Do the people truly rule in a representative democracy?
Democracy means 'rule by the people.' Do the people truly rule in a representative democracy? Abstract This essay argues that the people cannot be seen to truly rule in a representative democracy in both a theoretical and practical sense. Starting with theoretical issues this essay discusses the concept of political representation as one that fails to extensively make present the views of those who are represented. The essay then goes on to analyse modern practical issues with representative democracy that arise from the diminshing power of the representative in comparison to non elected individuals in the political sphere. The essay goes on to conclude therefore that the people cannot be seen to truly rule in a representative democracy Student number - 110118471 The issue of analysing the extent to which persons can be seen to rule is one that is difficult due to the fact that it is not something which is concretely observable . Key to attempting to answer this question however are three different issues which shall be examined in this essay. Firstly is the issue of whether the concept of representation itself can legitimately be understood as the rule of those who are represented. I plan to analyse this through discussion on how people vote, because this gives an insight into how people intend to be represented. The second issue is that of
The Kosovo conflict between the Serbs and Albanians displayed their hatred for each other based on their many differences in culture, ethnicity, national identification, and religion. Differences in ethnicity and religion
On the night of March 24, 1999 (Kegley, 141) the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) began its massive bombing campaign upon the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The NATO campaign was supposedly assumed to be completed within a few days or weeks; on the contrary the air-strikes pummeled Yugoslavia with bombardment for 78 days, the largest military campaign in Europe since the Second World War. The Kosovo conflict between the Serbs and Albanians displayed their hatred for each other based on their many differences in culture, ethnicity, national identification, and religion. Differences in ethnicity and religion however will prove to be the greatest catalyst in creating the rift between them. In fact the only thing that these two groups of people may have in common is their longing for Kosovo to be theirs to call home and theirs alone. During NATO air-strikes, high volumes of high explosives were used to bomb mostly military targets in the larger cities of Yugoslavia, which was designed to cease and disable the Serbian war-machine, although many civilians perished as casualties of war. In the end the Serbs led by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic surrendered to the unrelenting air strikes which heavily damaged the nation's infrastructure, (Kegley, 145) and had no choice but to abandon their nationalistic ambitions for a Greater Serbia. In the immediate aftermath of the
'A gets B to do something that he or she would not otherwise do. Does this sum up the essence of political power?
'A GETS B TO DO SOMETHING THAT HE OR SHE WOULD NOT OTHERWISE DO'. DOES THIS SUM UP THE ESSENCE OF POLITICAL POWER? Questions of power are arguably the most important in the field of politics, and as such the concept of power is one of the most frequently discussed topics amongst political scientists. Power is such a wide concept that this essay will not be able to discuss motivation; that is, why an individual may want to exert power over another individual, although this is a crucial question when discussing this topic. Instead, this essay will focus on the 'faces of power' debate; the three widely recognised faces, decision-making, agenda-setting and preference-shaping as well as Foucault's research into a fourth face of power. As well as outlining the arguments put forward by political scholars, this essay will critically analyse each theory and ultimately sum up the essence of political power. In "The Concept of Power" (1957) Robert Dahl looks at the relationship between preferences and decisions before concluding that power is a one dimensional concept regarding the power of A to affect the decisions of B. Dahl's view of power is that it is quantifiable by counting the number of decisions that are made and determine that whoever has the most decisions in their favour is the most powerful. While analysing Dahl's one dimensional view of power, Hay stated that "the
Do you agree with Scruton (1990) that the main aim of Conservatism is preservation of a pre existing social order?
Do you agree with Scruton (1990) that the main aim of Conservatism is 'preservation of a pre existing social order?' Student Number - 110118471 The issue of analysing the aims of any political ideology is difficult mainly due to the often fractured and conflicting natures of ideologies. There are significant issues arising particularly from the analysis of Conservatism, largely due to its positional stance as an approach which focuses on what is rather than normative claims. Such problems necessarily lead to caution when debating Conservatism, as Eccleshall asserts "the ideology poses serious conceptual difficulties" (2003, p.48). However, when analysing Conservatism, it is evident that Scruton's definition is on the right lines, however I shall argue that such a definition of the main aim of Conservatism is too broad, and that more focus should be on the preservation of appropriate pre existing social orders and the preservation of stability. Moreover, when put into practice, there are numerous examples of reformist branches within Conservatism which in fact go beyond Scruton's claim and seek to reinstate social orders of the past. One of the key premises in the assertion that Conservatism's main aim is the preservation of a pre existing social order is the concept that society is going through a process of degeneration. The idea of regression is as Goodwin (1992) asserts,
Explain and Assess Nozick's Account of the Principles of Justice in Acquisition (68/100)
Explain and Assess Nozick's Account of the Principles of Justice in Acquisition In this essay it will serve continuity well to begin by explaining Nozick's account of the principles of justice in acquisition. This will be done with reference solely to his own works and in his own terms without scrutiny so as to provide a point of reference once the assessment begins. The subsequent assessment will be divided into two parts. First an abstract and theoretical analysis using contemporary commentary and relevant theory, and second, an attempt to realise Nozick's theories as a means of determining applicability and relevance. Robert Nozick's theories of justice in acquisition are the principles of his well known Entitlement theory. The theory has three facets: the original acquisition of holdings, the transfer of holdings, and the principle of rectification (Nozick, 1974: p.151). These can be divided for simplicity and structure into two categories; original acquisition and acquisition by other means. These other means may be as a transfer or bequeathed as "an expression of caring about [others]" (Nozick, 1989: p.30) or as full or market compensation for the violation of rights by another. The reason for this division is a matter of the different means by which the individual comes to possess these things and more importantly how this is justified by Nozick. Nozick's belief in
Why, for Hobbes, must every man 'endeavour to Peace', and why might it be difficult to do so?
Why, for Hobbes, must every man 'endeavour to Peace', and why might it be difficult to do so? For centuries political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke, just to name a few, have been trying to find the best answer to the following question: 'How would it be to live in the state of nature?' The first of the aforementioned men tries to do so in one of his famous works, Leviathan. In this book he follows the topic of civil wars, its evils and anarchy which would accompany them (Wolff 2006, p. 8). He lists nineteen Laws of Nature, which if obeyed would bring people peace. The first three Laws are considered to be the most fundamental of them (Dyzenhaus 2001, p. 469). In the first Law of Nature Hobbes writes: 'every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it' (Hobbes 1996, p. 87). In my essay I am going to try to explain why Hobbes argues that every man should seek peace. I will also try to show why it may not be easy to do so. Besides, I will present my critique of Hobbes' arguments and why I partially disagree with him. First of all, in order to answer the first part of the essay question, we should know what Hobbes' definition of peace is. However, it will be easier to explain how he defines 'war' first. According to Hobbes, during the war every man is against each other, all humans are enemies. However, the war
Is Marx Right to Think the State Could Wither Away?
Is Marx right to think the state could 'wither away'? Marx states in The Communist Manifesto 'State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous... The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away.' Here, Marx is describing the transition from bourgeois democracy to the communist ideal society. Marx's own view of the developments in society arise from his historical materialism; according to this doctrine, all developments in society, politics, thought etc are mere outgrowths of the economic system of the time. In this context he describes the transition to modern day society as one of continual class struggle, in which the ruling classes in control of the political system have subjugated all other classes to their will through a variety of means. Marx begins his analysis of class struggle in the middle ages with the feudal hierarchy. Here, Marx claims, the aristocracy used tools such as religion and morality to make the surfs subservient to them and allow them to maintain their political and economic hegemony. However, as humanity progressed and new technologies were developed and new continents discovered a new class came into existence who exploited such developments for profit, continually growing as the opportunities for investment increased, until all the wealth, property and land of the nation was concentrated almost exclusively in
This paper will attempt to illustrate the issue if Imperialism presented by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s piece Empire.
It may seem ludicrous and bizarre at this historical juncture to suggest, as Hardt and Negri do, that imperialism is a thing of the past, having been replaced by "Empire." The suggestions that colonialism and imperialism as we have known them for over a century are things of the past are false, in that imperialism has transformed itself under the banner of "Globalization" This paper will attempt to illustrate the issue if Imperialism or Globalization presented by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's piece Empire along with other pieces, in conjunction with developments in world politics since September 11, 2001.1 The United Sates was set on starting a war in Southwestern Asia. Right wing ideologues in the government speak openly of redrawing the map of the region to align it with American interests. The map may end up being redrawn, however more by default then by plan, as the ragtag politicians with whom the U.S hopes to replace Saddam Hussein are unlikely to achieve more politically than to legitimize a U.S/British oil grab from France, Russia and China. It may be simplistic to attribute the crisis in Southwestern Asia to the greed of U.S oil corporations or the U.S government's pursuit for the control of oil, but it is also not possible to ignore evidence suggesting this, which is coming out despite efforts to conceal it behind talk of weapons of mass destruction. The
Imperialism in its modern sense.
Imperialism in its modern sense is associated Primarily with England (and to a lesser extent France, Russia, Belgium, The Netherlands and the old Colonial Powers Spain and Portugal) from 1870 onwards, there is though a confusion as to the definition of Imperialism. (Williams, 1988, p159) Szymanski defined Imperialism as the "domination of one country by another in order to economically exploit the dominated" (Szymanski, 1981, p5). The concept of Imperialism then has two components; firstly military, economic and ideological domination and secondly exploitation of the dominated country through trade and investment, exploitation meaning the appropriation of one countries wealth by enterprises based in another (taken from (Szymanski, 1981, p6). Imperialism does not necessarily mean that the dominating country has incorporated the weaker into its empire, Britain for example was effectively a colonial power over Chile although it never officially annexed it. Some Marxists such as Lenin consider Imperialism to be simply a very advanced stage of capitalism, the expansion of the Imperial power in order to acquire new markets to buy and sell goods. Lenin dubbed Imperialism "the world capitalist system". Lenin theorises that "imperialism existed before the latest stage of capitalism and even before capitalism" but still that Imperialism is basically and advanced stage of capitalism.
Concepts of Human Rights and its Universality
Introduction It is claimed that everyone holds certain fundamental rights simply by virtue of being human. Some argue that rights are a modern western invention, rights are something "constructed" by a historical culture, seeking self justification for its own purpose to expand the notions and even to impose them on other cultures regardless of their traditional ways.1 The words 'human rights' have come to mean the political norms and prescriptions that are found in international human rights documents such as the European Convention of Human Rights(1950) or the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights(1948). They deal with the way in which people should be treated by their government and its institutions. This paper proposes to develop the argument that making human rights universal is problematic, this will be done by firstly looking at the historical development of the concept of human rights, secondly the approaches taken towards questioning the validity or justification of the doctrine. Finally, to explore cultural, religious as well as gender differences which interact making human rights difficult if not problematic to universally enforce. Historical Origins and development and creation of the theory and practice The roots of human rights doctrine can be traced back to the times of Aristotle and Stoics. In his 'Nicomachean Ethics' Aristotle creates the basis
