What words can be formed from the word politics

Комментарии

comments powered by HyperComments

1. Study
   the text and answer the questions:

The
word ‘politics’ is derived from polis (Greek), literally meaning
city-state.
(Ancient Greek society was divided into a collection of independent
city-states, each of which possessed its own system of government).
The modern form of this definition is therefore ‘what concerns the
state’. To study politics is in essence to study government, or
more broadly, the exercise of authority.

Politics
is what takes place within a polity, a system of social organizations
centered upon the machinery of government.

Politics
is therefore practiced in cabinet rooms, legislative chambers,
government departments and the like and it is engaged in by a limited
and specific group of people. Businesses, schools and other
educational institutions, community groups, families and so cm are in
this sense ‘nonpolitical’ because they are not engaged in
‘running the country’.

The
definition can be narrowed still further. This is evident in the
tendency to treat politics as equivalent of party politics. In other
words, the realm of ‘the political’ is restricted to those state
actors who are consciously motivated by organizations such as a
political party.

The
link between politics and the affairs of the state also helps to
explain why negative images have so often been attached to politics.
This is because in the popular mind, politics is closely associated
with the activities of politicians. But brutally, the politicians are
often seen as power-seeking hypocrites who conceal personal ambitions
behind the rhetoric of public service and ideological conviction.
This rejection of the personnel and machinery of conventional
political life is clearly evident in the use of derogatory phrases
such as ‘office politics’ and ‘politicking’. But without some
kind of mechanism for allocating authoritative values, society would
simply disintegrate into a civil war of each against all. The task is
therefore not to abolish politicians and to bring politics to an end,
but rather to ensure that politics is conducted within a framework of
checks and constraints that ensure that government power is not
abused.

Thus,
politics is the activity through which people make, preserve and
amend the general rules under which they live.

Politics
is also an academic subject; it is clearly concerned with the study
of this activity.

Politics
is also linked to the phenomena of conflict and cooperation (the
existence of rival opinions, different wants, competing needs and
opposing interests guarantees disagreement about the rules under
which people live). This is why the heart of politics is often
portrayed as a process of conflict resolution, in which rival views
or competing interests are reconciled with one another.

1. What
   is the modern definition and the origin of the word ‘politics’?

2. Who
   are the main actors of politics?

3. Can
   you explain the case negative images have always been attached to
   politics?

4. What
   is the main subject of academic study of politics?

5. What
   is the heart of politics?

1. Memorize
   the vocabulary from the following text:

to
define
— определять; очерчивать границы, формы

politics

— политика, политические события,
политическая жизнь

polity(ies)

— полития/политии (государственное
устройство, система правления).

to
possess
— владеть, обладать;

to
concern
— касаться, иметь отношение к ч-л

to
legislate
— издавать законы

to
restrict
— ограничивать, сдерживать

to
link — соединять, связывать;

to
attach — присоединять,
связывать

to
seek (sought, sought) — стремиться;
искать, разыскивать

to
conceal smth — скрывать,
прятать

to
derogate — умалять
достоинство, унижать.

to
abolish — отменить,
упразднить.

to
allocate — распределять,
назначать.

to
reconcile — примирять,
улаживать спор

1. Give
   Russian equivalents to the following word combinations. Combine your
   own sentence using any of the phrases below:

The
exercise of authority; in cabinet rooms; legislative chambers;
government departments and the like; images attached to politics;
power-seeking hypocrites; rhetoric of public service and ideological
conviction; allocating authoritative values; to abolish politicians;
within a framework of checks and constraints; an academic subject;
rival opinions or competing interests.

1. Study
   and fix in your dictionary different meanings for the following
   phrases. Key-words: ‘public’, ‘popular’, ‘community’,
   ‘communal’.

Public opinion

spending

bodies

image

officer

career

relations

facilities

administration

popular consent

idea

politician

elections

support

mandate

preferences

image

mobilisation

revolution

community local

business

scientific

communal interests

way
of life

1. Study
   the text and answer the questions:

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #

MEANING OF POLITICS

Politics in General

1. The word “politics” comes from the Greek word “polis” which means “city-state.” In the ancient world, city-states are small countries regarded as centers of culture and civilization where people interact under a unified government. What transpires in the polis is politics. The origin of the word therefore suggests that politics is a term encompassing the totality of human activities transpiring within the city-state. As it is applied now, it denotes everything that transpires in the state as well as among states.
2. Politics denotes a social activity. It is in essence the interaction of individuals. As the Greek philosopher Aristotle explains, it is the master science through which individuals collectively set structure, purpose, and ideals in their lives. Politics, therefore, does not emerge from the activities of a single individual but from that of many.
3. Politics is about conflict and cooperation. On the one hand, conflict is caused by the diversity among individuals. People differ in the way they perceive things, and disagree in almost every conceivable aspect of life. On the other hand, cooperation is motivated by men’s common goal of achieving a happy life. While it is true that men argue and fight, it is also undeniable that they desire for peace. The process of overcoming conflict to attain order and thereafter maintain that order is politics. In other words, politics is essentially conflict resolution.
4. Politics is the creation, maintenance, and amendment of societal norms or rules. While politics as conflict resolution aims at establishing order in the society, the basis of order today is law. Undeniably, religion and other archaic institutions have already lost their central role as sources of order. It is law now that serves as the undisputed order-establishing institution. Modern states and international organizations rely on the adequacy and efficacy of their laws to meet the demands of the people to attain domestic and international peace. Politics therefore, in its broad sense means conflict resolution through the creation, maintenance, and amendment of societal norms or rules.

Definition of Politics

1. It must first be pointed out that politics is a vague term. As a matter of fact, scholars and authorities in the field cannot agree on a common definition of politics. The term includes so many concepts that it could mean almost anything (or everything). The descriptions above, for example, are overly broad and may overlap with the meaning of other sciences. Even worse, its vagueness made it readily associable to “deception, manipulation and corruption” so that its modern day connotation is simply everything that is “dirty.” From this perspective, the definition of politics will always be contestable. The following definitions therefore will only serve as starting points, and the meaning of politics will eventually be understood in the details of later discussions.
2. Politics is the science of government. As a science, it is a systematic body of knowledge (for the most part, practical) that deals with the government and regulation, maintenance and development, and defense and augmentation of the state. It also deals with the protection of the rights of its citizens, safeguarding and enhancement of morals, and harmony and peace of human relations.
3. However, other political scientists prefer to define politics as the art, rather than the science, of government. It is an art because it involves the exercise of control or authority within the society through the creation and enforcement of consensus arrived at by the leaders. It involves the process through which the government skillfully addresses the needs of the society by carefully allocating benefits, rewards, and penalties. This is what David Easton means when he defined politics as the “authoritative allocation of values.” Under this definition, politics takes place only within the polity or the machinery of the government. In other words, only the processes and events that happen in the government bureaus, departments, and offices are said to be “political” while those outside, like businesses, religion, and family, are “non-political.” It is in this sense also that politicians and political parties are said to be “political” while civil society is said to be non-political.
4. Politics is the realm of public affairs or the state. Traditionally, “public” refers to the institution of the state which is funded by the people at large through their taxes to satisfy their common interest. This is contrasted to “private” which refers to the civil society that is privately funded to support their own interest. As the Greek used the term, state transactions (public) characterize the term political. When the Greek philosopher Aristotle said “man by nature is a political animal,” he means that man is naturally inclined to live in a society. Aside from his private life, man must have a public life, for this perfects his essence and gives him the “good life.” In addition, the social theorists even argued that the common good could only be attained through the active participation of the citizens. Education as well as moral and intellectual enlightenment, are among the few things that result from the public life. It must be noted that while there is a dichotomy of public life and private life, these two are intimately connected in that they mutually depend on each other. And under this traditional sense, politics (realm of the public/state) is intertwined with ethics (realm of the private/individual).
5. Politics is who gets what, when, and how. This is the famous definition of Harold Lasswell. The definition underscores the reality of “scarcity” in the society. While human needs and wants are so diverse and numerous, the resources are always limited. The struggle involved in allocating the scarce resources, and determining what to produce, how to distribute, and use them is said to be politics. Modern political theories conform to this definition as it establishes the unique connection of politics and power. Power creates structures and explains the struggle among individuals or groups of individuals. It is in this sense that politics deviates from ethics inasmuch as any means could be used to get whatever is desired and whenever it is desired for as long as it serves the purpose.
6. According to Ponton and Gill, politics is the way in which social affairs are understood and ordered, and by which people acquire greater control over the situation. The definition puts to light the different political ideologies and philosophies that underlie societal structures. “Order” and the “understanding of reality” are shaped by the political orientation of the people. That by which people view and organize the world is said to be politics. Without politics, there is anarchy and a state of constant war. But its existence establishes order in various forms. It gives rise to different kinds of governments: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. That the society should be ruled by a single individual, by a selected few, or by all is a matter of preference that depends on the temperament of the affected group of people. What is important is that politics helps the people acquire greater control over the vagaries of their existence.
7. From the foregoing definitions, it could be seen that politics could be defined in either of two senses: first, as associated to an “arena” or place, and second, as a “process.” In the first sense, something is said to be political if it transpires in any of the apparatuses of the government. Definitions in paragraphs 2 to 4 fall under this. In the second sense, something is political because it entails distinctive qualities that make it indeed political, regardless of the place it is performed. Definitions in paragraphs 5 and 6 fall under this.

BASIC CONCEPTS: ORDER, POWER, AND JUSTICE

To explain further the meaning of politics it is very helpful to dwell on political concepts, models, and theories. Concepts are general or universal ideas shared by people. Models refer to networks of ideas that seek to explain political realities. And theories refer to series of models which aim to systemically and empirically explain political realities. These are intimately connected because one leads to another – concepts lead to the formation of models, and models to theories.

The present section deals with three basic concepts: order, power, and justice.[1]

Order

1. Order is central to the study of politics because it shows the different components of human societies. Politics after all exists in diverse forms or levels of societal structures. These structures or orders are community, government, and state:

(a) Community is one kind of social order which refers to an association of individuals who share a common identity. This identity is formed by the unique circumstances surrounding the group of individuals like geography, history, philosophy, religion, ideology, language, race, and allegiance. The cause of its existence is primarily protection of individuals. Economic prosperity, cultural enrichment and other social functions are only offshoots of the same.

(b) Government is a higher level of social order that exists primarily for the maintenance and perpetuation of the community. It is said to possess “sovereignty” if it can successfully assert its claim to rule. And it is said to “legitimate” if its claim to rule (authority) is willingly accepted. It has the following forms: Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. Monarchy is a kind of government in which one man (king) noted for his noble lineage and honor is vested with the right to rule and control the society. If this man pursues his own selfish interest instead of the common good, this form of government may turn into a “Tyranny.” Aristocracy is another kind of government in which a selected few who are known for their wealth and education have the right to rule. If this selected few pursue their own personal interests, it becomes an “Oligarchy.” And lastly, democracy is the rule by the people, for the people, and of the people. If this form of government downgrades into the rule of people’s passions instead of reason and law, it becomes “Demagoguery” or “Mobocracy.” Philippines has a democratic government.

(c) State is the largest social order today and in which the term politics is originally derived. It refers to a community of persons more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, having a government of their own to which the great body of inhabitants render obedience, and enjoying freedom from external control.[2] It could be seen in the definition that government is an element of the state. As a political concept, it has undergone many developments and its discussion still occupies the very heart of the study of politics. A separate chapter will be devoted for its discussion.

Power

1. The different social orders cannot be maintained without power. Their creation and perpetuation are brought about by the exercise of power and the concomitant establishment of structures.
2. It is elementary to know that power has many sources aside from physical force. These include wealth, culture, diplomatic relations and intelligence, to name a few. The basic rule is that the more abundant the power source, the greater the capabilities of the government.[3] In a narrower sense, power implies “power over” people rather than the “power or ability to” do something. This includes influence over the behavior of others, making them do things which they would not otherwise have done. Under such meaning of power, politics involves manipulation through the popular methods of reward and punishment.
3. Political scientists and philosophers, like Niccolo Machiavelli and Friedrich Nietzsche, grounded their political treatises on the concept of power. They explained the nature of politics by studying the essence of power.

Justice        

1. It is said that the correct exercise of power produces justice. If in the exercise of its power and authority, the government gives what the people need, protect and respect their rights, and put the common good over and above the personal interest of the leaders, then there is said to be justice.
2. It must be highlighted that the embodiment of order and power in this modern times is law, whether written or customary. Thus, law is said to be the approximation of justice. Justice is that on which law is anchored.
3. However, since law is a mere “approximation” of the ideal concept of justice, it is never perfect. Sometimes the law becomes unjust because it can no longer capture perfect justice. An innocent person, for instance, may be convicted, or a perpetrator may be acquitted of a crime because of the technicalities and restrictions of the law on evidence. Nevertheless, law must still be upheld since it is still the best medium of justice and by which power may be exercised correctly for the promotion of societal order.

APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF POLITICS

1. There are two basic approaches to study politics: political philosophy and political science. On the one hand, political philosophy is the traditional approach in which the primary goal is to understand the essence or truth about politics. This approach aims to establish what politics ought to be. As such, it is normative or prescriptive, analytical, speculative, and essentially ethical. It is normative or prescriptive because it prescribes standards or rules of conduct; it establishes what “ought to be” the nature of politics and not “what it simply is.” Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are among the proponents of this approach. It is analytical because the approach is to a large extent an examination and literary analysis of the various classic writings of intellectuals and philosophers such as Confucius, Lao tzu, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Marx, to name some. It is speculative because it entails abstract, theoretical and not scientific explanations of the varied subjects of politics. And it is essentially ethical because the approach basically presumes that ethics is the foundation of politics; the ethical formation of the individual is a condition precedent the society’s political formation. The questions raised under this approach are “what is the essence of politics?”, “what is the ideal type of government?”, “who should be and what are the attributes of a ruler?”, “what are the limits of the government?”, and “what are rights and limits of individual freedom?”
2. On the other hand, political science is the empirical approach in which it places little emphasis on abstract and normative questions, and concentrates on a dispassionate and objective description of the realities of politics. As such, it is descriptive, empirical, objective, and it avoids ethics. It is descriptive because it simply establishes “what politics is” and not “what it ought to be;” it describes the political phenomenon but does not prescribe standards or rules of conduct. It is empirical because it studies only observable facts, and not abstract values and concepts. It is objective because it adheres strictly to the methods of the natural sciences; it considers only the observable (quantifiable) facts that can be measured through the scientific method. It avoids ethics, in that values are not within its scope; only directly observable facts are studied.
3. It is nevertheless wrong to ask which of the two approaches is better. They complement each other. While political philosophy provides the aim, purpose, and guidelines of politics, political science gives a realistic account of what is actually happening in politics. Political science concretizes the abstract concepts of political philosophy, while political philosophy provides a basis or direction to political science. As one writer aptly puts it, political philosophy without political science is lame, and political science without political philosophy is blind.[4]

Guide Questions

1. What does politics have to do with conflict and cooperation?
2. Should politics be defined as a process or an arena?
3. Discuss briefly and distinguish from each other the basic concepts of politics.
4. What is the relation of justice and law?
5. How do political philosophy and political science as approaches in studying politics differ?

[1] See also Thomas M. Magstadt & Peter M. Schoten, “Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions, & Issues. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988), p. 4.

[2] Garner, Introduction to Political Science, pp. 38-41.

[3] Magstadt & Schoten

[4] Amable Tuibeo, Politics and Governance.

Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, ‘affairs of the cities’) is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. The branch of social science that studies politics and government is referred to as political science.

It may be used positively in the context of a «political solution» which is compromising and nonviolent,^[1] or descriptively as «the art or science of government», but also often carries a negative connotation.^[2] The concept has been defined in various ways, and different approaches have fundamentally differing views on whether it should be used extensively or limitedly, empirically or normatively, and on whether conflict or co-operation is more essential to it.

A variety of methods are deployed in politics, which include promoting one’s own political views among people, negotiation with other political subjects, making laws, and exercising internal and external force, including warfare against adversaries.^{[3][4][5][6][7]} 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.

In modern nation states, people often form political parties to represent their ideas. Members of a party often agree to take the same position on many issues and agree to support the same changes to law and the same leaders. An election is usually a competition between different parties.

A political system is a framework which defines acceptable political methods within a society. The history of political thought can be traced back to early antiquity, with seminal works such as Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s Politics, Confucius’s political manuscripts and Chanakya’s Arthashastra.^[8]

Etymology[edit]

The English politics has its roots in the name of Aristotle’s classic work, Politiká, which introduced the Greek term politiká (Πολιτικά, ‘affairs of the cities’). In the mid-15th century, Aristotle’s composition would be rendered in Early Modern English as Polettiques [sic],^[a][9] which would become Politics in Modern English.

The singular politic first attested in English in 1430, coming from Middle French politique—itself taking from politicus,^[10] a Latinization of the Greek πολιτικός (politikos) from πολίτης (polites, ‘citizen’) and πόλις (polis, ‘city’).^[11]

Definitions[edit]

• Harold Lasswell: «who gets what, when, how»^[12]
• David Easton: «the authoritative allocation of values for a society»^[13]
• Vladimir Lenin: «the most concentrated expression of economics»^[14]
• Otto von Bismarck: «the capacity of always choosing at each instant, in constantly changing situations, the least harmful, the most useful»^[15]
• Bernard Crick: «a distinctive form of rule whereby people act together through institutionalized procedures to resolve differences»^[16]
• Adrian Leftwich: «comprises all the activities of co-operation, negotiation and conflict within and between societies»^[17]

Approaches[edit]

There are several ways in which approaching politics has been conceptualized.

Extensive and limited[edit]

Adrian Leftwich has differentiated views of politics based on how extensive or limited their perception of what accounts as ‘political’ is.^[18] The extensive view sees politics as present across the sphere of human social relations, while the limited view restricts it to certain contexts. For example, in a more restrictive way, politics may be viewed as primarily about governance,^[19] while a feminist perspective could argue that sites which have been viewed traditionally as non-political, should indeed be viewed as political as well.^[20] This latter position is encapsulated in the slogan «the personal is political,» which disputes the distinction between private and public issues. Politics may also be defined by the use of power, as has been argued by Robert A. Dahl.^[21]

Moralism and realism[edit]

Some perspectives on politics view it empirically as an exercise of power, while others see it as a social function with a normative basis.^[22] This distinction has been called the difference between political moralism and political realism.^[23] For moralists, politics is closely linked to ethics, and is at its extreme in utopian thinking.^[23] For example, according to Hannah Arendt, the view of Aristotle was that «to be political…meant that everything was decided through words and persuasion and not through violence;»^[24] while according to Bernard Crick «politics is the way in which free societies are governed. Politics is politics and other forms of rule are something else.»^[25] In contrast, for realists, represented by those such as Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and Harold Lasswell, politics is based on the use of power, irrespective of the ends being pursued.^[26][23]

Conflict and co-operation[edit]

Agonism argues that politics essentially comes down to conflict between conflicting interests. Political scientist Elmer Schattschneider argued that «at the root of all politics is the universal language of conflict,»^[27] while for Carl Schmitt the essence of politics is the distinction of ‘friend’ from foe’.^[28] This is in direct contrast to the more co-operative views of politics by Aristotle and Crick. However, a more mixed view between these extremes is provided by Irish political scientist Michael Laver, who noted that:

Politics is about the characteristic blend of conflict and co-operation that can be found so often in human interactions. Pure conflict is war. Pure co-operation is true love. Politics is a mixture of both.^[29]

History[edit]

The history of politics spans human history and is not limited to modern institutions of government.

Prehistoric[edit]

Frans de Waal argued that chimpanzees engage in politics through «social manipulation to secure and maintain influential positions.»^[31] Early human forms of social organization—bands and tribes—lacked centralized political structures.^[32] These are sometimes referred to as stateless societies.

Early states[edit]

In ancient history, civilizations did not have definite boundaries as states have today, and their borders could be more accurately described as frontiers. Early dynastic Sumer, and early dynastic Egypt were the first civilizations to define their borders. Moreover, up to the 12th century, many people lived in non-state societies. These range from relatively egalitarian bands and tribes to complex and highly stratified chiefdoms.

State formation[edit]

There are a number of different theories and hypotheses regarding early state formation that seek generalizations to explain why the state developed in some places but not others. Other scholars believe that generalizations are unhelpful and that each case of early state formation should be treated on its own.^[33]

Voluntary theories contend that diverse groups of people came together to form states as a result of some shared rational interest.^[34] The theories largely focus on the development of agriculture, and the population and organizational pressure that followed and resulted in state formation. One of the most prominent theories of early and primary state formation is the hydraulic hypothesis, which contends that the state was a result of the need to build and maintain large-scale irrigation projects.^[35]

Conflict theories of state formation regard conflict and dominance of some population over another population as key to the formation of states.^[34] In contrast with voluntary theories, these arguments believe that people do not voluntarily agree to create a state to maximize benefits, but that states form due to some form of oppression by one group over others. Some theories in turn argue that warfare was critical for state formation.^[34]

Ancient history[edit]

The first states of sorts were those of early dynastic Sumer and early dynastic Egypt, which arose from the Uruk period and Predynastic Egypt respectively around approximately 3000 BCE.^[36] Early dynastic Egypt was based around the Nile River in the north-east of Africa, the kingdom’s boundaries being based around the Nile and stretching to areas where oases existed.^[37] Early dynastic Sumer was located in southern Mesopotamia with its borders extending from the Persian Gulf to parts of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.^[36]

Egyptians, Romans, and the Greeks were the first people known to have explicitly formulated a political philosophy of the state, and to have rationally analyzed political institutions. Prior to this, states were described and justified in terms of religious myths.^[38]

Several important political innovations of classical antiquity came from the Greek city-states (polis) and the Roman Republic. The Greek city-states before the 4th century granted citizenship rights to their free population; in Athens these rights were combined with a directly democratic form of government that was to have a long afterlife in political thought and history.^[39]

Modern states[edit]

The Peace of Westphalia (1648) is considered by political scientists to be the beginning of the modern international system,^[40][41][42] in which external powers should avoid interfering in another country’s domestic affairs.^[43] The principle of non-interference in other countries’ domestic affairs was laid out in the mid-18th century by Swiss jurist Emer de Vattel.^[44] States became the primary institutional agents in an interstate system of relations. The Peace of Westphalia is said to have ended attempts to impose supranational authority on European states. The «Westphalian» doctrine of states as independent agents was bolstered by the rise in 19th century thought of nationalism, under which legitimate states were assumed to correspond to nations—groups of people united by language and culture.^[45]

In Europe, during the 18th century, the classic non-national states were the multinational empires: the Austrian Empire, Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Hungary,^[46] the Russian Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire. Such empires also existed in Asia, Africa, and the Americas; in the Muslim world, immediately after the death of Muhammad in 632, Caliphates were established, which developed into multi-ethnic trans-national empires.^[47] The multinational empire was an absolute monarchy ruled by a king, emperor or sultan. The population belonged to many ethnic groups, and they spoke many languages. The empire was dominated by one ethnic group, and their language was usually the language of public administration. The ruling dynasty was usually, but not always, from that group. Some of the smaller European states were not so ethnically diverse, but were also dynastic states, ruled by a royal house. A few of the smaller states survived, such as the independent principalities of Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco, and the republic of San Marino.

Most theories see the nation state as a 19th-century European phenomenon, facilitated by developments such as state-mandated education, mass literacy, and mass media. However, historians^[who?] also note the early emergence of a relatively unified state and identity in Portugal and the Dutch Republic.^[48] Scholars such as Steven Weber, David Woodward, Michel Foucault, and Jeremy Black have advanced the hypothesis that the nation state did not arise out of political ingenuity or an unknown undetermined source, nor was it an accident of history or political invention.^[49][34][50] Rather, the nation state is an inadvertent byproduct of 15th-century intellectual discoveries in political economy, capitalism, mercantilism, political geography, and geography^[51][52] combined with cartography^[53][54] and advances in map-making technologies.^[55]

Some nation states, such as Germany and Italy, came into existence at least partly as a result of political campaigns by nationalists, during the 19th century. In both cases, the territory was previously divided among other states, some of them very small. Liberal ideas of free trade played a role in German unification, which was preceded by a customs union, the Zollverein. National self-determination was a key aspect of United States President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, leading to the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire after the First World War, while the Russian Empire became the Soviet Union after the Russian Civil War. Decolonization lead to the creation of new nation states in place of multinational empires in the Third World.

Globalization[edit]

Political globalization began in the 20th century through intergovernmental organizations and supranational unions. The League of Nations was founded after World War I, and after World War II it was replaced by the United Nations. Various international treaties have been signed through it. Regional integration has been pursued by the African Union, ASEAN, the European Union, and Mercosur. International political institutions on the international level include the International Criminal Court, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization.

Political science[edit]

The study of politics is called political science, or politology. It comprises numerous subfields, including comparative politics, political economy, international relations, political philosophy, public administration, public policy, gender and politics, and political methodology. Furthermore, political science is related to, and draws upon, the fields of economics, law, sociology, history, philosophy, geography, psychology/psychiatry, anthropology, and neurosciences.

Comparative politics is the science of comparison and teaching of different types of constitutions, political actors, legislature and associated fields. International relations deals with the interaction between nation-states as well as intergovernmental and transnational organizations. Political philosophy is more concerned with contributions of various classical and contemporary thinkers and philosophers.

Political science is methodologically diverse and appropriates many methods originating in psychology, social research, and cognitive neuroscience. Approaches include positivism, interpretivism, rational choice theory, behavioralism, structuralism, post-structuralism, realism, institutionalism, and pluralism. Political science, as one of the social sciences, uses methods and techniques that relate to the kinds of inquiries sought: primary sources such as historical documents and official records, secondary sources such as scholarly journal articles, survey research, statistical analysis, case studies, experimental research, and model building.

Political system[edit]

The political system defines the process for making official government decisions. It is usually compared to the legal system, economic system, cultural system, and other social systems. According to David Easton, «A political system can be designated as the interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated for a society.»^[13] Each political system is embedded in a society with its own political culture, and they in turn shape their societies through public policy. The interactions between different political systems are the basis for global politics.

Forms of government[edit]

Forms of government can be classified by several ways. In terms of the structure of power, there are monarchies (including constitutional monarchies) and republics (usually presidential, semi-presidential, or parliamentary).

The separation of powers describes the degree of horizontal integration between the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, and other independent institutions.

Source of power[edit]

The source of power determines the difference between democracies, oligarchies, and autocracies.

In a democracy, political legitimacy is based on popular sovereignty. Forms of democracy include representative democracy, direct democracy, and demarchy. These are separated by the way decisions are made, whether by elected representatives, referendums, or by citizen juries. Democracies can be either republics or constitutional monarchies.

Oligarchy is a power structure where a minority rules. These may be in the form of anocracy, aristocracy, ergatocracy, geniocracy, gerontocracy, kakistocracy, kleptocracy, meritocracy, noocracy, particracy, plutocracy, stratocracy, technocracy, theocracy, or timocracy.

Autocracies are either dictatorships (including military dictatorships) or absolute monarchies.

Vertical integration[edit]

In terms of level of vertical integration, political systems can be divided into (from least to most integrated) confederations, federations, and unitary states.

A federation (also known as a federal state) is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing provinces, states, or other regions under a central federal government (federalism). In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, is typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of either party, the states or the federal political body. Federations were formed first in Switzerland, then in the United States in 1776, in Canada in 1867 and in Germany in 1871 and in 1901, Australia. Compared to a federation, a confederation has less centralized power.

State[edit]

All the above forms of government are variations of the same basic polity, the sovereign state. The state has been defined by Max Weber as a political entity that has monopoly on violence within its territory, while the Montevideo Convention holds that states need to have a defined territory; a permanent population; a government; and a capacity to enter into international relations.

A stateless society is a society that is not governed by a state.^[56] In stateless societies, there is little concentration of authority; most positions of authority that do exist are very limited in power and are generally not permanently held positions; and social bodies that resolve disputes through predefined rules tend to be small.^[57] Stateless societies are highly variable in economic organization and cultural practices.^[58]

While stateless societies were the norm in human prehistory, few stateless societies exist today; almost the entire global population resides within the jurisdiction of a sovereign state. In some regions nominal state authorities may be very weak and wield little or no actual power. Over the course of history most stateless peoples have been integrated into the state-based societies around them.^[59]

Some political philosophies consider the state undesirable, and thus consider the formation of a stateless society a goal to be achieved. A central tenet of anarchism is the advocacy of society without states.^[56][60] The type of society sought for varies significantly between anarchist schools of thought, ranging from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.^[61] In Marxism, Marx’s theory of the state considers that in a post-capitalist society the state, an undesirable institution, would be unnecessary and wither away.^[62] A related concept is that of stateless communism, a phrase sometimes used to describe Marx’s anticipated post-capitalist society.

Constitutions[edit]

Constitutions are written documents that specify and limit the powers of the different branches of government. Although a constitution is a written document, there is also an unwritten constitution. The unwritten constitution is continually being written by the legislative and judiciary branch of government; this is just one of those cases in which the nature of the circumstances determines the form of government that is most appropriate.^[63] England did set the fashion of written constitutions during the Civil War but after the Restoration abandoned them to be taken up later by the American Colonies after their emancipation and then France after the Revolution and the rest of Europe including the European colonies.

Constitutions often set out separation of powers, dividing the government into the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary (together referred to as the trias politica), in order to achieve checks and balances within the state. Additional independent branches may also be created, including civil service commissions, election commissions, and supreme audit institutions.

Political culture[edit]

Political culture describes how culture impacts politics. Every political system is embedded in a particular political culture.^[64] Lucian Pye’s definition is that «Political culture is the set of attitudes, beliefs, and sentiments, which give order and meaning to a political process and which provide the underlying assumptions and rules that govern behavior in the political system».^[64]

Trust is a major factor in political culture, as its level determines the capacity of the state to function.^[65] Postmaterialism is the degree to which a political culture is concerned with issues which are not of immediate physical or material concern, such as human rights and environmentalism.^[64] Religion has also an impact on political culture.^[65]

Political dysfunction[edit]

Political corruption[edit]

Political corruption is the use of powers for illegitimate private gain, conducted by government officials or their network contacts. Forms of political corruption include bribery, cronyism, nepotism, and political patronage. Forms of political patronage, in turn, includes clientelism, earmarking, pork barreling, slush funds, and spoils systems; as well as political machines, which is a political system that operates for corrupt ends.

When corruption is embedded in political culture, this may be referred to as patrimonialism or neopatrimonialism. A form of government that is built on corruption is called a kleptocracy (‘rule of thieves’).

Levels of politics[edit]

Macropolitics[edit]

Macropolitics can either describe political issues that affect an entire political system (e.g. the nation state), or refer to interactions between political systems (e.g. international relations).^[66]

Global politics (or world politics) covers all aspects of politics that affect multiple political systems, in practice meaning any political phenomenon crossing national borders. This can include cities, nation-states, multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations, and/or international organizations. An important element is international relations: the relations between nation-states may be peaceful when they are conducted through diplomacy, or they may be violent, which is described as war. States that are able to exert strong international influence are referred to as superpowers, whereas less-powerful ones may be called regional or middle powers. The international system of power is called the world order, which is affected by the balance of power that defines the degree of polarity in the system. Emerging powers are potentially destabilizing to it, especially if they display revanchism or irredentism.

Politics inside the limits of political systems, which in contemporary context correspond to national borders, are referred to as domestic politics. This includes most forms of public policy, such as social policy, economic policy, or law enforcement, which are executed by the state bureaucracy.

Mesopolitics[edit]

Mesopolitics describes the politics of intermediary structures within a political system, such as national political parties or movements.^[66]

A political party is a political organization that typically seeks to attain and maintain political power within government, usually by participating in political campaigns, educational outreach, or protest actions. Parties often espouse an expressed ideology or vision, bolstered by a written platform with specific goals, forming a coalition among disparate interests.^[67]

Political parties within a particular political system together form the party system, which can be either multiparty, two-party, dominant-party, or one-party, depending on the level of pluralism. This is affected by characteristics of the political system, including its electoral system. According to Duverger’s law, first-past-the-post systems are likely to lead to two-party systems, while proportional representation systems are more likely to create a multiparty system.

Micropolitics[edit]

Micropolitics describes the actions of individual actors within the political system.^[66] This is often described as political participation.^[68] Political participation may take many forms, including:

• Activism
• Boycott
• Civil disobedience
• Demonstration
• Petition
• Picketing
• Strike action
• Tax resistance
• Voting (or its opposite, abstentionism)

Political values[edit]

Democracy[edit]

Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes. The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy. Democracy makes all forces struggle repeatedly to realize their interests and devolves power from groups of people to sets of rules.^[69]

Among modern political theorists, there are three contending conceptions of democracy: aggregative, deliberative, and radical.^[70]

Aggregative[edit]

The theory of aggregative democracy claims that the aim of the democratic processes is to solicit the preferences of citizens, and aggregate them together to determine what social policies the society should adopt. Therefore, proponents of this view hold that democratic participation should primarily focus on voting, where the policy with the most votes gets implemented.

Different variants of aggregative democracy exist. Under minimalism, democracy is a system of government in which citizens have given teams of political leaders the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist conception, citizens cannot and should not «rule» because, for example, on most issues, most of the time, they have no clear views or their views are not well-founded. Joseph Schumpeter articulated this view most famously in his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.^[71] Contemporary proponents of minimalism include William H. Riker, Adam Przeworski, Richard Posner.

According to the theory of direct democracy, on the other hand, citizens should vote directly, not through their representatives, on legislative proposals. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socializes and educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.

Governments will tend to produce laws and policies that are close to the views of the median voter—with half to their left and the other half to their right. This is not a desirable outcome as it represents the action of self-interested and somewhat unaccountable political elites competing for votes. Anthony Downs suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individual and governments. Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book An Economic Theory of Democracy.^[72]

Robert A. Dahl argues that the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his/her interests be given equal consideration (not necessarily that all people are equally satisfied by the collective decision). He uses the term polyarchy to refer to societies in which there exists a certain set of institutions and procedures which are perceived as leading to such democracy. First and foremost among these institutions is the regular occurrence of free and open elections which are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society. However, these polyarchic procedures may not create a full democracy if, for example, poverty prevents political participation.^[73] Similarly, Ronald Dworkin argues that «democracy is a substantive, not a merely procedural, ideal.»^[74]

Deliberative[edit]

Deliberative democracy is based on the notion that democracy is government by deliberation. Unlike aggregative democracy, deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting. Authentic deliberation is deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-maker obtained through economic wealth or the support of interest groups.^[75][76][77] If the decision-makers cannot reach consensus after authentically deliberating on a proposal, then they vote on the proposal using a form of majority rule.

Radical[edit]

Radical democracy is based on the idea that there are hierarchical and oppressive power relations that exist in society. Democracy’s role is to make visible and challenge those relations by allowing for difference, dissent and antagonisms in decision-making processes.

Equality[edit]

Equality is a state of affairs in which all people within a specific society or isolated group have the same social status, especially socioeconomic status, including protection of human rights and dignity, and equal access to certain social goods and social services. Furthermore, it may also include health equality, economic equality and other social securities. Social equality requires the absence of legally enforced social class or caste boundaries and the absence of discrimination motivated by an inalienable part of a person’s identity. To this end there must be equal justice under law, and equal opportunity regardless of, for example, sex, gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, origin, caste or class, income or property, language, religion, convictions, opinions, health or disability.

Left–right spectrum[edit]

A common way of understanding politics is through the left–right political spectrum, which ranges from left-wing politics via centrism to right-wing politics. This classification is comparatively recent and dates from the French Revolution, when those members of the National Assembly who supported the republic, the common people and a secular society sat on the left and supporters of the monarchy, aristocratic privilege and the Church sat on the right.^[86]

Today, the left is generally progressivist, seeking social progress in society. The more extreme elements of the left, named the far-left, tend to support revolutionary means for achieving this. This includes ideologies such as Communism and Marxism. The center-left, on the other hand, advocate for more reformist approaches, for example that of social democracy.

In contrast, the right is generally motivated by conservatism, which seeks to conserve what it sees as the important elements of society such as law and order, limited federal government and preserving individual freedoms. The far-right goes beyond this, and often represents a reactionary turn against progress, seeking to undo it. Examples of such ideologies have included Fascism and Nazism. The center-right may be less clear-cut and more mixed in this regard, with neoconservatives supporting the spread of free markets and capitalism, and one-nation conservatives more open to social welfare programs.

According to Norberto Bobbio, one of the major exponents of this distinction, the left believes in attempting to eradicate social inequality—believing it to be unethical or unnatural,^[87] while the right regards most social inequality as the result of ineradicable natural inequalities, and sees attempts to enforce social equality as utopian or authoritarian.^[88]
Some ideologies, notably Christian Democracy, claim to combine left and right-wing politics; according to Geoffrey K. Roberts and Patricia Hogwood, «In terms of ideology, Christian Democracy has incorporated many of the views held by liberals, conservatives and socialists within a wider framework of moral and Christian principles.»^[89] Movements which claim or formerly claimed to be above the left-right divide include Fascist Terza Posizione economic politics in Italy and Peronism in Argentina.^[90][91]

Freedom[edit]

Political freedom (also known as political liberty or autonomy) is a central concept in political thought and one of the most important features of democratic societies. Negative liberty has been described as freedom from oppression or coercion and unreasonable external constraints on action, often enacted through civil and political rights, while positive liberty is the absence of disabling conditions for an individual and the fulfillment of enabling conditions, e.g. economic compulsion, in a society. This capability approach to freedom requires economic, social and cultural rights in order to be realized.

[edit]

Authoritarianism and libertarianism disagree the amount of individual freedom each person possesses in that society relative to the state. One author describes authoritarian political systems as those where «individual rights and goals are subjugated to group goals, expectations and conformities,»^[92] while libertarians generally oppose the state and hold the individual as sovereign. In their purest form, libertarians are anarchists,^[93] who argue for the total abolition of the state, of political parties and of other political entities, while the purest authoritarians are, by definition, totalitarians who support state control over all aspects of society.^[94]

For instance, classical liberalism (also known as laissez-faire liberalism)^[95] is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, free markets, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitation of government, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. According to the libertarian Institute for Humane Studies, «the libertarian, or ‘classical liberal,’ perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by ‘as much liberty as possible’ and ‘as little government as necessary.'»^[96] For anarchist political philosopher L. Susan Brown (1993), «liberalism and anarchism are two political philosophies that are fundamentally concerned with individual freedom yet differ from one another in very distinct ways. Anarchism shares with liberalism a radical commitment to individual freedom while rejecting liberalism’s competitive property relations.»^[97]

See also[edit]

• Political history of the world
• Horseshoe theory
• Index of law articles
• Index of politics articles – alphabetical list of political subjects
• List of politics awards
• List of years in politics
• Outline of law
• Outline of political science – structured list of political topics, arranged by subject area
• Political polarization
• Political lists – lists of political topics
• Politics of present-day states
• List of political ideologies

References[edit]

Notes[edit]

Citations[edit]

Bibliography[edit]

Further reading[edit]

• Adcock, Robert. 2014. Liberalism and the Emergence of American Political Science: A Transatlantic Tale. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Adcock, Robert, Mark Bevir, and Shannon Stimson (eds.). 2007. Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges Since 1870. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Almond, Gabriel A. 1996. «Political Science: The History of the Discipline», pp. 50–96, in Robert E. Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds.), The New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Connolly, William (1981). Appearance and Reality in Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• James, Raul; Soguk, Nevzat (2014). Globalization and Politics, Vol. 1: Global Political and Legal Governance. London: Sage Publications. Retrieved 19 February 2016.
• Mount, Ferdinand, «Ruthless and Truthless» (review of Peter Oborne, The Assault on Truth: Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism, Simon and Schuster, February 2021, ISBN 978 1 3985 0100 3, 192 pp.; and Colin Kidd and Jacqueline Rose, eds., Political Advice: Past, Present and Future, I.B. Tauris, February 2021, ISBN 978 1 83860 004 4, 240 pp.), London Review of Books, vol. 43, no. 9 (6 May 2021), pp. 3, 5–8.
• Munck, Gerardo L., and Richard Snyder (eds.). Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007.
• Ross, Dorothy. 1991. The Origins of American Social Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Ryan, Alan (2012). On Politics: A History of Political Thought from Herodotus to the Present. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0-7139-9364-6.