Politics may be used positively in the context of a "political solution" which is compromising and non-violent,[1] or descriptively as "the art or science of government", but the word often also carries a negative connotation.[2] The concept has been defined in various ways, and different approaches have fundamentally differing views on whether it should be used extensively or in a limited way, empirically or normatively, and on whether conflict or co-operation is more essential to it.
In modernstates, people often formpolitical parties to represent their ideas. Members of a party often agree to take the same position on many issues and agree to support the same changes to law and the same leaders. Anelection is usually a competition between different parties.
The English wordpolitics has its roots in the name ofAristotle's classic work,Politiká, which introduced theAncient Greek termpolitiká (Πολιτικά, 'affairs of the cities'). In the mid-15th century, Aristotle's composition was rendered inEarly Modern English asPolettiques [sic],[a][9] which becamePolitics inModern English.
The singularpolitic first attested in English in 1430, coming fromMiddle Frenchpolitique—itself taking frompoliticus,[10] aLatinization of the Greekπολιτικός (politikos) fromπολίτης (polites, 'citizen') andπόλις (polis, 'city').[11]
Adrian Leftwich has differentiated views of politics based on how extensive or limited their perception of what accounts as 'political' is.[18] The extensive view sees politics as present across the sphere of human social relations, while the limited view restricts it to certain contexts. For example, in a more restrictive way, politics may be viewed as primarily aboutgovernance,[19] while afeminist perspective could argue that sites which have been viewed traditionally as non-political, should indeed be viewed as political as well.[20] This latter position is encapsulated in the slogan "the personal is political", which disputes the distinction between private and public issues. Politics may also be defined by the use of power, as has been argued byRobert A. Dahl.[21]
Some perspectives on politics view it empirically as an exercise of power, while others see it as a social function with anormative basis.[22] This distinction has been called the difference betweenpoliticalmoralism andpoliticalrealism.[23] For moralists, politics is closely linked toethics, and is at its extreme inutopian thinking.[23] For example, according toHannah Arendt, the view ofAristotle was that, "to be political…meant that everything was decided through words and persuasion and not through violence";[24] while according toBernard Crick, "politics is the way in which free societies are governed. Politics is politics, and other forms of rule are something else."[25] In contrast, for realists, represented by those such asNiccolò Machiavelli,Thomas Hobbes, andHarold Lasswell, politics is based on the use of power, irrespective of the ends being pursued.[26][23]
Agonism argues that politics essentially comes down to conflict between conflicting interests. Political scientist Elmer Schattschneider argued that "at the root of all politics is the universal language of conflict",[27] while forCarl Schmitt the essence of politics is the distinction of 'friend' from 'foe'.[28] This is in direct contrast to the more co-operative views of politics by Aristotle and Crick. However, a more mixed view between these extremes is provided by Irish political scientist Michael Laver, who noted that:
Politics is about the characteristic blend of conflict and co-operation that can be found so often in human interactions. Pure conflict is war. Pure co-operation is true love. Politics is a mixture of both.[29]
The Greek philosopherAristotle criticized many ofPlato's ideas as impracticable, but, like Plato, he admires balance and moderation and aims at a harmonious city under the rule of law.[30]
Early human forms of social organization—bands and tribes—lacked centralized political structures.[31] These are sometimes referred to asstateless societies.
There are a number of different theories and hypotheses regarding early state formation that seek generalizations to explain whythe state developed in some places but not others. Other scholars believe that generalizations are unhelpful and that each case of early state formation should be treated on its own.[32]
Voluntary theories contend that diverse groups of people came together to form states as a result of some shared rational interest.[33] The theories largely focus on the development of agriculture, and the population and organizational pressure that followed and resulted in state formation. One of the most prominent theories of early and primary state formation is thehydraulic hypothesis, which contends that the state was a result of the need to build and maintain large-scale irrigation projects.[34]
Conflict theories of state formation regard conflict and dominance of some population over another population as key to the formation of states.[33] In contrast with voluntary theories, these arguments believe that people do not voluntarily agree to create a state to maximize benefits, but that states form due to some form of oppression by one group over others. Some theories in turn argue that warfare was critical for state formation.[33]
Egyptians, Romans, and the Greeks were the first people known to have explicitly formulated a political philosophy of the state, and to have rationally analyzed political institutions. Prior to this, states were described and justified in terms of religious myths.[37]
ThePeace of Westphalia (1648) is considered bypolitical scientists to be the beginning of the modern international system,[39][40][41] in which external powers should avoid interfering in another country's domestic affairs.[42] The principle of non-interference in other countries' domestic affairs was laid out in the mid-18th century by Swiss juristEmer de Vattel.[43] States became the primary institutional agents in aninterstate system of relations. The Peace of Westphalia is said to have ended attempts to impose supranational authority on European states. The "Westphalian" doctrine of states as independent agents was bolstered by the rise in 19th century thought ofnationalism, under which legitimatestates were assumed to correspond tonations—groups of people united by language and culture.[44]
InEurope, during the 18th century, the classic non-national states were the multinationalempires: theAustrian Empire,Kingdom of France,Kingdom of Hungary,[45] theRussian Empire, theSpanish Empire, theOttoman Empire, and theBritish Empire. Such empires also existed in Asia, Africa, and the Americas; in theMuslim world, immediately after thedeath of Muhammad in 632,Caliphates were established, which developed into multi-ethnic transnational empires.[46] The multinational empire was anabsolute monarchy ruled by a king,emperor orsultan. The population belonged to many ethnic groups, and they spoke many languages. The empire was dominated by one ethnic group, and their language was usually the language of public administration. The rulingdynasty was usually, but not always, from that group. Some of the smaller European states were not so ethnically diverse, but were alsodynastic states, ruled by aroyal house. A few of the smaller states survived, such as the independent principalities ofLiechtenstein,Andorra,Monaco, and the republic ofSan Marino.
Comparative politics is the science of comparison and teaching of different types ofconstitutions, political actors, legislature and associated fields.International relations deals with the interaction betweennation-states as well as intergovernmental and transnational organizations.Political philosophy is more concerned with contributions of various classical and contemporary thinkers and philosophers.[57]
Map of European nations coloured by percentage of vote governing party got in last election as of 2022Systems view of politics
The political system defines the process for making officialgovernment decisions. It is usually compared to thelegal system,economic system,cultural system, and othersocial systems. According toDavid Easton, "A political system can be designated as the interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated for a society."[13] Each political system is embedded in a society with its own political culture, and they in turn shape their societies throughpublic policy. The interactions between different political systems are the basis forglobal politics.
A federation (also known as a federal state) is apolitical entity characterized by aunion of partiallyself-governing provinces, states, or other regions under a centralfederal government (federalism). In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, is typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of either party, the states or the federal political body. Federations were formed first in Switzerland, then in the United States in 1776, in Canada in 1867 and in Germany in 1871 and in 1901,Australia. Compared to afederation, aconfederation has less centralized power.
All the above forms of government are variations of the same basicpolity, thesovereign state. Thestate has been defined byMax Weber as a political entity that hasmonopoly on violence within its territory, while theMontevideo Convention holds that states need to have a defined territory; a permanent population; a government; and a capacity to enter into international relations.
A stateless society is asociety that is notgoverned by astate.[59] In stateless societies, there is littleconcentration ofauthority; most positions of authority that do exist are very limited inpower and are generally not permanently held positions; and social bodies that resolve disputes through predefined rules tend to be small.[60] Stateless societies are highly variable in economic organization and cultural practices.[61]
While stateless societies were the norm in human prehistory, few stateless societies exist today; almost the entire global population resides within the jurisdiction of asovereign state. In some regions nominal state authorities may be very weak and wieldlittle or no actual power. Over the course of history most stateless peoples have beenintegrated into the state-based societies around them.[62]
Some political philosophies consider the state undesirable, and thus consider the formation of a stateless society a goal to be achieved. A central tenet ofanarchism is the advocacy of society without states.[59][63] The type of society sought for varies significantly betweenanarchist schools of thought, ranging from extremeindividualism to completecollectivism.[64] InMarxism,Marx's theory of the state considers that in apost-capitalist society the state, an undesirable institution, would be unnecessary andwither away.[65] A related concept is that ofstateless communism, a phrase sometimes used to describe Marx's anticipated post-capitalist society.
Constitutions are written documents that specify and limit the powers of the different branches of government. Although a constitution is a written document, there is also an unwritten constitution. The unwritten constitution is continually being written by the legislative and judiciary branch of government; this is just one of those cases in which the nature of the circumstances determines the form of government that is most appropriate.[66] England did set the fashion of written constitutions during theCivil War but after theRestoration abandoned them to be taken up later by theAmerican Colonies after theiremancipation and thenFrance after theRevolution and the rest of Europe including the European colonies.
Political culture describes howculture impacts politics. Everypolitical system is embedded in a particular political culture.[67]Lucian Pye's definition is that, "Political culture is the set of attitudes, beliefs, and sentiments, which give order and meaning to a political process and which provide the underlying assumptions and rules that govern behavior in the political system."[67]
Trust is a major factor in political culture, as its level determines the capacity of the state to function.[68]Postmaterialism is the degree to which a political culture is concerned with issues which are not of immediate physical or material concern, such ashuman rights andenvironmentalism.[67]Religion has also an impact on political culture.[68]
When corruption is embedded in political culture, this may be referred to aspatrimonialism orneopatrimonialism. A form of government that is built on corruption is called akleptocracy ('rule of thieves').
The words "politics" and "political" are sometimes used as pejoratives to mean political action that is deemed to be overzealous, performative, or insincere.[70]
Macropolitics can either describe political issues that affect an entire political system (e.g. thenation state), or refer to interactions between political systems (e.g.international relations).[71]
Global politics (or world politics) covers all aspects of politics that affect multiple political systems, in practice meaning any political phenomenon crossing national borders. This can includecities, nation-states,multinational corporations,non-governmental organizations orinternational organizations. An important element is international relations: the relations between nation-states may be peaceful when they are conducted throughdiplomacy, or they may be violent, which is described aswar. States that are able to exert strong international influence are referred to assuperpowers, whereas less-powerful ones may be calledregional ormiddle powers. The international system ofpower is called theworld order, which is affected by thebalance of power that defines the degree ofpolarity in the system.Emerging powers are potentially destabilizing to it, especially if they displayrevanchism orirredentism.
Filipino protest for a local political controversy involving the Pajerobishop in 2011
Micropolitics describes the actions of individual actors within the political system.[71] This is often described aspolitical participation.[73] Political participation may take many forms, including:
Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes. The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy. Democracy makes all forces struggle repeatedly to realize their interests and devolves power from groups of people to sets of rules.[74]
Among modern political theorists, there are three contending conceptions of democracy:aggregative,deliberative, andradical.[75]
The theory ofaggregative democracy claims that the aim of the democratic processes is to solicit the preferences of citizens, and aggregate them together to determine what social policies the society should adopt. Therefore, proponents of this view hold that democratic participation should primarily focus onvoting, where the policy with the most votes gets implemented.
Different variants of aggregative democracy exist. Underminimalism, democracy is a system of government in which citizens have given teams of political leaders the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist conception, citizens cannot and should not "rule" because, for example, on most issues, most of the time, they have no clear views or their views are not well-founded.Joseph Schumpeter articulated this view most famously in his bookCapitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.[76] Contemporary proponents of minimalism includeWilliam H. Riker,Adam Przeworski, andRichard Posner.
According to the theory ofdirect democracy, on the other hand, citizens should vote directly, not through their representatives, on legislative proposals. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socialises and educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.
Governments will tend to produce laws and policies that are close to the views of the median voter—with half to their left and the other half to their right. This is not a desirable outcome as it represents the action of self-interested and somewhat unaccountable political elites competing for votes.Anthony Downs suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individual and governments. Downs laid out this view in his 1957 bookAn Economic Theory of Democracy.[77]
Robert A. Dahl argues that the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his/her interests be given equal consideration (not necessarily that all people are equally satisfied by the collective decision). He uses the termpolyarchy to refer to societies in which there exists a certain set of institutions and procedures which are perceived as leading to such democracy. First and foremost among these institutions is the regular occurrence of free and openelections which are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society. However, these polyarchic procedures may not create a full democracy if, for example, poverty prevents political participation.[78] Similarly,Ronald Dworkin argues that "democracy is a substantive, not a merely procedural, ideal".[79]
Deliberative democracy is based on the notion that democracy is government bydeliberation. Unlike aggregative democracy, deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting.Authentic deliberation is deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-maker obtained through economic wealth or the support of interest groups.[80][81][82] If the decision-makers cannot reachconsensus after authentically deliberating on a proposal, then they vote on the proposal using a form of majority rule.
Two-axispolitical compass chart with a horizontal socio-economic axis and a vertical socio-cultural axis and ideologically representativepolitical colours, an example for a frequently used model of the political spectrum[83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90]Three axis model of political ideologies with both moderate and radical versions and the goals of their policies
In contrast, the right is generally motivated byconservatism, which seeks to conserve what it sees as the important elements of society such as law and order, limited government and preserving individual freedoms. Thefar-right goes beyond this, and often represents areactionary turn against progress, seeking to undo it. Examples of such ideologies have includedFascism andNazism. Thecenter-right may be less clear-cut and more mixed in this regard, withneoconservatives supporting the spread offree markets andcapitalism, andone-nation conservatives more open to social welfare programs.
According toNorberto Bobbio, one of the major exponents of this distinction, the left believes in attempting to eradicate social inequality—believing it to be unethical or unnatural,[92] while the right regards most social inequality as the result of ineradicable natural inequalities, and sees attempts to enforce social equality as utopian or authoritarian.[93]Some ideologies, notablyChristian Democracy, claim to combine left and right-wing politics; according to Geoffrey K. Roberts and Patricia Hogwood, "In terms of ideology, Christian Democracy has incorporated many of the views held by liberals, conservatives and socialists within a wider framework of moral and Christian principles."[94] Movements which claim or formerly claimed to be above the left-right divide include FascistTerza Posizione economic politics in Italy andPeronism in Argentina.[95][96]
Political freedom (also known aspolitical liberty orautonomy) is a centralconcept in political thought and one of the most important features ofdemocratic societies.Negative liberty has been described as freedom from oppression or coercion and unreasonable external constraints on action, often enacted throughcivil and political rights, whilepositive liberty is the absence of disabling conditions for an individual and the fulfillment of enabling conditions, e.g. economic compulsion, in a society. Thiscapability approach to freedom requireseconomic, social and cultural rights in order to be realized.
Authoritarianism andlibertarianism disagree the amount of individualfreedom each person possesses in that society relative to the state. One author describes authoritarian political systems as those where "individualrights and goals are subjugated to group goals, expectations and conformities",[97] while libertarians generally oppose thestate and hold theindividual as sovereign. In their purest form, libertarians areanarchists,[98] who argue for the total abolition of the state, ofpolitical parties and ofother political entities, while the purest authoritarians are, by definition,totalitarians who support state control over all aspects of society.[99]
For instance,classical liberalism (also known aslaissez-faire liberalism)[100] is a doctrine stressing individual freedom andlimited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individualproperty rights,free markets,natural rights, the protection ofcivil liberties, constitutional limitation of government, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings ofJohn Locke,Adam Smith,David Hume,David Ricardo,Voltaire,Montesquieu and others. According to the libertarianInstitute for Humane Studies, "the libertarian, or 'classical liberal', perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by 'as much liberty as possible' and 'as little government as necessary'."[101] For anarchist political philosopherL. Susan Brown (1993), "liberalism andanarchism are two political philosophies that are fundamentally concerned with individualfreedom yet differ from one another in very distinct ways. Anarchism shares with liberalism a radical commitment to individual freedom while rejecting liberalism's competitive property relations."[102]
^Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert."A Greek-English Lexicon".Perseus Digital Library. Tufts Library. Archived fromthe original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved19 February 2016.
^Reichstag speech by Bismarck, January 29, 1886, in:Bismarck, The Collected Works. Friedrichsruher edition, vol. 13: Speeches. Edited by Wilhelm Schüßler, Berlin 1930, p. 177.
^Schattschneider, Elmer Eric (1960).The semisovereign people : a realist's view of democracy in America. Dryden P. p. 2.ISBN0-03-013366-1.OCLC859587564.{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
^Fukuyama, Francis (2012).The origins of political order : from prehuman times to the French Revolution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 56.ISBN978-0-374-53322-9.OCLC1082411117.
^Krasner, Stephen D. (2010). "The durability of organized hypocrisy". In Kalmo, Hent; Skinner, Quentin (eds.).Sovereignty in Fragments: The Past, Present and Future of a Contested Concept. Cambridge University Press.
^Eric Hobsbawm,Nations and Nationalism since 1780: programme, myth, reality (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990;ISBN0-521-43961-2) chapter II "The popular protonationalism", pp. 80–81 French edition (Gallimard, 1992). According to Hobsbawm, the main source for this subject is Ferdinand Brunot (ed.),Histoire de la langue française, Paris, 1927–1943, 13 volumes, in particular volume IX. He also refers to Michel de Certeau, Dominique Julia, Judith Revel, Une politique de la langue: la Révolution française et les patois: l'enquête de l'abbé Grégoire, Paris, 1975. For the problem of the transformation of a minority official language into a widespread national language during and after the French Revolution, see Renée Balibar, L'Institution du français: essai sur le co-linguisme des Carolingiens à la République, Paris, 1985 (also Le co-linguisme, PUF, Que sais-je?, 1994, but out of print)The Institution of the French language: essay on colinguism from the Carolingian to the Republic. Finally, Hobsbawm refers to Renée Balibar and Dominique Laporte, Le Français national: politique et pratique de la langue nationale sous la Révolution, Paris, 1974.
^Engels, Frederick (1880). "Part III: Historical Materialism".Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.Archived from the original on 7 February 2021. Retrieved4 May 2020 – via Marx/Engels Internet Archive (marxists.org).State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out...Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master—free.
^"Definitions of political".onelook.com. Retrieved26 October 2023.Motivated, especially inappropriately, by political (electoral or other party political) calculation
^Cohen, Joshua. 1997. "Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy." InEssays on Reason and Politics: Deliberative Democracy, edited by J. Bohman and W. Rehg. Cambridge:The MIT Press. pp. 72–73.
^Ethan J. 2006. "Can Direct Democracy Be Made Deliberative?"Buffalo Law Review 54.
^Körösényi, András (1999).Government and Politics in Hungary. Budapest, Hungary: Central European University Press. p. 54.ISBN963-9116-76-9.OCLC51478878.
^Knapp, Andrew; Wright, Vincent (2006).The Government and Politics of France. London: Routledge.
Craig, Edward, ed. (2005). "Anarchism".The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. p. 14.ISBN978-1-134-34409-3.Anarchism is the view that a society without the state, or government, is both possible and desirable.
Easton, David (1981).The political system: an inquiry into the state of political science (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.ISBN978-0-226-18017-5.OCLC781301164.
Heywood, Andrew (2017).Political Ideologies: An Introduction (6th ed.). Basingstoke: Macmillan International Higher Education.ISBN978-1-137-60604-4.OCLC988218349.
Jones, Bill; Kavanagh, Dennis (2003).British Politics Today. Kavanagh, Dennis. (7th ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.ISBN978-0-7190-6509-5.OCLC52876930.
Kabashima, Ikuo; White III, Lynn T., eds. (1986).Political System and Change: A World Politics Reader. Princeton University Press.ISBN978-0-691-61037-5.JSTORj.ctt7ztn7s.
Lenin, Vladimir I. (1965).Collected works. September 1903 – December 1904.OCLC929381958.
Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles (1879)."pŏlītĭcus".A Latin Dictionary. Clarendon Press.Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved19 February 2016 – via Perseus Digital Library.
Love, Nancy Sue (2006).Understanding Dogmas and Dreams (2nd ed.). Washington, District of Columbia: CQ Press.ISBN978-1-4833-7111-5.OCLC893684473.
Osiander, Andreas (2001). "Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth".International Organization.55 (2):251–287.doi:10.1162/00208180151140577.S2CID145407931.
Adcock, Robert. 2014.Liberalism and the Emergence of American Political Science: A Transatlantic Tale. New York: Oxford University Press.
Adcock, Robert, Mark Bevir, and Shannon Stimson (eds.). 2007.Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges Since 1870. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Almond, Gabriel A. 1996. "Political Science: The History of the Discipline", pp. 50–96, in Robert E. Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds.),The New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Connolly, William (1981).Appearance and Reality in Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
.jpg)
_(cropped).svg)
_Filipinos_protest_against_the_Bishops_that_allegedly_accepted_money_and_luxury_cars_from_former_president_Macapagal-Arroyo_in_exchange_for_support.jpg)
