Lesson № 2 (seminar – 6 hours)
Political system of society. State as the basic institution of political system
Plan.
1. Types of political system
2. The notion of a state. Theories of state origin.
3. Main features and functions of a state.
4. Forms of state government.
5. Types of state
Types of political system
Three types of societies manifesting three forms of power comprise three general social structures of expectations. My special concern is with such societies in the form of states. A state is a formal group that is sovereign over its members and occupies a well defined territory. It is the formal apparatus of authoritative roles and law norms through which that sovereignty is exercised.
The state, however, should not be confused with a specific balance of powers a particular status quo, a government. Governments may effect massive change in laws and roles while the state remains the same. Changed are the civil order, the polity, the particular law norms and authoritative roles through which the elite manifest their interest.
At the outset, then, the political system of a state must be distinguished from the state itself. A political system consists of the formal and informal structures which manifest the state's sovereignty over a territory and people. It is the civil aspect of statehood. But a state through its lifetime may have many different political systems, as have China, Russia, and France. As the political elite exercise more or less coercive power, we can call a state more or less powerful. As ideologies grant a political system more or less power, we can call these ideologies more or less statist. But this is not to confuse the state as a sovereign group with the particular balance through which this sovereignty is manifest.1
With this in mind, let us focus on the types of political systems. Although there is a tendency in modern American political science to treat the political system as an abstract one of inputs and outputs, or of functions and institutions (Easton, 1965), we should not forget that a political system constitutes a balance among competing interests, capabilities, and wills, a specific status quo. And this is a balance among individuals. A specific political system is a particular definition of authoritative roles and law norms and an allocation of rights and duties historically determined through conflict, a balancing of powers. Those who fill these roles, who have the right to command others, are the political elite.
Clearly, many different balances can be struck, as manifested by such varied polities as the United States, Japan, France, China, India, Spain, and Jordan. But these balances of power governing the state share some communalities and vary on certain significant characteristics.2
One characteristic is the openness of the authoritative roles to change in incumbency and the law norms to change in substance. That is, does the status quo itself grant members of the state the right to compete for elite status and to change the fundamental laws governing the state? Are there freedom of political opposition and competition for power? For an open system such freedom is statewide. A closed system, however, legally or customarily3 insulates authoritative roles and law norms from change by the nonelite.
The open-closed characteristic is used broadly to distinguish political systems, as between liberal democracies or polyarchies on the one hand, and dictatorships, autocracies, or totalitarian systems on the other. But this is a characteristic and not a dichotomy. The right of involvement of the people in changing the system is a spectrum. For some states this right may involve full representation through the power to initiate or directly approve laws, as in Switzerland. Or, as in the United States, the mass may have the power to control the elite through the right to elect or reject their incumbency and by opposition to elite-policies, as through interest groups. In some states, such as Spain, the people can only produce change or opposition through communal groups like the church, which are participants in the political system.
A second characteristic distinguishes the degree to which the political system intervenes in the society. A measure of this group-autonomy characteristic is the freedom from elite commands and law norms that diverse groups have in their activities. Does the political system control or intervene in the church, family, university, and private employment? At one end are ideal political systems which exercise a regulative-procedural control over society, leaving the activities of groups largely free from political intervention. At the other end are political systems which leave no group immune from control by the state's elite.
A third characteristic involves the bases of the law norms. These may be traditional, adhering to custom and consensual norms and mores, or they may be positivistic, determined to satisfy a particular need or demand or plan. This is the normative characteristic.
The final characteristic defines the interests of the elite. Elite goals generally can be classified as three: maintenance of traditions or backward-looking; representing popular interests or present goals; or reconstructing society, or future oriented. This is the goal characteristic.
These open-closed, group-autonomy, normative, and goal characteristics provide us with a way of discriminating among pure political types in terms of their profiles. One type is the libertarian political system, which is an open system, with virtually complete group autonomy, customary law, and present goals. Laws are limited to a few (by virtue of group autonomy and openness) customary principles and rights, with the judiciary limited to matching these principles to concrete cases. The goals of the elite are representational, fixed to present popular interests and needs insofar as they do not conflict with traditional rights and principles (e.g., sanctity of private property and contracts, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and so on).
A second pure type is the authoritarian political system. It is closed, with authoritative political positions open to only a few by virtue of birth or other ascribed status, and based on customary law. Groups are autonomous so long as they do not try to alter the traditional status quo, and the elite's goals are concerned with conserving traditions.
A third pure type is the totalitarian political system. It is closed and customary law is permitted only insofar as it does not interfere with the elite's interests. Law is generally positivist, constructed to satisfy the elite's future oriented goals, and laws are seen as a measure to achieve some reconstruction of society. Groups have no autonomy.
Most political systems are a mixture of these types.4 The United States comprises more a libertarian system, but increasingly is oriented in the totalitarian direction as the modern welfare state and the political elites, with their mixed present and future goals, intervene in the activities of all groups. England, in which loss of group autonomy and the reconstruction of society in some futurist's image has gone much further, reflects even more of a libertarian-totalitarian mixture. Then there is totalitarian-authoritarian Syria or Egypt, and libertarian-authoritarian Brazil or Lebanon. Recognizing that all contemporary empirical political systems reflect such mixtures, some nonetheless closely approximate the pure types. Thus, we can exemplify the libertarian type by Switzerland and West Germany, the traditional by Saudi Arabia and Emperor Selassie's Ethiopia, and the totalitarian by Communist China and the Soviet Union.
THE POLITICAL TRIANGLE: SYSTEMS AND FORMULAS
The open-closed, normative, group-autonomy, and goal characteristics of political systems are not independent. An open system and group autonomy are closely related, although not necessarily so (a majoritarian system could impose tight controls over all groups, as in wartime). Moreover, a traditional law system and group autonomy severely limit the ability of an elite to implement future goals. In fact, empirically we should find that these four characteristics define three points--libertarian, authoritarian, and totalitarian-of a political triangle in a two-dimensional political space, as shown in Figure 31.1.
|
|
Theoretically, no political system is both totalitarian and authoritarian. As the elite become more future oriented (as in many contemporary states undergoing forced modernization or development) and allow less freedom of group autonomy, traditions are increasingly ignored. Precedent, custom, and informal norms often are hindrances to reconstruction and are ignored or altered through mass campaigns, as in the vast enforced cultural changes in China and the anti-Confucian crusade.
This political triangle also represents the major political ideologies or formulas. Often ideologies are placed on a single left-right dimension, ranging from communism, democratic socialism (leftism), liberalism (welfare), libertarianism (nineteenth-century liberalism), conservatism (rightism), and fascism. Capitalism is always difficult to place on such a popular continuum, since it is conceived variously as nineteenth-century liberalism (competitive capitalism), as encompassing both kinds of liberalism, or as involving everything to the right of democratic socialism. This ideological spectrum is misleading, for it separates formulas with similar characteristics (both conservatives and liberals are for civil rights; communism and fascism at the antipodes have more in common with each other than with the center formulas). Moreover, where would anarchism fit?
|
|
Figure 31.2 reorders these formulas according to the space defined by the political triangle, which has now been rotated to sit on its base. libertarianism is the political formula for those opposed to state power. Libertarians want to be free to do as they please; if a political system has any function it is the minimal one of preventing people from hurting each other and of maintaining basic civil freedoms. They range from the anarchists who feel all government can be eliminated,5 to the conservative libertarians or classical liberals who argue that government needs to deal with so-called externalities or neighborhood effects, such as pollution, flood control, national defense, or crime.
The welfare or new deal liberal marks the division between libertarianism and socialism. While fearing too much government and desiring to maintain group autonomy, he believes that government has an essential role in regulating the economic marketplace and promoting social justice or equality. Thus, he recommends massive government health and welfare programs as the best way to help the poor, the deprived, and the disadvantaged, and promotes large-scale regulation of business activity to ensure the best (most just) operation of society. Welfare liberals stand at the threshold of socialism. Their programs are socialist in goals (social reconstruction) and norms (positivist), without involving government nationalization.
Socialism is the complete management of the economy and public ownership of large economic organizations for some future goal, usually development, equality, and social reconstruction. To achieve this goal, society is in effect turned into a hierarchical coercive organization. Democratic socialists believe that socialism and an open political system with representational mechanisms and political competition are compatible. Nonetheless, democratic socialism severely limits or extinguishes group autonomy (such as through nationalization) and tightly regulates individual freedom (as the freedom to contract or exchange).6
The natural limit of socialism is communism. Whether in its applied Marxist-Leninist, Titoist or Maoist variety, it is the totalitarian imposition of socialist ideals over all groups and activities. Communists believe that by proper education, by reconstructing society in the socialist framework, by emphasizing community work and values, justice is promoted and a truly new person is created.
Fascism, the belief in the nation, the state, lies at the threshold between socialism and authoritarianism.7 The emphasis is on the state above all, and its actualization through the leader who will manifest the will of the nation, its traditions, its blood, its volk. Society is managed and all groups are controlled for the ends of the state. The future goal is state power, and justice lies in the manifestation of the true nation. In this sense fascism is traditional, emphasizing a will-to-power of cultural values and ideals over an competitors.
The dynastic formula is the belief that a political system should adhere to traditions and custom and that the central power should lie in the hands of a family or blood line endowed with the responsibility for maintaining such tradition. Government ought to be authoritarian, in that elite positions are limited to those with certain ascribed characteristics and elite policies, but outside these limits people and groups are free to pursue their interests.
Finally, the conservative lies at the threshold between libertarian and traditional formulas. The conservative wishes an open political system with group autonomy, but he also desires to imbed that system in traditional values. The job of government is to maintain such traditional norms and values while refraining from intervening in society to pursue social justice or reconstruction.
The conservative and welfare liberal both share a belief in civil rights and a regulative, interventive role for government. They disagree on the purposes of such a role. Welfare liberals want government to intervene at the group level to assure proper or best functioning of society (read economy). Thus, farm subsidies, independent regulatory commissions, and antitrust laws. But individual or private relationships, such as gambling, prostitution, or dope, should be relatively free from political interference. However, these are precisely the areas in which the conservatives want government to intervene to maintain decency and morality (read traditions). The moral law should be maintained, but insofar as the behavior of groups, the realm of contracts and exchange, government has no right to intervene outside of assuring private property and contractual rights.
The welfare liberal favors intervention in the marketplace but not in private morality, while the conservative favors intervention in private morality but not the marketplace. The libertarian opposes intervention in either case, except perhaps for preserving basic rights (even this function is denied by the anarchist). The communist favors intervention in both cases in order to create a new society. The fascist believes in intervention in both cases in order to aggrandize state power and enhance true national virtues and traditions. And the authoritarian favors intervention in both cases if necessary to maintain tradition, but in practice will leave both spheres alone as long as customary norms and values are not violated.
Such are the major contemporary formulas that compete for our dedication and aim at our sense of justice. The formulas are congruent with the political systems we have discussed, as shown in Figure 31.2. Anarchism (anarcho-libertarianism) is an anti-political system formula that is consistent with the distrust of government and attempts to keep government limited through checks and balances and civil rights. Indeed, the founders of the American Constitution can properly be classed as conservative libertarians. Liberal democracies, with the emphasis on classical liberalism, openness, and group autonomy, with the belief in the maximum freedom of the individual from government control, are libertarian. Totalitarian systems, in their total control over a society in pursuit of future goals and their subordination of individual and group autonomy to those ends, are appropriately at the socialist corner. Finally, authoritarian systems with their emphases on maintaining traditions surely reflect a dynastic formula.
POLITICAL SYSTEMS AND SOCIETIES
Three societies--exchange, authoritative and coercive--have been discussed as pure types which reflect the major forms of power underlying the structures of expectations encompassing society. I have also discussed three kinds of political systems which constitute the balance of powers governing the state. The state is a particular kind of society, a group sovereign over a specific territory, and the balance of powers manifesting this sovereignty is the political system.
The political system may not encompass all of society, and indeed may be restricted to a limited sphere. Nonetheless, the type of political system and type of society are congruent. The political system is an aspect of the social field and as that field (or antifield) manifests a particular form of power, the political system will be its image. Consequently, we can overlay the ideal societies shown by the political triangle and formulas displayed in Figure 31.2. This is done in Figure 31.3.
|
|
The intermediary points on the triangle's sides reflect the overlap between the three types of societies, and the pure types themselves are manifested in the three major types of political systems. A communist system comprises an antifield: a coercive society organized to achieve a future goal.8 A dynastic system is part of an authoritative field, wherein reigns authoritative power based on a fundamental cultural legitimacy. And a libertarian system comprises an exchange field in which people are free to adjust their positive interests.
31.4 SUMMARY
In summary, I have continued to emphasize power as the basis for social relations and, particularly in dealing with individuals in their structures of expectations at the societal level, three kinds of power balances: exchange, authoritative, and coercive. Then I examined one kind of society, that formal social group we call a state, and the specific types of political systems--structures of expectations--that authoritatively govern it.
I argued that political systems can be characterized as open or closed, as allowing or controlling group autonomy, as normatively based, or as past, present, or future oriented. These characteristics define a two-dimensional political space in which three types of political systems form a triangular relation ship: libertarian systems, authoritarian systems, and totalitarian systems. We can further refine this triangle according to contemporary political formulas and locate on it anarchism, welfare liberalism, conservatism, communism, fascism, and dynasticism.
This triangle represents the political systems of states. But as a balance of powers general to society, each also reflects the over-all structures of expectations constituting different societies. Thus, the different types of political systems are congruent with the different types of social systems.
So much has been groundwork. Now to turn to societal conflict and violence.
The notion of a state.
A state is the basic institution in the political system of society. It concentrates power relationships that concern the interests and needs of all the members of society.
Analysis of development of state's essential features, social role of functions it fulfills, forms of state rule and state regime, principles of state policy is one of the most important tasks of politology.
State is the determining link of political system of society.
State is a form of society organization, a bearer of public power, integrity of interrelated establishments and organizations that govern the society on behalf of the people.
Sometimes the notion of state is used as a synonym to notions of society, country or to determine the integrity of relationships between the citizens and administrative bodies, for instance parliament or government. In everyday meaning the notion of a state is homogeneous to the one of power, justice, administration, control, etc.
The
meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine
The state is characterized by:
1. Power organization according to certain territorial principle: population division according to the inhabited territory but not to family features.
2. Integral character - a state embodies with its influence all the people that inhabit its territory including the citizens of the other countries.
3. Public power that is performed only by people that are engaged in society administration and protection of established rules.
4. Right and possibility to conduct inner and foreign policy on behalf of the whole society.
5. Monopoly on coercion influence on the population and special system of institutions, establishments and means of coercion (army, police, courts, prisons) that fulfil functions of the state power.
6. Sovereign legislative branch of power - right to issue laws that are obligatory to the entire population.
7. Monopoly on tax collection for national budget formation, support of state apparatus.
These features determine inner and foreign state relationships as necessary form of modern society existence and development. The notion of a state can be viewed as:
(1) a community of people that live in a certain territory and are grouped by the organs of the state power;
(2) a system of organizations, institutions, establishments that have supreme, power on a certain erritory.
Rabinovich gives us the following definition of state:
A state is an organization of political power of the dominating part of population in socially-inhomogeneous society that supports unity and security of the society, manages common social affairs.
In different sociological, philosophical and politological concepts this notion has different content. For instance the representatives of juridical positivism defined a state as a law norm for an aggregate form of people's life as a juridical personification of the nation. The developer of sociological theory Ihering believed that a state is a social organization of coercive power that puts social interests to the first place comparing to personal ones. Anarchists (Stirner, Proudhon, M. Bakunin, P. Kropotkin) defined a state as an organization that restricts the freedom of an individual and is based on the work of slaves.
M. Bakunin
The place and role of the state in the political system are determined by the basic principles of its functioning:
1. Supremacy of public power.
2. Preservation of state integral structure that is based on the reach of compromise between those who rule and those who are ruled regardless of the government stuff and ruling party.
3. Reaching of the state unity through certain relation with social forces of society - classes, groups, nations, political parties, etc. - by the means of the right and possibility to perform inner and foreign policy on behalf of the people trough the natural interaction with the civic society in general.
Russian philosopher and economist P. Struve viewed a state as a super class force that integrates all the society layers and classes. American politician Hamilton believed that a state is a law guarantee of property and private business development and integrator of the whole society for the reach of national aims.
Theories of state origin.
Basic theories of state origin can be grouped into the following groups:
1.
Theological theory explained the state origin by the will of God. The
theory supposes the dependence of the
state upon the religious organizations and leaders. Tertullianus, Aurelius Sanctus Augustinus were the
representatives of this
theory. They claimed a state to be eternal and any rebel is condemned to
fail because God's will is laid into the
leader's hands and is aimed to protect everybody. There is
a divine law that is established in
human hearts by God. This divine law is higher than natural one. That is why the church is of higher status then the
state. Its laws are not to be violated by the rulers.
Aurelius Sanctus Augustinus
Modern Catholic Church supports divine nature of the state and principles of power. There is even a political trend called clericalism that longs to strengthen the influence of the Church on all the spheres of life and state.
2.
Non-historic theory was proposed by Aristotle. He declared
that nature of a man who is a political creature determined its life in the
society and the state is a
natural result of human communities' development.
3.
Patriarchal theory says that a state
is the result of the family development. The absolute state power is the
continuation of the father's power in the
family. Patriarchal theory was popular in
Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome and treated a state as a big family. Founders
of this theory related the appearance of a state to historical process of family development, uniting
of clans into tribes and tribes
into larger historical communities and so on to the appearance of the
first state.
A state power was considered to be logical continuation of father's power to chiefs power and at last to monarch's power. This theory was founded by ancient Chinese thinker Confucius, ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, English scientist R. ilmer, Ukrainian scientists M. Mykhailovskyi, M. Dragomanov.
4. Treaty theory appeared in the Ancient Greece and was later formed in the works of Grotius, Spinoza, Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, Diderot, O. Radishchev.
Rousseau
According to this theory the state appeared in the result of a treaty between the sovereign dwellers of certain territory with the ruler according to the laws of human intelligence with the aim to achieve order and stability.
Intelligence demands are the demands of natural right of the citizens for life, freedom, equality, private property, etc. The law and power are obliged to protect natural right of people, protect them. With this aim the citizens give the ruler and government necessary commissions becoming subordinated to their will.
5. Psychological theory relates the state origin to special qualities of the human psychology that needs to depend on some
great personality. The people is an
inert mass and isn't able to make decisions
and needs government. To the founders of this theory belong L.
Petrazhytskyi, G. Tarde.
6.Violence theory says that a state appeared as a consequence of conquest of one people by the other. A state is the
form of domination of conquerors by over
the conquered. A conquest is viewed as a
nature law. It is the result of social conflict, absolute hostility that is characteristic of people. The
theory was created by L. Humplovych,
K. Kautskyi and others. This
theory is grounded on the concept of
social Darwinism 
. K. Kautskyi
7. Marxist (class) theory links state origin with class division of society. The dictatorship of a ruling class is the essence of a state. It was founded by K. Marx and F. Engels. They claimed that appearance of a state is the result of natural-historical objective process. State was formed in the last phase of primeval order and developed during a long historic period of time.
The appearance of new social product as a result of improvement of productive forces and production relationships, appearance of property inequality, labor division and classes were the basic conditions of state establishment.
As a result of these processes administrating activity was gradually transformed into independent function that is realized by the ruling class. This class with the help of state apparatus subordinates and exploits all the other social layers thanks to the property on the means of production.
In socialistic society, to the mind of Marx and Engels, a state from the means of subordination of one people by the others is transformed into means of creation of new just society. In the era of communism a state will be replaced by communistic social self-regulation.
Speaking of the class character of the state there are different points of view on this problem nowadays.
For instance American politologists Harrod, Crossland and others claim that social-class factor is not the domination one during state appearance. State is gradually depoliticized. In the conditions of developed democratic society it becomes neutral over-class force and reflects interests of all the layers of society to equal extend.
French politologists Duverger advanced the idea of dualistic character of the state as the subject of power. This is caused by class and general-social orientations of the state. That is why on the one hand a state expresses interests of the ruling class and on the other hand it guaranties social order that is necessary for the whole society.
Main features of a state.
To the basic state features belong:
1. The system of sovereign political power (legislative, executive, judicial). Sovereignty means that a state enjoys the supreme and unlimited power on the inner subjects inside the state and the other states are to recognize it.
2. Territory. A state is associated with a certain territory where its laws have absolute power. The territory includes the land, entrails, air space and sea- expanse.
Territory of Ukraine
3. Monopoly on
legal applying of the ower. A state creates special apparatus of coercion that is used in
situations established by the law. The range of
state coercion spreads from limitation of
freedom to physical extermination of the person.
4. State language. This is a language of the majority of population.
5. State apparatus as a rule consists of the parliament, local governing bodies, president, government and its regional bodies, judicial bodies, prosecuting magistracy.
6. National law system. Every state functions in the certain law system. State law system establishes norms that
regulate social life, and which subordinate all
the subjects and objects of politics.
7. Population. A state influences all the people in the country. No person can exists outside the state and disobey it, because state appliance is asocial necessity and is regulated у the law.
Main functions of a state.
State functions are the main trends of state activity that consist its social essence and mission. There are different points of view on the problem of state functions classification.
The most acceptable is the one that supposes division into inner and foreign functions.
The inner state functions include:
1. Economical - protection of economical basis of society, existing way of production, different property forms; regulation of economical activity, market relationships; state government in economical sphere.
2. Social -
regulation of relationships between
social and ethnical communities and prevention of social conflicts and
contradictions and their settling in
case of occurrence; regulation of interests
and needs of individuals and social groups; efficient demographic policy.
3. Support of legality and order - control and supervision over law norms following and application of coercion
in the case of need; protection of rights
and freedoms of the citizens, creation of conditions for their
safety, social order, etc
4. Legislative - creation and adoption of new laws and other juridical norms.
5. Cultural-educational - regulation and development of educational system, system of culture, science, physical culture and sport, morality, humanism, common to mankind and national values.
6. Ecological - environment protection, rational use of natural recourses, formation of ecological culture.
Foreign state functions are:
1. Defense and national security - protection of the country from the outer aggression and protection of its integrity.
2. Diplomatic - protection and realization of national interests of the state and its citizens in international life; realization of independent international policy.
3. Cooperation - development of economical, political, cultural relationships between countries; deepening of integration processes on public, regional and political basis.
Ukraine-Romania joint meeting
All the state functions can be divided into temporal and permanent, temporal functions are performed on a certain stage existing (e.g. during a war), permanent functions are realized during all the time of state existing.
5. Forms of state government.
State organization is a division of a state into certain components and division of the power between them. Forms of state organization: /. Unitarian states.
2. Federations.
3. Confederations.
Unitarian state. Supreme sovereign power is concentrated in the center and the state constituents (e.g. regions) have no features of sovereignty and are only administrative units.
Common system of centralized state power jurisdiction of which spreads through all the country is characteristic of Unitarian state. There is a single citizenship, single juridical system, single constitution. Some Unitarian states, for instance Italy, Portuguese, Ukraine and others, have autonomous units.
Federation is a state consisting of state units each of which has juridical and political sovereignty. The principle of federalism is concluded in the division of spheres of competence of federal, central power and power of subjects of federation. This principle supposes adoption of common decisions, equal representation in the organs of federal power.
Canada is a federation
The territory consists of the subjects of federation and is not an entire territory. The subject of federation has constituent power, has a right to adopt own Constitution and has a right to have its own juridical and law systems. Federal laws are prior to the ones of regional character. The competence of federal and local state bodies are distributed.
There can be different quantity of subjects in federation - United State of America has 50, Canada - 10, Federal republic of Germany - Austria - 9.
Central power of the federation is supposed to settle the conflicts between the subjects of the federation, the defense of the country, foreign policy, financial policy, taxing, organization of structure and activity of the higher bodies of power.
Confederation is a union of sovereign states that is created to achieve concrete common aim. The members of confederation have complete juridical and political sovereignty. No centralized power, legislation, citizenship, etc. Relationships between the members of confederation are based on treaty basis for coordination of the actions to solve common problems. Confederation is characterized by the absence of common tax system. Financial system of the central bodies consists of duties.
Switzerland is a Confederation
Questions of military defense, foreign policy, transport and communication are in the competence of the central authorities of confederation. Confederation existed in the United States of America during 1776-1787, in Germany during 1815-1867.
The notion of the state form is an important state characteristic. It includes such components as a form of state organization, form of the state government and political regime.
State government is a way of organization and performing of the state power.
Forms of state government:
1. Monarchy.
2. Republic.
Monarchy is such a form of state government when the supreme power belongs to monarch completely or partially and is inherited.
There are absolute and constitutional monarchies.
Absolute monarchy is characterized by the complete power of the head of the state.
In constitutional monarchy the commissions of the monarch are limited by the constitution. Dualistic and parliamentary monarchies are the types of constitutional monarchy.
In dualistic monarchy the head of the state owns the executive power and partially legislative power, and in parliamentary vice versa. The majority of present day monarchies are of parliamentary type (for instance United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Japan)
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a monarchy
Republic is characterized by the realization of the supreme state power by the elective collegiate body that is formed by the population (or its part) for a certain time.
France is a Republic
Parliamentary republic. President is elected by the people. President is the head of the state and heads the executive body. There is no prime minister. President has no right to dissolve legislative body and parliament cannot cause pre-term elections except for an impeachment case.
Mixed republic. President proposes the government that is to be approved by the parliament. President is elected by the people. Executive power is headed by the prime minister.
Types of state.
In the process of evolution modern state acquired three important characteristics — democracy, social security and legal essence.
Democratic state is such a type of state where the people is the source of power, where state democratic social-political institutions and democratic type of political culture provide perfect combination of people's participation in state affairs solving and wide civic rights and freedoms.
There are civic society, power distribution, efficient mechanisms of counterbalances and restrictions, real equality of all the citizens and administration bodies before the law in democratic state.
Provision of efficient state functioning, competing in the sphere of lawmaking, establishment of balance in society and regulation of relationships between state and its citizens; high level of population trust in power institutions are the proofs of democratic character of the state in modern conditions. The so-called social state acquires the special meaning in modern conditions.
Social state is a state that strives to provide every citizen with worthy conditions for existence, social security, participation in government of production, equal chances, possibility of self-realization of personality.
The term "social state" was introduced in 1850 by German scientist Lorenz von Stein. But his active theoretical development and introduction in Germany began only in the second part of 20th century.
Sweden is a Social country
Experience of developed countries proves that formation of social state is not spontaneous and happens on the basis of aimed state policy. Transition to this type is possible only after realization of strategic reforms, which will enable movement towards social-market economy, civic society, lawful state with aimed formation of social state institutions formation. Principles of solidarity and subsidarity are the basic ones out of the principles of support of harmonious relationships between the
citizens and the state that favor filling of state mechanism functioning with social content.
Solidarity supposes unity and aimed union of different groups and layers of society around basic aims and values that are determined by the state and are oriented at fast realization or at far perspective. Idea of solidarity is based on the help of stronger to weaker, on reciprocal support and duties of the citizens.
Principle of subsidarity was treated widely in social doctrine of the Catholic Church and acquired social-state content in the practice of state development of Germany and other Western countries.
According to this principle the higher executive bodies perform only tasks that are not up to the lower level of executive bodies and the first ones are supposed to help the last ones in the support of their independence and responsibility.
Subsidarity that is initiated by the state favors overcoming of consumer psychology of the citizens and their unions, functional overload of the state, uncontrolled increase of bureaucracy and stimulates group and personal initiative of the population.
Social state is formed in every country grounding on the specific national, historical, social-political, geographical conditions and traditions of co-existence in the measures of concrete society. According to all these a model that enables to find own way to social state is created.
Theory of legal state is originated in the times of antiquity. Ancient Greek philosopher Plato wrote that state is possible when just laws prevail. Starting with the New Time theory of legal state was complemented due to the direct address to the idea of human rights.
Leading thinkers of the period of capitalism formation in the 17th - 18th centuries formulated principle of power distribution that was laid in the basis of the theory of legal state.
German philosopher
I. Kant claimed that state provides the supremacy of law and is subordinated to its demands. Civic legal state according to him is based on such a priori principles: freedom of every member of society as a human being, his
equality with each and every one as subject, freedom of every member of society as its citizen.
The other German philosopher M. Weber formulated principles of legal state: government - process of law application, rulers are not social elite, rich people or leaders but officials with restricted power; state administration is completely subjected to the law, but not certain, people; citizen is subjected to the law but not superiors that help to realize law.
Legal state is such a type of state that has law supremacy, power distribution, legal protection of a person, juridical equality of a citizen and state as its basic principles.
Legal state is characterized by:
1. Supremacy of the law and its domination in society; equality of state and all its bodies, public organizations, officials and citizens before the law.
2. Supremacy of representative bodies of the power, their publicity and absence of any dictatorship.
3. Power distribution into legislative, executive and juridical that creates the system of restrictions and counterbalances of branches of the power.
4. Guaranty of rights and freedoms of the person in the measures of the law, reciprocal responsibility of state, public organizations and individuals.
5.High level of civic structures, possibility of public unions and person taking part in society governing; following principles of general, direct, equal elective right.
6. Control of the state power by society, citizens and their organizations.
7. State responsibility before the world union of legal states.
8. Relation of rights and freedoms of citizens to their
duties, responsibility,
self-control, self-consciousness, legal culture.
Besides strict following of the laws society supposes one more important demand - following generally accepted moral norms. Law and moral always were and always will be the factors of human being and humanism.
The concept of a lawful state.
Plato wrote that a state could exist only when laws are supreme. Justice has to be the guardian of laws. He also said that a state loses its lawful status if there are no properly organized courts in this state. Ideal-theoretical basis of the lawful state was laid by Montesquieu (concept of power distribution), Rousseau (idea of people's sovereignty), Kant (concept of a state as a union of people that are subjected to laws) and others.
According to the idea of a lawful state, citizens can do anything that isn't banned by the law and the state act s only according to the law; justice has to be independent and has to be based on presumption of innocence. Supremacy of the law is the most important for a lawful state. Human rights have a priority before the rights of any community, nation, class, and rights of the nation are prior to the ones of the state.
A lawful state is a sovereign politically-territorial organization of public power that is based on principles of respect to the person and inviolability of his rights and freedoms, supremacy of the law and following the law. A lawful state is a system of the authorities and institutions that guarantee and protect normal functioning of civic society.
Main features of a lawful state:
1. Constitutional jurisdiction. Constitution is the main law, that makes the basis for adopting other laws.
2. Supremacy of the law.
3. Really existing rule of law.
4. Parliamentarism.
5. Developed electing system.
6. Guarantees of following the law and legislation.
7. Priority of human rights.
8. Developed law culture.
9. Power division.
10.Orientation on a person as on the supreme value. 11.Tight function of national and international law.
Lawful state is characterized by multi-party system. The demands of laws are spread on the activity of all the social and political institutions, all the citizens and all the spheres of society. Any socially important information is accessible to citizens, and mass media are independent.
Future of the state.
Greek stoics of the period of Hellinism of 4th - 2nd centuries B.C. claimed that as far as humankind is the only one a single universal state should exist headed by wise king and one cosmopolitical citizenship.
I. Kant grounding the idea of eternal piece related its reach with creation of integral federation of independent equal states of republican type in future. Formation of federal cosmopolitical union is inevitable according to Kant. Trade, education, upbringing of the peoples are the basis for such formation.
Cosmopolitical citizenship is the basic dogma of modern ideal-political trend - cosmopolitanism that establishes the primacy of citizen of the world over the citizen of the state.
The ideas mentioned above bring us to the idea of possibility of single world state.
Different scientific centers claim that on the break of centuries considerable approaching of the states members of world communion takes place. Due to this fact radical changes will take place in the system of international relationships till the development of the world consensus in the 21st century that will lead to creation of common state. Such prognosis is grounded on the belief in eternal technical progress that causes economical rise of means of global inter-penetration and solidary development.
Supporters of the opposite point of view - American researcher Harriman and others - ground their ideas on the perspective of lasting existence of sovereign states on the world arena. State can not disappear as a result of some efferent development.
State's role, as historical experience of the last 20th century testifies, has only grown. According to them the reach of non-conflict, rational world structure in the nearest future is not very liable that is why there is no basis for state disappearance.
Being rather discordant, modern historical development proves the point of view concerning common state and especially integration processes to be rather valuable one. History will show what the results of these processes will be.
There is a rather considerable possibility that a state will no exist forever, because productive forces had already crossed state borders and a tendency of world economy creation is traced.
Former colonial peoples are in euphoria of
having their national states and old
Europe moves towards union of political and economical structures. It is common
knowledge that European Economical Union 
moved to the new stage of integration -it concluded an agreement of political and currency-financial union.
European Economical Union was renamed into European Union with the features of not only confederation but also with the features of partial federation -common foreign policy, common defense and economical policy were adopted. In the middle of 1998 Central Bank was formed, common currency - Euro - was introduced starting with the 1st of January, custom-houses were liquidated.
Perspective tendencies of the world development prove peoples' and states' strive for union: international legal activity, democratization of states, formation of state and international organizations unions, etc.
Consolidation of the peoples helps is favored by new political and economical thinking of the leading world countries.
Supporters of the concept of state disappearance believe that this institution will become a link from state to non-state. Activity of state bodies will acquire impolitic character.
A need in the state as in special political institution will disappear.
Impolitic civic self-government will be established with authority, administrational culture, moral, traditions, initiative, etc. as regulate social relationships.
This process is rather long and discordant. It will take place gradually through the strengthening of state, increase of the role of civic society institutions and widening and deepening of relationships between states and peoples of the world.
The Five Most Common Political Systems Around the World by Phillip Donavan
When we speak of political systems, it’s difficult to determine what the most common types are. After all, many political systems are similar, or have similar roots. Many countries actually have republics of some kind — variants of democracy. As you study political science, it can be helpful to understand some of the most common types of political systems from around the world.
Understanding different political systems is important. Each political system has its advantages and disadvantages. It is worth considering the merits of other political systems, and perhaps incorporating some of the ideas into your own system. Some of the five more common political systems around the world include:
1. Democracy
2. Republic
3. Monarchy
4. Communism
5. Dictatorship
Here are some overviews of these five fairly recognizable political systems:
1. Democracy
We often hear the United States referred to as a democracy. Indeed, many refer to the U.S. as a representative democracy. A democracy in a more traditional sense is a political system that allows for each individual to participate. There are two rather popular types of democracy:
- Direct Democracy: Many scholars point to Athens as an example of direct democracy. Technically, every citizen has an equal say in the workings of government. (The qualifications for being considered a citizen are completely different.) Citizens could show up at a meeting, and then directly participate in the governing process, and the process of making laws.
- Representative Democracy: In a representative democracy set-up, citizens elect representatives who actually make the law. The United States operates similarly to this principle. Citizens elect legislators who, in turn, make laws. In the U.S., even the president isn’t elected directly; representatives called electors make the decision (although designated electors usually vote according to the wishes of the citizens in their states).
Other types of democracy include versions known as deliberative democracy, in which citizens approach decision making by considering different viewpoints and options, as well as democratic socialism, in which citizens help make decisions or vote for policies that are socialistic in nature. There are other types of democracy as well. The defining characteristic is some level of citizen participation in the political system.
2. Republic
In theory, a republic is a political system in which the government remains mostly subject to those governed. Some scholars define any political system in which the citizens legitimize the government. As such, some (including Montesquieu) consider the U.S. a republic. Indeed, there are those that believe that any form of government that is not based on heritage or authoritarian governance. In some cases, a representative democracy (or any form of democracy) might be considered a republic. Some of the types of republics that you might see include:
- Crowned (a constitutional monarchy might be considered a crowned republic)
- Single Party
- Capitalist
- Federal (the United States is often referred to as a federal republic)
- Parliamentary
The main characteristic of a republic is that the government is subject to the people, and leaders can be recalled. Some even make the argument that an oligarchy, which is rule by a few citizens, or a group of citizens, is a form of republic, since the government is subject to some of the wishes of some of the governed.
3. Monarchy
When most of us think of a monarchy, we think of the political systems of medieval European countries. In a monarchy, a ruler is not usually chosen by the voice of the people or their representatives. Often a monarch is the head of state until he or she abdicates or until death. In many cases a monarch is the final word in government. There may be functionaries to make decisions and run the political system, but the monarch has discretion with the laws, and how they are enforced.
However, as with other political systems, there are different types of monarchies. The type that many of us think of as common is the absolute monarchy, in which the monarch truly has the ultimate say in matters of government. However, most monarchies in political systems today do not follow this method. Many of them, especially in the developed world, have limits. Constitutional monarchies fall into this category (and are sometimes considered republics as well). In this type of monarchy, the ruler is the head of state, but a constitution limits the power, and others make laws. The U.K., Denmark, Kuwait, Spain, Sweden, Tuvalu, and many more are examples of constitutional monarchies.
Other types of monarchies include duchies, grand duchies, elective monarchy (where the monarch is actually elected), and non-sovereign monarchy.
4. Communism
In most cases, a communist state is based on the ideology of communism as taught by Marx and/or Lenin. However, some argue that these political systems are not true to the ideals espoused by these revolutionary thinkers. Communist states are often dominated by a single party, or a group of people. A planned economy is often part of the governing class, and in many cases resources are taken and then redistributed to others, at the top of the system. Sometimes communists call themselves “workers’ states” or “socialist,” but there are very real differences in their operation. In a lot of cases, citizens are required to do certain jobs, or have some of their life decisions — especially concerning where they can live and what jobs they can do. Communism is often considered an authoritarian political system.
5. Dictatorship
Another authoritarian form of government is the dictatorship. Normally, a dictator is the main individual ruling the country. While there are lackeys and others who work for the dictator, he or she makes most of the decisions, and usually has enforcers. In some cases, the political system is run by a small group of people. Dictators are not restricted by constitutions or parliaments. The governed are usually not consented in any way. Elections held are usually affairs in which the dictator is the only candidate.
One of the more common types of dictatorship is the military dictatorship, in which a military organization governs, running the political system. Sometimes, the military just exerts a great deal of pressure on the government, running the country de facto. In many cases, very few benefit from the decisions made in a dictatorship.
While authoritarian political systems have the advantage of quick decisions being made, many citizens prefer other forms of government — those that allow them greater participation in the political process.
Various states and governments obviously exist around the world. In this context, state means the political unit within which power and authority reside. This unit can be a whole nation or a subdivision within a nation. Thus the nations of the world are sometimes referred to as states (or nation-states), as are subdivisions within a nation, such as California, New York, and Texas in the United States. Government means the group of persons who direct the political affairs of a state, but it can also mean the type of rule by which a state is run. Another term for this second meaning of government is political system, which we will use here along with government. The type of government under which people live has fundamental implications for their freedom, their welfare, and even their lives. Accordingly we briefly review the major political systems in the world today.
Democracy. The type of government with which we are most familiar is democracy, or a political system in which citizens govern themselves either directly or indirectly. The term democracy comes from Greek and means “rule of the people.” In Lincoln’s stirring words from the Gettysburg Address, democracy is “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” In direct (or pure) democracies, people make their own decisions about the policies and distribution of resources that affect them directly. An example of such a democracy in action is the New England town meeting, where the residents of a town meet once a year and vote on budgetary and other matters. However, such direct democracies are impractical when the number of people gets beyond a few hundred. Representative democracies are thus much more common. In these types of democracies, people elect officials to represent them in legislative votes on matters affecting the population.
Representative democracy is more practical than direct democracy in a society of any significant size, but political scientists cite another advantage of representative democracy. At least in theory, it ensures that the individuals who govern a society and in other ways help a society function are the individuals who have the appropriate talents, skills, and knowledge to do so. In this way of thinking, the masses of people are, overall, too uninformed, too uneducated, and too uninterested to run a society themselves. Representative democracy thus allows for “the cream to rise to the top” so that the people who actually govern a society are the most qualified to perform this essential task (Seward, 2010).[679] Although this argument has much merit, it is also true that many of the individuals who do get elected to office turn out to be ineffective and/or corrupt. Regardless of our political orientations, Americans can think of many politicians to whom these labels apply, from presidents down to local officials. As we discuss in Chapter 14, Politics and Government, the section called “Politics in the United States” in relation to political lobbying, elected officials may also be unduly influenced by campaign contributions from corporations and other special-interest groups. To the extent this influence occurs, representative democracy falls short of the ideals proclaimed by political theorists.
The defining feature of representative democracy is voting in elections. When the United States was established more than 230 years ago, most of the world’s governments were monarchies or other authoritarian regimes (discussed shortly). Like the colonists, people in these nations chafed under arbitrary power. The example of the American Revolution and the stirring words of its Declaration of Independence helped inspire the French Revolution of 1789 and other revolutions since, as people around the world have died in order to win the right to vote and to have political freedom.
Democracies are certainly not perfect. Their decision-making process can be quite slow and inefficient; as just mentioned, decisions may be made for special interests and not “for the people”; and, as we have seen in earlier chapters, pervasive inequalities of social class, race and ethnicity, gender, and age can exist. Moreover, in not all democracies have all people enjoyed the right to vote. In the United States, for example, African Americans could not vote until after the Civil War, with the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870, and women did not win the right to vote until 1920, with the passage of the 19th Amendment.
In addition to generally enjoying the right to vote, people in democracies also have more freedom than those in other types of governments. Figure 14.1, “Freedom Around the World (Based on Extent of Political Rights and Civil Liberties)” depicts the nations of the world according to the extent of their political rights and civil liberties. The freest nations are found in North America, Western Europe, and certain other parts of the world, while the least free lie in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
Figure 14.1. Freedom Around the World (Based on Extent of Political Rights and Civil Liberties)
|
|
Monarchy is a political system in which power resides in a single family that rules from one generation to the next generation. The power the family enjoys is traditional authority, and many monarchs command respect because their subjects bestow this type of authority on them. Other monarchs, however, have ensured respect through arbitrary power and even terror. Royal families still rule today, but their power has declined from centuries ago. Today the Queen of England holds a largely ceremonial position, but her predecessors on the throne wielded much more power.
|
|
Queen Elizabeth II of England holds a largely ceremonial position, but earlier English monarchs held much more power.
This example reflects a historical change in types of monarchies from absolute monarchies to constitutional monarchies (Finer, 1997).[680] In absolute monarchies, the royal family claims a divine right to rule and exercises considerable power over their kingdom. Absolute monarchies were common in both ancient (e.g., Egypt) and medieval (e.g., England and China) times. In reality, the power of many absolute monarchs was not totally absolute, as kings and queens had to keep in mind the needs and desires of other powerful parties, including the clergy and nobility. Over time, absolute monarchies gave way to constitutional monarchies. In these monarchies, the royal family serves a symbolic and ceremonial role and enjoys little, if any, real power. Instead the executive and legislative branches of government—the prime minister and parliament in several nations—run the government, even if the royal family continues to command admiration and respect. Constitutional monarchies exist today in several nations, including Denmark, Great Britain, Norway, Spain, and Sweden.
Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism
Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are general terms for nondemocratic political systems ruled by an individual or a group of individuals who are not freely elected by their populations and who often exercise arbitrary power. To be more specific, authoritarianism refers to political systems in which an individual or a group of individuals holds power, restricts or prohibits popular participation in governance, and represses dissent. Totalitarianism refers to political systems that include all the features of authoritarianism but are even more repressive as they try to regulate and control all aspects of citizens’ lives and fortunes. People can be imprisoned for deviating from acceptable practices or may even be killed if they dissent in the mildest of ways. The purple nations in Figure 14.1, “Freedom Around the World (Based on Extent of Political Rights and Civil Liberties)” are mostly totalitarian regimes, and the orange ones are authoritarian regimes.
Compared to democracies and monarchies, authoritarian and totalitarian governments are more unstable politically. The major reason for this is that these governments enjoy no legitimate authority. Instead their power rests on fear and repression. The populations of these governments do not willingly lend their obedience to their leaders and realize that their leaders are treating them very poorly; for both these reasons, they are more likely than populations in democratic states to want to rebel. Sometimes they do rebel, and if the rebellion becomes sufficiently massive and widespread, a revolution occurs. In contrast, populations in democratic states usually perceive that they are treated more or less fairly and, further, that they can change things they do not like through the electoral process. Seeing no need for revolution, they do not revolt.
Since World War II, which helped make the United States an international power, the United States has opposed some authoritarian and totalitarian regimes while supporting others. The Cold War pitted the United States and its allies against Communist nations, primarily the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and North Korea. But at the same time the United States opposed these authoritarian governments, it supported many others, including those in Chile, Guatemala, and South Vietnam, that repressed and even murdered their own citizens who dared to engage in the kind of dissent constitutionally protected in the United States (Sullivan, 2008).[681] Earlier in U.S. history, the federal and state governments repressed dissent by passing legislation that prohibited criticism of World War I and then by imprisoning citizens who criticized that war (Goldstein, 2001).[682] During the 1960s and 1970s, the FBI, the CIA, and other federal agencies spied on tens of thousands of citizens who engaged in dissent protected by the First Amendment (Cunningham, 2004).[683] While the United States remains a beacon of freedom and hope to much of the world’s peoples, its own support for repression in the recent and more distant past suggests that eternal vigilance is needed to ensure that “liberty and justice for all” is not just an empty slogan.
The development of political ideas in Ukraine. Political power and democracy. The main problems:
- The notion of political power, it's essence and features.
- Conceptual approaches to the problems of political power.
- Forms and mechanisms of political power.
- Problems of legality of political power.
- The notion of democracy.
- Principles and main features of democracy.
1. The notion of political power, it's essence and features.
Power is one of the fundamental basics of political development of society. It has legal, economical, spiritual-ideological character, it exists everywhere where stable formations of people occur; it is tightly related to political sphere and is a means of enjoying and support of a certain political course. Political power appeared long before state power and defines real ability of social group or an individual to express his own will. It is a constituent part of general definition of power as a form of social relationships that has integral character and penetrates every sphere of human life.
Any system has a system-constituting component. Political power performs functions of this element for political system. It integrates all the elements of the system. Political struggle occurs on the basis of political power and is a source of social administration, which is a means of power enjoyment. Power is a necessary moderator of vital activity of society and its development and integrity.
Branch of political science that studies power is called cratology. Politologists treat the notion of power in different way. The most acceptable definition says that power is a right and possibility to manage anybody or anything, to have a determining influence on the fates, behavior, activity of people by means of authority, will, coercion, force, etc.
Political power is a right and possibility to perform a considerable influence on the activity and behavior of people, on the activity of their unions by means of will, authority, law and violence; it is also an organizational-controlling mechanism of politics realization.
The majority of the scientists believes that political domination is the source of power which is revealed under the domination of the interest, has many forms with the power as the basic one. It is common thing in political practice to claim that power is the source of domination, but that statement is wrong. The authors of such statements do not take into consideration the fact that it is necessary to become a real political force having influence first to come to power.
Political power is one of the central notions of polititology. There is no commonly accepted definition of power because the very notion is rather polysemantic. Some of the investigators of this notion propose to change the notion of power to control.
We can define the power as a real possibility to perform one's own will and to impose it on other people. Power exists in any society and is the result of existence of difference of interests. The basic kinds of power are political, economical, spiritual, etc. To the features of power belong the territory, monopoly of enforcement, legality, duration, and etc.
Power is a result of social layers activity and relationships between them. It is aimed to organize common (social) production, to support the existence of society. Power is necessary for social production organization, for coordination interests and actions of different social groups for society existence support and preservation of the integrity of society. Apart form the notion oi political power we have the notion of state power. The notion of political power is wider than the notion of state power. Firstly, political power appeared earlier than state power during pre-state epoch. Secondly, not every political power is a state one, for instance power of parties, movements, public organizations. On the other hand, any state power is of political character. State power is rather specific - it is the only power that has a monopoly of coercion, right to issue laws, etc. Except for coercion it has other ways of influence -persuasion, ideological, economical factors, etc.
Political power is the ability of all the subjects of politics to influence the process of adopting and realization of political decisions; it's an ability to influence political behaviour of individuals, social groups and unions.
State power is a form of political power. It's a specially organized system of state bodies, organizations and institutions that is aimed at governing all the fields of social life.
State power functions according to political-territorial principle. State power has a monopoly in issuing law norms that regulate society life.
To the features of political power belong legality, influence, supremacy, efficiency.
Parliament has legislative power in Ukraine
Legality of the political power means the obligatory performance of all its economical, political, etc. resolutions by all the members of society. Legal political power acts on the basis of law norms.
Influence of the political power means the ability of the subjects of politics to influence individual's behaviour, behaviour of groups, organizations with the aim to form or to change people's viewpoints on some topics, to regulate political behaviour of social subjects.
Power supremacy is the obligatory fulfilling of power decisions (economical, political law, etc.) by all the members of society.
Efficiency of the political power consists of concrete social results that show the ability of the power to govern the social life.
The system of power includes:
(1) State bodies and citizens that perform power functions (subjects of power);
(2) Those at whom the power is aimed (the objects of power);
(3) Relations between structural elements of power, its institutions, values, norms, social and political control.
Modern power is integral multifold system that includes different elements of material, political, spiritual culture of society that are in constant interrelation. Modern power is not a certain subordination and organizing of the will of its subjects. 2. Conceptual approaches to the problems of political power.
Political, sociological, philosophical literature gives us several approaches to the problem of treating political power. There are about three hundred definitions of power. Existence of a large quantity of concepts of power testifies for creative searches and that the problem is not enough studied.
Investigation of the problem of power began in the ancient times. Aristotle was the first to produce the idea of power distribution into three branches 0 legislative, executive and juridical. Christian theologist and philosopher Aurelius Sanctus Augustinus said that power always takes care of its subjects.
Medieval theologist Thoma Aquinas
wrote that all the kinds of power are given by God. The basic task of the power is
to favor the state welfare, preserving piece and justice in society.
Montesquieu claimed that power distribution is the prior condition of the legal organization of society and state, and balance of three branches of power is called to provide the existence of political freedoms.
Adams believed that power is a form of coercion, of supremacy of one group over the other, controlling the life on an individual. To his mind the power is elected on the basis of free content of the society with the aim of self-preservation, but humankind is always before the temptation of turning this power into evil, because of its sinful nature.
Nietzsche said that the power is a domination and the final reason of every form of behavior.
Russell mentioned that power is first of all representation of the relationships between the power individual and power of organization (states, parties, corporations). Power has a natural character; it is characteristic of a human being and normally functioning organization. To his mind a human being has two related passions - strive for power and glory. They are limitless; their realization plays a noticeable role in historical process, because the power is a producer of necessary results, caused by individual displays of these passions.
Parsons defined power as the ability to perform duties caused by the aims of society, mobilize social resources in the name of the reach of certain aims. He compared power to money claiming that power is an element that is in currency; it is the means of exchange, trade, symbol of value.
There are the following reasons why the worst people come to the power given by philozophers:
1. Educated people are not collectivists; they are not unanimous in sympathies to certain system of values. The more person is educated the more difficult it is to find common interests for such people.
2. Totalitarian regimes are based on the people with unstable views and on the people that are easily exited.
3. People are easier united under negative program, under the division of the world into "us" and "them".
Marxist approach to the problem of power as the necessary result of irreconcilability of social contradictions that have economical reasons. Liberal approach views the power from the point of view of the positions of authority of social ideas that are accepted freely.
There are the following the most popular concepts of power:
Normative-formalistic concept. According to this concept a system of norms first of all law norms is the source and content of power. Sometimes this concept is called legitimizm. It is grounded on the fact that the law is a legal and moral factor that has juridical force. Deep historical roots of this fact caused legitimizm as political concept with the basic idea of absolutization of law norms of the power. This doctrine appeared as a political concept in the 9th century B.C. - 3rd century A.D. during the times of the absolute monarchy existence. State power realized absolute power of the ruler, acting despotically, being bureaucratized in administration during those times. In present time legitimizm is based on the exaltation of the law as the basic regulative norm.
Organistic concept. Different versions of functionalism, structuralism and solidarism that determine general social functions of the power, which diminish or ignore its class character comprise this concept. For instance according to the structural-functionalist theory power is a special kind of relationships between those who rule and those who are ruled. The role of a person in political system is strictly defined - support of the existing political system.
Elite theory of power is
also a part of organistic concept. 
Hrushevsky is a representative of the Ukrainian elite, the first President of Ukraine
Its appearance is caused by the existence of elite in society that is called to govern masses of people of non-elite origin and all the processes in society. There is no single idea of elite nowadays. Some researchers claim that the most active politicians comprise it the others say that rich and highly skilled people constitute elite. This concept proclaims unique features of the bearers of the power, claiming elite to be only political phenomena regardless to the sphere of influence. Historical process is viewed as a set of cycles of elite change. This concept claims the idea of people's sovereignty to be Utopian myth saying that social inequality is the basis of life. Absolutization of the relationships of power of one group of people and subordination of the others is a backbone of elite theory of power. Thus some western researchers criticize this theory saying that it does not take into consideration the existence of the middle class that comprises the majority of any developed society and which social polarity and elite character can not be neglected.
Subjective-psychological concept. This concept explains power as an inborn instinctive urge to power, domination and aggression. Behavioral theory of power is one of the doctrines of this concept. It orients at the study of individual behavior of people in the sphere of power relationships and strive for power is proclaimed to be a dominating feature of the human behavior and consciousness. Power is treated as the aim and means. Any influence at politics is because of the strive for power. Everything is power in politics and any power is politics.
Instrumentalistic approach claims that power is narrowed to the use of certain means, for instance violence and coercion, etc.
Individualistic-sociological concept. Its followers view power as a game of interests - personal contradictions between the freedom of one part of the population and restrictions regarding the other part. This game is supported by deals, negotiations. Its success depends upon abilities, will, flexibility if the subjects, rules of "political game", etc.
Marxist concept of power. Taking economical interests that determine the content and form of realization of class interests for its basis it treats political power
as the rule of a certain class. According to Marx the class that possesses means of production and consequently the larger part of national weal imposes its will on the society. It has the state power in its hands that protects its own interests.
Relationalist theory is rather popular nowadays. It treats the power as interpersonal relationships that enable to realize will influence on the individual and change his behavior.
3. Forms and mechanisms of political power.
Domination, political leadership and management are the basic forms of political power. Domination is an absolute or relative subordination of one people (social groups) by the others. Political leadership and management are realized through the adoption of strategic and tactical resolutions concerning the objects of power, through the organization, regulation and control of their development. Practice proves the existence of amoral forms and means - bribe, fraud, promises, blackmail, creation of artificial obstacles, populism, etc. All these make great contribution to discrediting of true democracy, ruins power prestige, causes distrust of the people, threatens the society with social conflicts.
Forms of political power are also distinguished according to the criterion of the main subject of rule. They comprise (1) monarchy - power (absolute or with constitutional restriction) with hereditary rule of one person (a monarch);
(2) tyranny - despotic rule of one person as a result of seizure of power;
(3) aristocracy - power of the best, i.e. power of nobility, of privileged group of society;
(4) oligarchy - power of a few number of rich people;
(5) tymocracy - a special form of oligarchy according to which state power belongs to privileged majority which owns high property census and very often military power;
(6) theocracy - power of the church;
(7) ochlocracy — power of the crowd that is not based on laws but on moment whims of the crowd that is often influenced by demagogues, acquires despotic character and acts tyrannically;
(8) democracy - power of the people that is based on law and support of rights and freedoms of the citizens.
In a democratic country community can openly discuss social problems
Modern investigators also define the power of partocracy (party leaders, party nomenclature), bureaucracy (power of the higher state officialdom, super-centralization and over-formalization in the country), technocracy (technical elite has the determinative influence in society; domination of technical thinking).
Political power is fulfilled through the mechanism of power relationships. Polish politologist Jezhi Vjatr proposed the following structure of this mechanism:
(1) presence of at least two partners in power relationships;
(2) will display of the ruler is performed in the form of a certain act that supposes sanctions in the case of insubordination;
(3) subordination to the person fulfilling power functions is obligatory;
(4) social norms that secure right of one group to issue acts and the others to be subordinated to the first ones.
Such a mechanism of power relationships provides efficiency of the subject and the object and functions realizations. These functions are: (1) integrative (uniting of social-political forces of society);
(2) regulative (directs political will of masses at regulation of vital activity of society);
(3) motivating (formation of motives of political activity);
(4) stabilizing (orientation at stable development of political system, civic society).
Development and democratization of political
government supposes search of new
means of power realization and certain demands to this process. Taking into confederation this point Russian politologist Ivan Iliin (1882-1954)
formulated six axioms of state power: /. State power can not belong to anybody but those who have legal commissions. Law consciousness demands the power to be perceived not as a force that causes law but as legal commissions. The law originated not from force but only from law and always from natural rights. Power that has no legal sanction has no legal dimension.
2. tate power has to be the only one in the measures of one political union. It is the only organized will display that originates from the integrity o/law. State power in every political union regardless of the principle of its division is integral according to its essence and aim.
3.Power is to be enjoyed by the people who answer high ethical and political census. Power without authority is worse than obvious chaos. People that principally denies the rule of the best is a miserable crowd and demagogues are its guides.
4.Political program of leaders can embody only those actions that reflect common interest. State power is aimed at securing natural right which is similar to the interests of the people and every single citizen.
5. Political program of power has to embody actions and reforms that are eal to be introduced into life. It is impossible to share Utopian, unreal program ideas.
6. State power is principally related to just division. Power has a right and is obliged to omit this point when national-spiritual ideas of the people demand this.
Practice of political life proves that ignoring of these axioms leads to crisis of state power, destabilization of society, conflict situations that can transform into even a civil war.
4. Problems of legality of political power.
Legitimate attitude towards law norms of the country is one of the modern ideas of the essence of the power, which supports democratic character of law norms and is caused by the sovereignty of the people as the only source of law. One of the most important characteristics of the power is its legality. The power is legal when people agree with it.
Legality of political power is a form of support, justification of lawful power application and ruling a state or its certain structure or institutions.
There are as a rule three basic subject that are the source of legality -population, government and foreign policy structures. Scientists pay much attention to this problem, e.g. Lipset defined legality as "an ability of the system to create and support a belief that the existing political institutions are the best of all the possible".
Weber developed such types of legality:
1. Traditional, based on traditions. The orders of the leaders are supreme because they follow traditions and historic precedents (e.g. monarchy);
2. Charismatic, (Greek harisma - special gift) based on personal devotion of the people to some personality (e.g. Jesus Christ)
3. Rational, based on subordination of everybody to a system of laws that are set and applied in accordance to stable principles.
Easton defines other sources of power and political regime support:
1) ideologic principles;
2) sympathy to the regime's structures and norms;
3) devotion to power on the basis of positive evaluation of personal features of the power subjects, e.g.
Easton defines different kinds of legality:
(1) Ideological legality is based on ideological principles and believes of citizens in supreme value of political system, that is supported by intensive propaganda (USSR);
(2) Structural legality is based on sympathy of citizens to the norms of political regime (Great Britain with its democratic traditions and parliamentarism);
(3) Personal legality is based on people's belief in personal qualities of political leader, his ability to use political power properly.
Legality can change the character and level of support of the power and its institutions. In this relation we can talk about the crisis of legality.
Crisis of legality is a decrease of the real support of the bodies of state power or the ruling regime in general that influence qualitative changes of their roles and functions.
Crisis of legality in modern conditions are caused by the inability of power bodies to fulfil their functions, inability of the government to adapt to the changing conditions of social life, collapse of constitutional order, gap between constitutional norms and practice of their fulfillment, absence of considerable structural changes.
Sources of power legality:
(1) Citizens' participation in governing that creates a feeling of taking part in political processes;
(2) By means of administrative, economical, army, educational activity of the people;
(3) By means of enforcement.
The problem of legality of political power is of vital importance for any political regime. Even dictators cannot ground their power on mere violence. This problem is one of the basic problems of politology.
5. The notion of democracy.
The level of democratization is one of the most important criteria of society development. Democracy is the most efficient means of realization of contradictions, development and harmonizing of the society.
Problem of democracy and its role in the social-political life of society is the central one in politology that from the ancient times viewed democracy as an inevitable feature of civilized society.
Democracy is a form of state-political regime that is based on the recognition of the people as the only source and bearer of power, on the strive to provide justice, equality, welfare of all the people that comprise the population of the given country.
High political culture of the population is necessary for the establishment of democracy. Such culture can be formed in the process of democratization. It is necessary to fulfil a set of actions in different spheres of social life, to change existing social-political structures, form democratic type of political culture in order to establish democracy in the country. Democracy is a phenomenon that is in constant development.
In scientific literature we can find the following meanings of democracy:
1) power of people that supposes participation of all the citizens in social and state affairs;
2) a form of state rule that enables different social groups to take part in governing;
3) real freedom for everybody.
Politology studies political democracy that is related to enjoying political
rights.
Every person treats democracy in his own way. One can treat democracy as freedom and the other one may say that democracy is a violence. Some scientists say that democracy is a ruling system that provides a person with rights and freedoms to the fullest. Others say that a democratic country lacks order. The basic principle of democracy is that no one be can force a person to obey the power that wasn't chosen by the person and that doesn't support person's interests.
Democracy is characterized by:
(1) Defining the people as the only source of power;
(2) Equality of all the citizens;
(3) Subordination of minority to majority during adopting resolutions and their fulfillment;
(4) Electing the legislative authority;
(5) Priority of human rights over state rights;
American
suffragette emonstrations. February 1913
(6) Reduction of the majority power over minority;
(7) Supremacy of the law in all fields of social life;
(8) Power division aimed at avoiding concentration of the power in a single center.
Democratic system is characterized by such features:
1. Possibility to change the government without military conflict.
2. Opposition legality.
3. Free mass media, no censorship.
4. Ability to express different points of view, ability to criticize the state bodies.
5. High level of citizens' participation in political processes.
6. Guarantied human rights.
7. Regular, honest elections.
Depending of the way the people take part in social and state affairs democracy is divided into direct and representative democracy.
Direct democracy is the order when decisions are adopted on the basis of immediate and concrete will of all the citizens.
Elections on the basis of the general suffrage are one of the forms of direct democracy. Citizens taking part in such elections have a right to influence formation of the bodies of the power of different level. Referendums are also part of direct democracy. They are held with the aim'of adoption of a law or other decisions on the basis of will of the people concerning inevitable questions of state policy and social-political life in general. Nation-wide discussion of draft laws is also a form of direct democracy.
Representative democracy is an order of discussion and solving of state and civil questions by the representatives of population.
Institutions of representative democracy play an important part in the process of decisions adoptions. Parliaments that are formed through the elections are of great importance in the system of this democracy. In the modern democratic societies formation of state policy of all the levels is done basically in representative establishments where professional politicians and managers work. Politologists even separate professional democracy. It is caused by the problems of modern democracy that can not be solved by the means of direct democracy. An alloy of different forms of democracy is a reliable instrument of development of optimal decisions on the basis of the people's will.
6. Principles and main features of democracy.
The leading principles of democracy are (a) the majority principle, (b) the right of minority to create an opposition, (c) principle of compromise and consensus, (d) principle of active taking part in political life by the citizens.
1. Majority principle. The resolution is considered to be adopted if it is supported by the majority of those who take part in discussion. The power of majority has to obey the rights of minorities and not to contradict with them. This principle can not be called absolutely democratic one when the right of the minority for opposition is ignored. In democratic society the majority and the minority are equal in rights. History knows lots of examples when majority regarding to many reasons
(not enough information, propaganda, emotions, etc.) supported faulty, even destructive decisions and actions. The minority was right and protested against such actions from the very beginning.
2. Principle of pluralism. Democratic organization of society is impossible without following this principle. It enables to rule on the basis of taking into consideration of multiple character of public opinion and positions of different subjects of politics. In pluralistic society the minority has a guarantied by the law right to create an opposition. Following laws and other law norms of the state power that were adopted as a result of the majority will the minority has a legal ability to express its discontent with such decisions and to reject responsibility for those decisions that can have negative consequences. Majority and minority have equal rights. Minority, having no power, has a right to form an opposition. Majority mustn't use the power in order to eliminate the opposition. Opposition has a right to express its ideas freely in order to present the population alternative programs of social development.
Opposition in the parliament and other spheres of soceil life provides real pluralism of ideas and actions that is a necessary condition for the development of optimal decisions. If there is no opposition a threat of transformation of democracy into dictatorship occurs. Multiparty system is an efficient menas of the struggle of opposition forces for realization of its interests. Multiparty system expells the possibility of monopoly of power of one party.
3. Principle of equality. This principle of democracy was proclaimed by the Great French Revolution of the end of the 18th century. All the people are born free and equal in their rights. In modern conditions social-economical inequality of he citizens is inevitable. Democracy supposes only political equality in the face of law but can not guarantee equal level of life. But the state tries to apply means aimed towards support of the necessary level of life of social groups that need help.
4.Principle of power distribution. According to this principle legislative, executive and juridical branches of power are separated and are rather independent from one another. On the other hand they are in constant interaction in that process of formation and fulfillment of state politics. In democratic societies every branch of power has commissions but each of them balances the others not permitting to occupy ruling positions in society.
5. Principle of compromise and consensus. Democracy is viewed as a set of rights and norms aimed at resolving the conflicts between the subjects of political process.
6. Principle of active taking part in political life by the citizens. Democracy is their freedom and to extend it citizens discuss political programs, vote, etc. people have to be interested in political life, because a low level of such interest causes dictatorship.
7. Principle of independent control. It is done not only in descending order but also in the ascending one. The absence of the control of the activity of state structures from the side of society causes bureaucratism, corruption, etc. On the other hand democratic control has nothing to do with the state control that occurs in totalitarian regime.
Development of real criticism, strengthening of lawful order, creation of efficient mechanism of self-renewal of political system are the important means of democratization of society and struggle with bureaucratism.
The main features of democracy:
(1) Rights that are enjoyed by every single person: liberty of press, freedom of meeting, etc.;
(2) Liberty of mass-media: mass-media are aimed to inform people about different events to help people understand political life better;
(3) All the citizens are equal and are equally protected by the law. State authority is aimed to set equal relationships between all the citizens.
(4) System of restrictions and counterbalances includes federalism and power distribution.
Federalism is a distribution of governing functions between central and local power bodies.
Power distribution of power functions between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of power.
(5) Ideological and political pluralism. It supposes lots of political ideas, theories, parties. It prevents from concentrating of the power by one political party.
(6) Freedom of speech. People can express their viewpoints freely, can organize demonstrations, meetings, strikes, etc.
THE SOCIAL ENGINEERS - COLLECTIVISM
This group considers mankind the raw material from which to construct a
society. The forms of society differ, the means by which its design is arrived
at differs, but what they all have in common is the notion that one/some/many
men should rule the others - whether it be king, dictator or majority.
AUTOCRACY / DICTATORSHIP / DESPOTISM
An autocracy is characterised by a supreme, uncontrolled, unlimited authority,
or right of governing in a single person, as of an autocrat. It is very similar
to a dictatorship. The key here is that the autocrat has absolute power. An
autocrat requires a massive amount of force (in an army for instance) to exert
control over an unwilling people. A benevolent autocrat is a contradiction in
terms. A (rational) benevolent person recognises that benevolence is not something
which can, by its nature, be forcibly created. A benevolent leader would seek
to undo the social engineering and return the society toward the sovereignty of
the individual. Iraq under Hussein is a good example of dictatorship, as was
Russia under Stalin.
COMMUNISM
Strictly speaking, communism means a scheme of equalising the social conditions
of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of
inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth
equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and
advantage of all. The means to achieve this is by collectivisation of all
private property. Although meant to indicate the means of production, to be
consistent communism requires that no individual may own anything exclusively,
privately. Not the product of his work (thus his mind), nor any personal
material benefit he may achieve as a result of it. All material is centralised
and distributed by legislators, the intention being to achieve equal utility
(of material) by all. Freedom of expression tends also to be mediated by the
state for the same reasons and to maintain the 'integrity' of the collective.
You can find a Marxist book in a US bookstore but you cant find Ludwig von
Mises in a Cuban library
In practice communism fails dismally. The only way it can be achieved is if
every single member of a communist society is in absolute agreement with the
above arrangement - and that the legislators are not open to corruption in the
form of personal acquisition or favour. We have seen in section one that is it
proper for man to own the product of his mind, or that acquired by accident of
birth. If such is taken in any way other than voluntarily it is robbery.
For a fuller explanation of communism please refer to the communist manifesto and observe the
manner in which human beings are to be moulded and shaped according to Marx and
Engels' beliefs.
CONSERVATISM
A political philosophy that tends to support the status quo and advocates
change only in moderation. Conservatism upholds the value of tradition, and
seeks to preserve all that is good about the past. Irishman Edmund Burke, in
his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), compared society to a
living organism that has taken time to grow and mature, so it should not be
suddenly uprooted. Innovation, when necessary (in the states' judgement),
should be grafted onto the strong stem of traditional institutions and ways of doing
things: "it is with infinite caution that any man ought to venture upon
pulling down an edifice which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the
common purposes of society.". Conservatives are usually social engineers
by default (status quo).
In many ways this is reflected in the British Conservative Party, which broadly
supports the industrial Britain's' free market enterprise and a degree of
individual autonomy, but also the expropriation of property to feed both an
aristocratic and a welfare status quo. It is a philosophy against radicalism of
any sort, regardless of merit. A 'pleasant' system in an already free country,
it could be a dangerously rigid one in less free country. Current Conservative
party leader William Hague appears to have some classical liberal beliefs which
may rejuvenate the party, although not much as happened as yet!
DEMOCRACY
There are two major modes of democracy. 1. Government by the people; a form of
government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the
people. 2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which
the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised
through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically
renewed; a constitutional representative government.
The latter form is that which exists in the UK. The reason I have included
democracy as a form of social engineering is because democracy does not limit
its power. It is possible (though unlikely) to achieve the same results as a
vicious nazi state through democracy. The problems with democracy deserve
separate discussion here are that a
majority can 'vote away' the freedom of a minority. To use an extreme example
imagine that you live in a village of 100 people and 99 of them vote to take
your house. Despite the 'landslide' democratic victory there is no change in
the morality of the theft they vote for. To a lesser extent this is what
happens when one person votes for tax raises. The whim of a majority is no more
moral than the whim of a dictator, just less likely to result in an extreme
atrocity. The other problem is that it pits one interest group against another.
Where the government decides to use one persons' private property to pursue a
goal with which he/she does not agree, the two parties oppose. Democracy can
rapidly decline to a series of adversarial groups seeking to have the
government favour them, at the necessary expense of another. Thus we have young
v old, healthy v ill, employed v unemployed, road user v non-road user, county
v county, race v race and so forth. where the government serves only as a
policeman there can be no such adversariality.
FASCISM
A relative newcomer (1919 - Mussolini) fascism is characterised by elements of
pride in the nation, anti-Marxism, the complete rejection of parliamentary
democracy, the cultivation of military virtues, strong government, and loyalty
to a strong leader. Whereas in communism the individual is second to the
society, in fascism the individual is second to the state or race. It is not
'right wing' per-se, but is virtually the same as national socialism (Nazism),
it therefore shares much with Marxism in its view of mankind as a collective.
We all know what can happen when sufficient people in a state are in eager
support of national socialism, hence its widespread repulsion.
IMPERIALISM
The policy that aims at building and maintaining an empire, in which many
states and peoples, spread over a wide geographical area, are controlled by one
dominant state. Much of the twentieth century history of the Third World, for
example, is of the dismantling of the legacy of nineteenth century European
imperialism. An imperialist state can also be any other type of collectivist,
but not a type of individualist, nation. In Britain the growth of classical
liberalism can be said to have contributed to the negation of the belief in
imperialism as being 'good'.
MONARCHY
Form of rulership whereby a queen or king, empress or emperor holds absolute or
limited power, usually inherited. In this century most European monarchies have
become constitutional or limited, such as with the British Monarchy. Such
monarchies often represent a strong symbol of national identity in (some of)
the people's minds (but exist at the expense of all). In some countries in
Africa, the Middle East, and Asia monarchs still continue to hold absolute
power. Under these conditions the state is similar to autocracy.
PLURALISM
Government carried out by a process of bargaining and compromise between a
variety of competing leadership groups (business, labour, government, etc.).
Advocates of pluralism claim that it best serves the democratic ideal in a
complex modern society, in which individual participation in every act of
decision-making is impractical. According to pluralism, individual rights and
interests are protected by a sort of extra-constitutional checks and balances:
No single group holds the dominant power position, power is always shifting,
and individuals can have influence on policy-making through being active in one
of these power groups. Some claim that America is such a pluralistic society;
other theories say that pluralism is in fact a myth and American society is
elitist. Despite this pluralism is not limited, other than by the common sense
of its participants. Therefore it is still, in essence, collectivist and
adversarial. See Democracy.
PLUTOCRACY
Government by the wealthy, or by a government primarily influenced by the wealthy.
This system is as open to the social engineers as any other, and is against any
principle of individual liberty. One of the criticisms of the US political
system is that some wealthy people and organisations exert enormous influence
over political power. This is not to be mistaken for a criticism of the free
market or of wealth but as a criticism of unlimited political power.
SOCIALISM
Sharing the same collective view of mankind as communism socialism is a
political system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange
are mostly owned by the state, and used, at least in theory, on behalf of the
people (whose 'good' is decided by the legislator). The idea behind socialism
is that the capitalist system is intrinsically unfair, because it concentrates
wealth in a few hands and does nothing to safeguard the overall welfare of the
majority, we will see later that this is fallacious. Under socialism, the state
redistributes the wealth of society in a more equitable way, according to the
judgement of the legislator. Socialism as a system is anathema to most
Americans, but broadly accepted in Europe - albeit in a much diluted fashion.
Socialism is a system of expropriation of private property (regardless of how
this was earned) in order to distribute it to various groups considered (by the
legislator) to warrant it, usually the unemployed, ill, young and old and
significantly, those with political pull. Since all property must be created
before being distributed modern socialists allow some free market enterprise to
exist in order to 'feed' from its production. This seems to admit that the free
market is the best way to produce wealth. The current British government
(Labour) purports to be quasi-socialist but is in practice conservative
(non-radical) with additional taxation and state intervention. I believe that
genuine socialism has not fared that well in Britain due to a sense of
individual sovereignty shared by many Britons, expressed in such sayings as
"an Englishman's' home is his castle". http://www.wsws.org/ is
an informative site regarding modern socialism. See also communism
THEOCRACY
A state or government which is run by priests or clergy. A recent example of a
theocracy is Iran immediately after the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, when the
Ayotollah Khomeini gained power. Theocracies are becoming more common as
Islamic fundamentalism grows in strength, but its influence is almost non
existent in the West, with the exception of the USA where the 'religious right'
have some influence. The social engineering is derived from the mythical
content of the state religion and could include any number of atrocities
against the individual.
A THOUGHT FROM FREDERICK BASTIAT
To end the section on collectivists I would like to quote French Liberal
philosopher frederick Bastiat from his superb piece of work "The Law" which is available on the
internet;
" if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations,
they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of
knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange. According to these
writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon certain men --
governors and legislators -- the exact opposite inclinations, not only for
their own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world! While mankind
tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances
toward darkness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is
drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have
decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of
force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race."
Although I do not share Bastiats' specific religious belief I find his logic
and clarity to be superb, basically all social engineers are convinced that
they are better suited to run your life than you are.
THE INDIVIDUALISTS
ANARCHISM /NIHILISM
A doctrine that advocates the abolition of organised authority. Anarchists
believe that all government is corrupt and evil. Anarchism was a force in
nineteenth century Russia, associated with Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921)
and Mikhail Bakunin (1814-76). Types of anarchism range from pacifism to
violent revolution. While most often anti-capitalist (and tending to more
collectivist philosophies), there are pro-capitalist strains, depending on the
view of private property. The major problem with anarchism is in maintaining
the freedom of the individual. Without an organised objective system of law an
anarchic society might be at the mercy of the criminal and the powerful, with
only personal and communal self defence to rely on. Many questions on anarchism
are addressed by this FAQ
LIBERALISM (CLASSICAL)
A term which has changed its meaning, in the nineteenth century in Europe, the
great age of liberalism, the term stood for freedom from church and state
authority and the reduction of the power of royalty and aristocracy, free
enterprise economics, and the free development of the individual. Liberalism
advocated freedom of the press, religious toleration, self-determination for nations.
It was liberalism that established parliamentary democracy. The Founding
Fathers of the USA might be termed liberals. Liberal 19th century Britain
became an industrial power, and a source for much of the worlds' technological
innovation, despite the prevalent class structure, due to the freedom and
property rights enjoyed by the people. The current Conservative party (in its
current leader) retains some classical Liberal ideology, albeit without the
apparent philosophical courage to challenge opposing doctrines.
In the twentieth century, liberal parties were caught in between conservatives
and socialists, despite being fundamentally different, and their influence
declined. Today, liberalism stands for something rather different than it did
in the nineteenth century. Now it tends to mean more government rather than
less and is characterised by a diluted socialism and/or populism (doing what it
believes most people would (or should!) want it to do).
LIBERTARIANISM
A philosophy of freedom, particularly from any unnecessary restraints imposed
(or indeed any restraints) by governmental authority. It is central to America:
liberty is one of the inalienable rights described in the constitution
("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"), and it has always
been what America sees itself as standing for, although it can be argued that
America has become more of a typical European nation (economically and
politically) and has greater freedom simply because it has yet to decline to
European standards.
Libertarianism, in detail, is best described by Libertarians; (free-market.net/) (libertarian.org/).
There is a libertarian party
in Britain, which is active and contains many
useful resources. The problem that libertarians need to address (and many do)
is that of crime. A national system of Law requires a national
government/police, which can pose problems for Libertarians.
OBJECTIVISM
Similar in 'appearance' to libertarianism, objectivism is different because it
is based upon a specific philosophy of reality as first detailed by Aristotle
and further extrapolated in the mid to later part of the 20th century by
philosopher Ayn Rand, well known for her best selling fiction novels which
encompass her philosophy in dramatic form. Objectivism supports individualism
with reference to the nature of reality and this differentiates it from being
just another political opinion. It is not an easy philosophy to understand, or
for many, to accept.
A controversial philosophy due to its assertive stance it is well explained in
this FAQ and
in other links at Yahoo
CAPITALISM
Contrary to popular belief capitalism is not a 'system' as such. It is the
consequence of individual liberty and corresponding property rights (the right
to own that which you create, or are born owning). Capitalism is readily blamed
for various inequalities despite having never been practised in fact, with the
closest examples being 19th century USA and to a lesser extent 19th century
Britain. A fuller description of capitalism is given in this site
Many people appear to have a very different idea about what is meant by
capitalism. It is not a system of force imposed by people. It is a lack of such
a system. It is what happens when people are free from the force of other
people. In order to have people 'free' of the force of natural conditions
something must be done to make those conditions better for mankind. That is
exactly what people have been doing with the invention of the wheel, of
machines, the production of energy and everything that followed. All of this is
the product of mans mind, without it mankind is returned unprotected to nature.
Capitalism itself forces nothing.
Capitalism doesn't aim at equal ends because they do not occur where people are
free to choose their own paths. Those better off do have more opportunities
(not more freedom), but that in no way gives one person (or group) the right to
rob them of these opportunities and give them to another. Life can be very hard
for an impoverished man in a desert compared to a rich man in a European
landowners family. That does not give anyone the right to rob the European and
give to desert dweller.