Is political theory useful?

From Plato to modern day philosophers, many people have tried to explain the way the society should be created, how it should work, and what would have been outcomes if the society was created the way the authors suggest. The ideas of the political theorists were captured in their different pieces of work. Each and every one of these works has been critiqued by a good number of people. Even though, it is very interesting to examine how they work as one unit, the science of political theory, and if it, as a whole, can give us some reasoning for the way our society is created and what should be done about it to make it better, shortly, if it is useful for us to study political theory.

The political theory is useful, because it gives us reasoning and explanation why certain type of government should be chosen for the society and what are the advantages and disadvantages of having this sort of rule. It also provides us with different concepts and understandings about the society. Most of the theorists have been criticized by others for their ideas about the political concepts in single pieces of work, but if we compare and contrast all of those ideas of the philosophers’ altogether, we will find the best suitable case. Many of the political theorists have provided useful tips for ruling and leading the country or nation. Although, the theoretical concepts of the philosophers don’t provide exact explanation for each decision, rule or law taken under their suggested type of government, they provide the basic ideas which can be used to understand it. Overall, political theory is very useful to understand politics as a science, and an art of debate and rule. It is the basic and one of the most necessary tools to learn politics as a science.

As a result of Locke’s work on Two Treatises of Government, the basic concept of the modern day democracy has been laid down; Hobbes’s work on Leviathan, the autocracy was justified; Marx’s works gave the world the idea of communism, and social equality. Many other theorists also contributed to the political science with their works, like Rousseau did in searching for a way in which states of his day could be equally representative, or Mill tried to tackle the problem of Civil Liberty with a new way of thinking. All of the ideas in the philosophers’ works, except for Marx, were interpretations of what they have seen, and the way they explain it. Locke hasn’t invented democracy, Hobbes autocratic rule, or Rousseau the representative government, but all of them have contributed to improvement, better understanding and justification of their beliefs. ‘Men being, as has been said by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. Men can agree with other men and unite into a community. When any numbers of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.’(Locke J., Two Treatise of Government p. 142) – the following words justify the formation of democratic government and show the mechanism of its formation. Nobody before Locke did so, and by doing so Locke puts the beginning for the constitutional government, and law and order in it. John Locke's theory of government very much opposes the one that Thomas Hobbes suggests. Hobbes is a political philosopher who believes in a government leaded by an absolute monarch, who has complete control over the entire society. Hobbes says that man is evil, so it is better to give up power to one individual, so that the evil in the society is limited. Then he suggests that, ‘A commonwealth is said to be instituted, when a multitude of men do agree, and covenant, with every one, that to whatsoever Man, or Assembly of Men, shall be given by the major part, the right to present the person of them all…’ (Hobbes T., Leviathan p.228), which shows his beliefs in choosing a representative ruler, who himself should be the protector of the people who chose him. In Communist Manifesto Marx also believes in representative ruler, but among the equal.

This is a preview of the whole essay

If we try to summarize the theories of government, we will find that even though all of them have quite different approaches to the way the government should be formed, they all come to one point where the good for people should be achieved by a formation of representative government. So from a political science perspective we can see that for a politician to be successful it is not necessary to be the best skilled to rule the people, but it is necessary to bring happiness and good to people by being able to represent most of them. John Stuart Mill puts it best: ‘The ideally best form of government, it is scarcely necessary to say, does not mean one which is practicable or eligible in all states of civilization, but the one which, in the circumstances in which it is practicable and eligible, is attended with the greatest amount of beneficial consequences, immediate and prospective.’ (Mill J.S., On Liberty and other essays p.244).

Each philosopher suggests his own way of seeing society. A society that Hobbes brings forward is different than that of Locke, or Marx. In Hobbes’s society men are evil, and because they are evil their society should be formed under a rule of autocrat. Locke believes that the people are wise, and they give up their right for good to a representative ruler. Marx on the other hand suggests that all men are equal, and because they are so, their representative should be among them. It seems like they all are different from each other, and for sure the follower of any of those political theories would argue, and give reasoning why he thinks that his beliefs are true. So there is no common ground, but the beauty of the political theory is that it provides us with understanding of political society as a whole. The USA is democracy, Bahrain is autocracy, and China is communist. Of course, none of them is exactly the way the theorists suggest, but there are very few differences. So the political concepts that the political theorists suggests are useful for the political scientists to understand the formation of the society, why it has done so, and the mechanisms that make it function.

Politics can’t be considered without a debate about the way the ruler should rule his country. Niccolo Machiavelli have produced the most controversial and arguably set of advices for Lorenzo de Medici in his book The Prince. The famous saying of his: ‘One must be a fox in order to recognize traps and a lion to frighten off wolves and those who simply act like lions are stupid’ (Machiavelli, N., The Prince p. 57) – is probably the best way of describing his ideas in one sentence. Many people suppose the suggestions that Machiavelli makes to the prince are unethical, but still many rulers are just as foxes and lions like the author describes. Many so called ‘democratic’ countries leaders are afraid of the USA and the EU, and because of that they behave like foxes if not sheep with those countries, while they are lions in their own countries.

Edmund Burke argues that it is better for the people if the changes in the government are done in moderation and in few steps. ‘Prudence (in all things a Virtue, in Politicks the first of Virtues). … Believe me, Sir, in all changes in the State, Moderation is a Virtue, not only amiable but powerful. It is disposing, arranging, conciliating, cementing Virtue … to dare to be fearful when all about you are full of presumption and confidence….’ (Burke E., Reflections on the Revolution in France p.15). So from Burke’s political perspective, the ruler shouldn’t be fearful of people, and can do what he wants as there is not direct threat from people. The USSR was divided into 15 states in just less than 5 years. There was no moderate change, and as a result many, if not all, of those states had to suffer economic, and political recession for over 12 years, and some still do so. Burke is correct about suggesting that there should be moderate change, but it doesn’t work that way if there is real underperformance by government, like the freedom was in USSR. The philosophers’ suggestions are very important for analyzing the changes in government, and the cross sections of power and moderate change of it, just make it more useful for the analyzes.

None of the political theorists have provided the set of laws and rules that should be taken by governor. It is impossible to do so, as it would take enormous amounts of books. Instead, political theorist by defining their key concepts like good will, natural rights, common good have set an outline that the governors can follow in order to maintain the rule of their society. The decisions that governors take should favor the society that they are ruling. Rousseau describes it best: ‘If the State is a corporate body whose life is in the union of its members, and if the most important of its cares is the care for its own preservation, it must have a universal and compelling force, in order to move and dispose each part as may be most advantageous to the whole’ (Rousseau J., The Social Contract and Discourses p. 204). If we look to America’s war on terror, we will see that being under the social contract the government is obliged to keep its citizens safe and without threat to their lives, so the war on terror is justified, as this is the only way the American government can ensure the safety of its citizens.

Politics is an art of debate, and negotiations. There is always clash between the sides in respect to their views. Political theory provides a support for those debates, as it is usually sequential and has a background of deep comprehension. Without political theory the political debates don’t have necessary base, where people can find middle ground and be able to compromise. People from different countries usually argue about the types of government that they think is the best. Most of the time people don’t know anything about the true ideology of the opponent believes, so there is confusion between reality, and the way it should be. Political theory provides the outlines of each of the types of government, and distinguishes the reality from theory. Politics without political theory is like a car without an engine.

Political theory is useful, because it is the sole of politics. As of work of political theorists, we can know the differences between democracy, communism, and autocracy, and what are the obligations and rights of the governor and the people who are governed by him in each political system. It also provides us with the range of societies, and gives us the chance to be able to choose the one that we like most. The criticisms about each and every one of the theories and their theorists is to be able to differentiate the authors, and find the strength and weaknesses of each one. Political theory gives the necessary information for the governor to know, to be able to governor successfully by making his people happy. It is true that there is no explanation for every case of decision-taking or law-making, but from reading the works of the authors we can know whether the taken decision was right or wrong for that society. Each philosopher could be criticized for his ideas and beliefs, but political theory as mechanism that studies political behavior should thought as one unit, and together it makes sense with the examination of those behaviors. Political theory is useful and necessary for any studies related to politics.

Bibliography

1. Machiavelli N., The Prince, Penguin Classics, London, 1999.

2. Hobbes T., Leviathan, Penguin Classics, London, 1985.

3. Locke J., Two Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2003.

4. Rousseau J., The Social Contract and Discourses, Everyman, London, 2004.

5. Mill J.S., On Liberty and other essays, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998.

6. Burke E., Reflections on the Revolution in France, Penguin Classics, London, 2004.

7. Marx K., Works of Karl Marx, The Marx-Engels Reader, London, 2002