc.
- were covered great, from the point of view of their creators,
the purposes promising the benefit if not to all mankind, at
least, to the nation or a class.
20.
What is national idea? What is the need for it?
Each
country in the game has access to national ideas. These ideas
help define the strengths of each country. Each national idea
group has two starting bonuses, seven bonuses that are unlocked
sequentially, and one final bonus unlocked when the 7th
sequential bonus is unlocked. One sequential bonus is unlocked
for every third idea unlocked from the idea groups, so once
three idea groups have been filled all national ideas will have
been unlocked.In alphabetical order are all the known national
ideas. There are currently 71 unique idea groups, 18 group
ideas, & 8 ideas exclusive to the Crusader Kings 2
save-game converter, plus the default set of ideas.
21.
How media ‘bias’ can be seen?
One
international issue that affects us every day while we are
oblivious to its effects is media bias. We see it in the news.
We see it on our favorite sitcoms. Media bias is evident in
many aspects of the media, yet the problem is that we don't
even recognize it when it is right in front of our faces. Are
the impressions and opinions that we form about individuals
based solely on the media's opinions that we see and hear in
the news? . In the following paper, I will give specific
instances where media biases have occurred as well as show that
it is a common occurrence that we may not realize, and
What
exactly is it?
Media
bias is the tendency of the media to represent different people
or organizations in a specific way based on their own personal
views and the views of the society. One way this is done is
that a specific viewpoint is pushed or someone or something is
favored over another, instead of reporting news or airing
programs in an objective and honest way. Such bias usually
refers to the media as one whole group, such as a given
television network, instead of individual reporters or writers
of television shows. Media bias could be blatant, but usually
it is ingeniously indirect like word choice, time limits on
programming, and suggests that the organization isn't neutral.
It can be expressed in the language used on shows, and that is
written in the newspaper and magazines, of which there will be
further discussion upon in this essay. One form of bias occurs
when the media promotes stereotypes that portrays individuals
to society in a certain way that leads to the ignorance of
individuals in society
Types
and Reasons for media bias
There
are a number of types of media bias that have contributed to
influencing people's thoughts, some of which are: political
bias, religious bias, information bias, mainstream and
corporate bias. Religious bias has been conducted innumerable
times, where certain corporations highlight a religion and
speak ill of it indirectly. One example of this is how Muslims
are sometimes portrayed as terrosists.Political bias is the
most common form of media bias where certain political party or
individual is often attacked or even if it is supported by the
media, it may get more "light" in the news.Sometimes,
certain media companies may show a political bias towards
certain news events.This usually occurs if the channel or
reporter is in favor of a particular candidate.
Some
media companies intentionally leave out certain information
that they see the audience shouldn't come to know. There can be
many reasons to this such as personal grudges, or for promoting
stereotypes.etc. This ties in with corporate bias.Obvoiusly,
the media is always hoping to please someone and in many cases,
it may be another major corporation that the media company
relies on for funds, advertisement or exposure to society.
Mainstream bias occurs when the media decides to simply report
what everyone else is reporting in order to not offend anyone
or gain infamous popularity.
Media
bias can occur due to various reasons, one of which is that it
can happen with the reported being unaware of it himself by
using negative word choice to describe a certain person for
example. , but the main cause of it is prejudice. When the
journalist or the company reporting the story has a personal,
prejudiced opinion about certain aspects, which results in an
altered version of the story.
22.
How globalisation challenges national identity and national
idea?
Feature
of the international situation at the beginning of the XXI
century is it is formed by on the background growing very of
contradictory processes of globalization, that materially
affect the traditional and present new challenges to national
and international security. In particular, they sharply
exacerbate the problem of national identity, eroding the
concept of national sovereignty, are transforming national
interests of individual states. National identity crisis today
has acquired such forms and proportions that overcoming it for
many of them is not only a competitive choice of an appropriate
development strategy, but also has become a matter of national
survival. A number of processes of globalization -
democratization, economization, information, cultural
standardization, value universalization and others - will
inevitably come up against on national identity as an obstacle
to its natural development, both at the central core that holds
the most established, sometimes accumulative Development Goals
and the because most stable representations the various
ethno-national commonalities of ourselves. While are developing
diverse conflicts, the outcome of which depends on durability
or looseness of to the prevailing national identities, their
uncompromising stand and rigidity, of resistance to the new,
or, on the contrary, of their flexibility, the ability to
adaptive change, renewal without loss of cultural identity
nuclei. Globalization tending to break the national identity,
dissolve it in a the global processes - is thus a sort of
qualified for such nuclei.
23.
Why the spread of capitalism matters for globalisation?
Globalization
is a process of world-wide economic, political and cultural
integration which main characteristics are capitalism
distribution worldwide, world division of labor, migration in
scales of all planet of monetary, human and production
resources. Globalization changes not only processes of world
economy, but also its structure. The process creating global
interdependence on the scale gains strength improbable on power
of influence. Platitude on globalization - openness of borders
for trade and financial streams. Its main advantage in
strengthening of the fruitful competition which hasn't been
limited to a protectionist ideological framework in the
conditions of global division of labor.
24.
Does globalisation change national cultures? What are your main
arguments?
Globalization
has propagated economic opportunity, elevated human rights and
improved access to information, technology and goods for people
all over the world. Critics argue that these benefits have come
at a steep price: the sacrificing of regional cultural identity
for Western ideals. Globalization can affect culture in a few
basic ways. One interpretation suggests that globalization
disperses any and every culture throughout the world, making
the planet more heterogeneous, forging deeper connections
between different groups. For example, teens in the United
States gain an understanding of Japanese culture through
animation, comic books and video games, while teens throughout
Asia learn about the American way of life by watching U.S. TV
shows and movies.Others argue that globalization makes culture
more homogenous, leading to a unified world culture that
consists of watered-down versions of regional cultural trends.
Japanese sushi can be consumed in virtually any country in the
world, and favorites from French pastries to "American"
fried chicken can be found from Florida to Hong Kong.
Proponents argue that this only affects things like consumer
goods and the media, while critics worry that it weakens
traditional culture.The impact of globalization on culture may
also be seen as a blend of the heterogeneous and homogenous, or
a "glocalization" of sorts. Glocalization can be
understood as the development of hybrid cultures at the local
level, as foreign cultures reach local soil, such as in the
creation of fusion cuisine or music. In the 21st century, this
impact has been felt in American movies, where foreign films
like The Departed are remade for the U.S. market.One of the
most common arguments against globalization is that it forces
American culture onto the world, Westernizing other nations.
Will everyone one day wear blue jeans and eat at McDonald's? We
don't know. Globalization can work both ways: Even American
blue jeans were forged from different cultures. They were
developed by a German immigrant; their denim comes from the
name of the French town where it originated (de Nimes); and
"jeans" comes from "Genes," a name used to
describe a style of pants inspired by the pants worn by Genoan
sailors
25. Why
it is suggested by the literature that globalisation weakens
the power and sovereignty of the state?
Building
on the theories of post-industrial and of the information
society, globalization theory showed the ambiguity and
contradictory nature socio-political and economic processes
proceeding in the modern world. On the one hand, there is a
qualitative transformation of modern civilization, increasing
interdependence countries and peoples, which is a consequence
of deep of integration processes, on the other - the
intensification of contradictions at the national, religious
and cultural ground, the escalation of separatist sentiment,
the Fraying the integrity of sovereign states. Globalization
quickly leaves for the economic framework. Fundamental changes
seize all sphere of the socio-political relations which is
compelled to be arranged under new realities. The increasing
value and relevance gets a question of evolution of a role of
the states and their relationship in promptly changing world.
The main thing, from the point of view of a problem of the
state sovereignty, the contradiction between accruing economic
and political interdependence of the countries and the people
is a consequence of processes of globalization, on the one
hand, and preservation behind the right state independently and
at discretion to solve own problems - with another. Loss by the
state of a number of the functions on the international scene
and emergence on it a large number of new actors — the
intergovernmental international organizations assuming a number
of functions, delegated by it is the certain states a
consequence of this process that actually limits the external
sovereignty of the last. The return party of process of
globalization and emergence of supranational authorities —
ethnic separatism, local authorities strengthening - testifies
to "devaluation" and the internal sovereignty.
|
