Bureaucrats, Administrators, vuser
40,380
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Sunday April 28, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
1 revision(s)
{{otheruses}}
{{Politics}}
'''Politics''' is the process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil [[government]]s, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including [[corporation|corporate]], [[academia|academic]], and [[religion|religious]] institutions.{{Fact|date=March 2008}}
Politics consists of "social relations involving authority or power"<ref>[http://dict.die.net/politics/ Definition of politics from die.net]</ref> and refers to the regulation of a political unit, <ref>[http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=303454 Politics (definition)@Everything2.com<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply [[policy]].<ref name="freedict">[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/politics Definition of politics from "The Free Dictionary"]</ref>
[[Political science]] (also political studies) is the study of political behavior and examines the acquisition and application of [[political power|power]]. Related areas of study include [[political philosophy]], which seeks a rationale for politics and an ethic of public behavior, and [[public administration]], which examines the practices of governance.
==Key political concepts==
===Pragmatic view of power===
[[Samuel Gompers]]' maxim, often paraphrased as,"Reward your friends and punish your enemies,"<ref>[[Samuel Gompers|Gompers]], Samuel, “Men of Labor! Be Up and Doing,” editorial, ''American Federationist'', May 1906, p. 319</ref> hints at two of the five types of power recognized by [[social psychology|social psychologists]]: '''incentive power''' (the power to reward) and '''coercive power''' (the power to punish). Arguably the other three grow out of these two:
'''Legitimate power''', the power of the policeman or the referee, is the power given to an individual by a recognized authority to enforce standards of behavior. Legitimate power is similar to coercive power in that unacceptable behavior is punished by fine or penalty. A policeman has no power outside his own jurisdiction.
'''Referent power''' is bestowed upon individuals by virtue of accomplishment or attitude. Fulfillment of the desire to feel similar to a celebrity or a hero is the reward for obedience. This is an example of incentive power as one rewards oneself.
'''Expert power''' springs from education or experience. Following the lead of an experienced coach is often rewarded with success. Power is conditional to the circumstances. For example, a brain surgeon's advice does not carry as much weight when pipes are leaking.
=== Authority and legitimacy ===<!-- This section is linked from [[Politics]] -->
{{mainarticle|Tripartite classification of authority}}
[[Authority]], in a political sense, is different from political power in that it implies [[legitimacy]] and [[acceptance]]; it implies that the person or state exercising power has a perceived right to do so.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authority/ "Authority" at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]</ref> [[Legitimacy]] is an attribute of government gained through the acquisition and application of power in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles.
[[Max Weber]] identified three sources of [[legitimacy]] for [[authority]], known as the [[tripartite classification of authority]].<ref name="Weber">[[Max Weber|Weber]], Max, [http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation.html Politics as a Vocation]</ref> He proposed three reasons why people follow the orders of those who give them:
====Traditional authority====
[[Traditional domination|Traditional authorities]] receive loyalty because they continue and support the preservation of existing values, the status quo. Weber called this "the authority of the eternal yesterday".<ref name="Weber"/>[[Patriarchy|Patriarchal]] (and more rarely [[Matriarchy|matriarchal]]) societies gave rise to hereditary monarchies where authority was given to descendants of previous leaders. Followers submit to this authority because "we've always done it that way." Examples of traditional authoritarians include [[absolute monarch]]s.
====Charismatic authority====
[[Charismatic domination|Charismatic authority]] grows out of the personal charm or the strength of an individual personality (see [[cult of personality]] for the most extreme version). Charismatic regimes are often short-lived, seldom outliving the charismatic figure that leads them. For a charismatic regime to survive the rule of the individual personality, it must transform its legitimacy into a different form of authority. An example of this would be [[Augustus]]' efforts to create the position of the [[Roman Empire|Roman]] [[principate]] and establish a ruling dynasty, which could be viewed as a shift to a traditional form of authority, in the form of the principate that would exist in Rome for more than 400 years after his death.
====Legal-rational authority====
[[Legal domination|Legal-rational authorities]] receive their ability to compel behavior by virtue of the office that they hold. It is the authority that demands obedience to the office rather than the office holder; Weber identified "rationally-created rules"<ref name="Weber"/> as the central feature of this form of authority. Modern [[democracy|democracies]] are examples of legal-rational regimes. People also abide by legal-rational authority because it makes sense to do so for their own good, as well as for the greater good of society. {{Fact|date=July 2007}}
===Sovereignty===
{{mainarticle|Sovereignty}}
[[Sovereignty]] is the ability of a government to exert control over its sphere of influence free from outside interference.
==Political philosophies==
{{mainarticle|Political philosophy}}
===Confucius===
The [[Chinese people|Chinese]] [[philosopher]] [[Confucius]] ([[551]]-[[471]] [[BCE]]) was one of the first thinkers to adopt a distinct approach to [[political philosophy]]. His philosophy was "rooted in his belief that a ruler should learn self-discipline, should govern his subjects by his own example, and should treat them with love and concern."<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/#ConPol Confucius on Politics] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> His political beliefs were strongly linked to personal [[ethics]] and [[morality]], believing that only a morally upright ruler who possessed "de", or [[virtue]], should be able to exercise power, and that the behavior of an individual ought to be consistent with their rank in society. He stated that "Good government consists in the ruler being a ruler, the minister being a minister, the father being a father, and the son being a son."<ref>''Lunyu'' 12.11, [[The Analects of Confucius]] ([http://classics.mit.edu/Confucius/analects.html available in English here])</ref>
===Plato===
The [[Ancient Greece|Greek]] [[philosopher]] [[Plato]](428-328 BC), in his book [[The Republic (Plato)|The Republic]], argued that all conventional political systems ([[democracy]], [[monarchy]], [[oligarchy]] and [[timarchy]]) were inherently corrupt, and that the state ought to be governed by an elite class of educated philosopher-rulers, who would be trained from [[birth]] and selected on the basis of [[aptitude]]: "those who have the greatest skill in watching over the community."<ref name="Plato">p113, [[Plato]], ''The Republic'', translated by Desmond Lee, 1955, Penguin Classics, ISBN 0-140-44914-0</ref> This has been characterised as [[authoritarian]] and [[elitist]] by some later scholars, notably [[Karl Popper]] in his book ''The Open Society and its Enemies'', who described Plato's schemes as essentially [[totalitarian]] and criticised his apparent advocacy of [[censorship]].<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/#4.4 Totalitarianism in Plato's Republic] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> The Republic has also been labeled as [[communist]], due to its advocacy of abolishing [[private property]] and the [[family]] among the ruling classes; however, this view has been discounted by many scholars, as there are implications in the text that this will extend ''only'' to the ruling classes, and that ordinary citizens "will have enough private property to make the regulation of wealth and poverty a concern."<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/#4.2 Communism in The Republic] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]</ref>
===Aristotle===
[[Image:Aristoteles Louvre.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Aristotle]]
In his book ''[[Politics (Aristotle)|Politics]]'', the [[Ancient Greece|Greek]] [[philosopher]] [[Aristotle]](384–322BC) asserted that man is, by nature, a political animal. He argued that [[ethics]] and politics are closely linked, and that a truly ethical life can only be lived by someone who participates in politics.<ref>Aristotle's ''Politics'' at [http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-pol.htm#H2 The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]</ref>
Like Plato, Aristotle identified a number of different forms of government, and argued that each "correct" form of government may devolve into a "deviant" form of government, in which its institutions were corrupted. According to Aristotle, [[monarchy|kingship]], with one ruler, devolves into [[tyranny]]; [[aristocracy]], with a small group of rulers, devolves into [[oligarchy]]; and [[polity]], with collective rule by many citizens, devolves into [[democracy]].<ref name="arpsep">[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/#supplement3 Aristotle's views on politics] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> In this sense, Aristotle does not use the word "[[democracy]]" in its modern sense, carrying positive connotations, but in its literal sense of rule by the ''demos'', or common people.<ref name="arpsep"/> A more accurate view of Aristotle denouncing democracy was that it was described as mob rule, or [[ochlocracy]].
===Niccolò Machiavelli===
In his work ''[[The Prince]]'', the [[Renaissance]] [[Italy|Italian]] political theorist [[Niccolò Machiavelli|Machiavelli]] put forward a political worldview which described practical methods for an [[Autocracy|absolute ruler]] to attain and maintain [[political power]]. His work is sometimes viewed as rejecting traditional views of [[morality]] for a ruler: "for Machiavelli, there is no moral basis on which to judge the difference between legitimate and illegitimate uses of power."<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/#2 Machiavelli's The Prince] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> It is from Machiavelli that the term [[Machiavellian]] is derived, referring to an [[amoral]] person who uses manipulative methods to attain power; his works have been studied and theories practiced by leaders including totalitarians such as [[Benito Mussolini]], and [[Adolf Hitler]], each of whom justified the use of brutality for purposes of state security.<ref>Machiavelli, Niccolò, ''The Prince'', Editor's Introduction by Angelo Codevilla, page xvii. Yale University Press, 1997.</ref> However, many scholars have questioned this view of Machiavelli's theory, arguing that "Machiavelli did not invent '[[Machiavellianism]]' and may not even have been a 'Machiavellian' in the sense often ascribed to him."<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/ Niccolo Machiavelli] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> Instead, Machiavelli considered the stability of the [[state]] to be the most important goal, and argued that qualities traditionally considered morally desirable, such as generosity, were undesirable in a ruler and would lead to the loss of [[political power|power]].
===Thomas Hobbes===
In 1651, [[Thomas Hobbes]] published his most famous work, ''[[Leviathan (book)|Leviathan]]'', in which he proposed a model of early human development to justify the creation of [[polity|polities]], i.e. governed bodies. Hobbes described an ideal [[state of nature]] wherein every person had equal right to every resource in nature and was free to use any means to acquire those resources. He claimed that such an arrangement created a “war of all against all” (''[[bellum omnium contra omnes]]''). The book has been interpreted by scholars as posing two "stark alternatives"; total obedience to an [[absolute monarchy|absolute ruler]], or "a state of nature, which closely resembles civil war...where all have reason to fear a violent death".<ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hobmoral.htm Thomas Hobbes] at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]</ref> Hobbes' view can therefore be interpreted as a defense of [[Autocracy|absolutism]], arguing that human beings enter into a [[social contract]] for their protection and agree to obey the dictates of the [[sovereign]]; in Hobbes' worldview, "the sovereign is nothing more than the personal embodiment of orderly government."<ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hobmoral.htm Thomas Hobbes] at Britannica's Philosophy Pages</ref> Hobbes himself argued "The final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby."<ref name=Hobbes>Hobbes, Thomas, [[Leviathan]] (available online [http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html#THESECONDPART here])</ref>
===John Locke===
{{main|John Locke}}
In the ''First Treatise of Government'', Locke refutes the theory of the [[Divine Right of Kings]] as put forward by [[Robert Filmer]]; he "minutely examines key [[Bible|Biblical]] passages"<ref name="lsep">[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#TwoTreGov John Locke's Two Treatises of Government] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> and concludes that [[absolute monarchy]] is not supported by [[Christian]] [[theology]]. "Locke singles out Filmer's contention that men are not 'naturally free' as the key issue, for that is the 'ground'...on which Filmer erects his argument for the claim that all 'legitimate' government is 'absolute monarchy'."<ref name="lsep"/>
In the ''Second Treatise of Government'', Locke examines the concept of the [[social contract]] put forward by other theorists such as [[Thomas Hobbes]], but reaches a different conclusion. Although he agreed with Hobbes on the concept of a [[state of nature]] before existing forms of government arose, he challenged Hobbes' view that the state of nature was equivalent to a state of [[war]], instead arguing that there were certain [[natural rights]] belonging to all human beings, which continued even after a political authority was established. "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone...being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, health or possessions".<ref>Locke, John, ''Second Treatise of Government''</ref> According to one scholar, the basis of Locke's thought in the Second Treatise is that "contract or consent is the ground of government and fixes its limits...behind [this] doctrine lies the idea of the independence of the individual person."<ref>[http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/locke.htm#Two%20Treatises%20of%20Government John Locke's Two Treatises of Government] at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> In other words, Locke's view was different from Hobbes' in that he interpreted the idea of the "state of nature" differently, and he argued that people's natural rights were not necessarily eliminated by their consent to be governed by a political authority.
===Jean-Jacques Rousseau===
The [[18th century]] [[France|French]] [[philosopher]] [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], in his book [[The Social Contract]], put forward a system of political thought which was closely related to those of Hobbes and Locke, but different in important respects. In the opening sentence of the book, Rousseau argued that "...man was born free, but he is everywhere in chains"<ref name="britross">[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-23965/Jean-Jacques-Rousseau Jean-Jacques Rousseau] at the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' online</ref> He defined political authority and legitimacy as stemming from the "general will", or ''volonté generale''; for Rousseau, "true Sovereignty is directed always at the public good".<ref name="iepross">[http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rousseau.htm#SH4b The Social Contract] at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> This concept of the general will implicitly "allows for individual diversity and freedom...[but] also encourages the well-being of the whole, and therefore can conflict with the particular interests of individuals."<ref name="iepross"/> As such, Rousseau also argues that the people may need a "lawgiver" to draw up a constitution and system of laws, because the general will, "while always morally sound, is sometimes mistaken".<ref name="britross"/>
Rousseau's thought has been seen by some scholars as contradictory and inconsistent, and as not addressing the fundamental contradiction between individual freedom and subordination to the needs of [[society]], "the tension that seems to exist between liberalism and communitarianism".<ref name="iepross"/> As one [[Catholic]] scholar argues, "that it [The Social Contract] contains serious contradictions is undeniable...its fundamental principles--the origin of society, absolute freedom and absolute equality of all--are false and unnatural."<ref name="catross">[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04335a.htm The Social Contract] at the Catholic Encyclopedia</ref> The ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' further argues that Rousseau's concept of the general will would inevitably lead to "the suppression of personality, the reign of force and caprice, the tyranny of the multitude, the despotism of the crowd", i.e. the subordination of the individual to society as a whole.<ref name="catross"/>
[[Image:JohnStuartMill.JPG|left|thumb|150px|John Stuart Mill]]
===John Stuart Mill===
In the [[19th century]], [[John Stuart Mill]] pioneered the [[liberal]] conception of politics. He saw [[democracy]] as the major political development of his era<ref>p11, Tansey, Stephen J., ''Politics: The Basics'', 1995, London, ISBN 0-145-19199-8</ref> and, in his book ''[[On Liberty]]'', advocated stronger protection for individual rights against government and the rule of the majority. He argued that [[liberty]] was the most important right of human beings, and that the only just cause for interfering with the liberty of another person was self-protection.<ref name="jsms">[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#SocPol Social and Political Philosophy of John Stuart Mill] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> One commentator refers to ''[[On Liberty]]'' as "the strongest and most eloquent defense of [[liberalism]] that we have."<ref name="jsms"/> Mill also emphasised the importance of [[freedom of speech]], claiming that "we can never be sure that the opinion we are attempting to stifle is a false opinion, and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."<ref>p229, Mill, John Stuart, ''On Liberty'', ISBN 1-59986-973-X (also available online [http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/ here]</ref>
===Karl Marx===
[[Karl Marx]] was among the most influential [[political philosophy|political philosophers]] of history. His theories, collectively termed [[Marxism]], were critical of [[capitalism]] and argued that in the due course of history, there would be an "inevitable breakdown of capitalism for economic reasons, to be replaced by [[communism]]."<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/#4 Karl Marx] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> He defined history in terms of the [[class struggle]] between the [[bourgeoisie]], or property-owning classes, and the [[proletariat]], or workers, a struggle intensified by [[industrialisation]]: "The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.<ref name=manifesto>Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1848), [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm ''The Communist Manifesto'']</ref> [[Utopia]] for Marx was the [[classless society]] in which the state and the church would be very weak or nonexistent. The workers ultimately would own the [[means of production]], state ownership would be a mere transition period, therefore the people would be free. Because the state as Marx knew it would practically disappear over time, there would be no need for borders so individuals would be free to move from nation to nation without prosecution. This latter idea of internationalism is the direct opposition to the [[Nazi]] utopia of the [[Master race]] and [[national socialism]]. Although Marxism is mostly associated with the Soviet Union for obvious reasons, one may also see in the European Union many but not all of Marx's ideas such as [[universal health care]], open border and the free movement of people, and less economic inequality.
Many subsequent political movements have based themselves on Marx's thought, offering widely differing interpretations of [[communism]]; these include [[Marxism-Leninism]], [[Maoism]], and [[libertarian Marxism]]. Possibly the most influential interpreter of Marxist theory was [[Lenin]], founder of the [[Soviet Union]], who created a revolutionary theory founded on Marxist thinking. However, [[libertarian Marxism|libertarian Marxist]] thinkers have challenged Lenin's interpretation of Marx; [[Cornelius Castoriadis]], for instance, described the Soviet Union's system as a form of "bureaucratic capitalism" rather than true communism.<ref>[http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i29/29a01401.htm The Strange Afterlife of Cornelius Castoriadis] by Scott McLemee, ''[[Chronicle of Higher Education]]'', March 26, 2004.</ref>
The multiple notions of political power that are put forth range from conventional views that simply revolve around the actions of politicians to those who view political power as an insidious form of institutionalized social control - most notably "[[anarchism|anarchists]]" and "[[anarcho-capitalism|radical capitalists]]". The main views of political power revolve around [[normative]], [[post-modern]], and [[pragmatic]] perspectives.
=== Normative faces of power debate ===
The faces of power debate has coalesced into a viable conception of three dimensions of power including ''decision-making'', ''agenda-setting'', and ''preference-shaping''. The decision-making dimension was first put forth by [[Robert Dahl]], who advocated the notion that political power is based in the formal political arena and is measured through voting patterns and the decisions made by politicians.<ref>Dahl, Robert A., ''Who Governs? : Democracy and Power in the American City'', (Yale University Press, 1961)</ref> This view has been criticised by many as simplistic, notably by the sociologist [[G. William Domhoff]],<ref>[[G.William Domhoff|Domhoff]], G. William, [http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/new_haven.html Who Really Ruled in Dahl's New Haven?]</ref> who argues that political and economic power is monopolised by the "elite classes".
A second dimension to the notion of political power was added by academics Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz involving "agenda-setting". Bachrach and Baratz viewed power as involving both the formal political arena and behind the scenes agenda-setting by elite groups who could be either politicians and/or others (such as industrialists, campaign contributors, special interest groups and so on), often with a hidden agenda that most of the public may not be aware of. The third dimension of power was added by British academic [[Steven Lukes]] who felt that even with this second dimension, some other traits of political power needed to be addressed through the concept of 'preference-shaping'. Lukes developed the concept of the "Three faces of power" - decision-making power, non-decision-making power, and [[ideology|ideological]] power.<ref>Lukes, Steven, ''Power: a Radical View'', [[Macmillan Publishers|Macmillan]], ([[1974]])</ref>
This third dimension is inspired by many [[Neo-Gramscianism|Neo-Gramscian]] views such as [[cultural hegemony]] and deals with how [[civil society]] and the general public have their preferences shaped for them by those in power through the use of propaganda or the media. Ultimately, this third dimension holds that the general public may not be aware of what decisions are actually in their interest due to the invisible power of elites who work to distort their perceptions. Critics of this view claim that such notions are themselves elitist, which Lukes then clearly admits as one problem of this view and yet clarifies that as long as those who make claims that preferences are being shaped explain their own interests etc., there is room for more transparency.
=== Postmodern challenge of normative views of power ===
Some within the [[postmodern]] and [[post-structuralist]] field claim that power is something that is not in the hands of the few and is rather dispersed throughout society in various ways. As one academic writes, "...postmodernists have argued that due to a variety of inherent biases in the standards by which ”valid“ knowledge has been evaluated...modernist science has tended to reproduce ideological justifications for the perpetuation of long-standing forms of inequality. Thus, it is the strategy of postmodern science...to identify and, thereby, attack the ”deceiving“ power of universalizing scientific [[epistemology|epistemologies]]."<ref>McGettigan, Timothy,[http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/mcgettigan.html Redefining Reality:
Epiphany as a Standard of Postmodern Truth], Electronic Journal of Sociology</ref>
==Political spectra==
===Left-Right politics===
{{mainarticle|Left-Right politics}}
Most political analysts and politicians divide politics into [[left wing]] and [[right wing]] politics, often also using the idea of center politics as a middle path of policy between the right and left. This classification is comparatively recent (it was not used by [[Aristotle]] or [[Hobbes]], for instance), and dates from the [[French Revolution]] era, when those members of the [[National Assembly]] who opposed the [[monarchy]] sat on the left, while those who supported it sat on the right.<ref>The Architecture of Parliaments: Legislative Houses and Political Culture
Charles T. Goodsell
British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1988), pp. 287-302
</ref>
The meaning of left-wing and right-wing varies considerably between different countries and at different times, but broadly speaking, it can be said that the right wing is often linked to moral and social [[conservatism]], [[Law and order (politics)|law and order]], and [[religion]], while the left wing is often linked with [[redistribution of wealth]] and resources towards the poorer or less successful sections of society (which are generally perceived by the left as unfairly disadvantaged), and with [[secularism]].<ref>p73 Tansey, Stephen J., ''Politics: The Basics'', 2000, London, ISBN 0-415-19199-8</ref> The right wing is more often linked to the idea of social ''equity'', and the left wing to the idea of social ''equality''.
According to [[Norberto Bobbio]], one of the major exponents of this distinction, the Left believes in attempting to eradicate social inequality, 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.<ref name="Bobbio">[[Norberto Bobbio|Bobbio]], Norberto, "Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction" (translated by Allan Cameron), 1997, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226062465</ref>
Some ideologies, notably [[Christian Democracy]], claim to combine left and right wing politics; according to Geoffrey K. Roberts and Patricia Hogwood, "In terms of ideology, Christian Democracy has incorporated many of the views held by liberals, conservatives and socialists within a wider framework of moral and Christian principles."<ref>Roberts and Hogwood, ''European Politics Today'', Manchester University Press, 1997</ref> Movements which claim or formerly claimed to be above the left-right divide include [[Gaullism]] in France, [[Peronism]] in Argentina, and [[National Action Party (Mexico)#"National Action" politics|National Action Politics]] in Mexico.
===Authoritarian-Libertarian===
While left and right refer to different methods of developing an economically stable and just society, {{Fact|date=July 2007}} [[authoritarianism]] and [[libertarianism]] refer to the amount of individual [[Freedom (political)|freedom]] each person possesses in that society relative to the state. One author describes authoritarian political systems as those where "individual [[rights]] and goals are subjugated to group goals, expectations and conformities",<ref>{{cite journal|author=Markus Kemmelmeier et al.|title=Individualism, Collectivism, and Authoritarianism in Seven Societies|year=2003|journal=Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology|volume=34|issue=3|pages=304-322|doi=10.1177/0022022103034003005}}</ref> while a libertarian political system is one in which individual [[rights]] and [[civil liberties]] are paramount. More extreme than libertarians are [[anarchism|anarchists]], who argue for the total abolition of [[government]], while the most extreme authoritarians are [[totalitarianism|totalitarians]] who support state control over all aspects of [[society]].
Authoritarianism and libertarianism are separate concepts from the [[Left-right politics|left-right]] political axis. For instance, [[classical liberalism]] and contemporary American libertarianism are socially liberal, but reject extensive governmental intervention in the [[economy]] and [[Social welfare provision|welfare]]. According to the libertarian [[Institute for Humane Studies]], "the libertarian, or 'classical liberal,' perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by 'as much liberty as possible' and 'as little government as necessary.'"<ref>[http://www.theihs.org/about/id.1084/default.asp What Is Libertarian?], Institute for Humane Studies</ref>
== See also ==
{{portal}}
'''
{{sisterlinks|Politics}}
=== Lists ===
* [[List of basic political science topics|List of basic political topics]]
* [[List of politics by country articles]]
* [[List of years in politics]]
=== Related topics ===
* [[Food politics]]
* [[Government simulation game]]
* [[Music and politics]]
* [[Political activism]]
* [[Political compass]]
* [[Political corruption]]
* [[Political criticism]]
* [[Political economy]]
* [[Political philosophy]]
* [[Politics in fiction]]
* [[Political labels]]
* [[Political movement]]
* [[Political parties of the world]]
* [[Political party]]
* [[Political psychology]]
* [[Political science]]
* [[Political simulation]]
* [[Political sociology]]
* [[Political spectrum]]
* [[Political game]]
* [[Strategic planning]]
* [[Theology Online]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Ideologies}}
[[Category:Politics|Politics]]
[[af:Politiek]]
[[ar:سياسة]]
[[an:Politica]]
[[ast:Política]]
[[az:Siyasət]]
[[bm:Politiki]]
[[bn:রাজনীতি]]
[[be-x-old:Палітыка]]
[[bar:Politik]]
[[bs:Politika]]
[[br:Politikerezh]]
[[bg:Политика]]
[[ca:Política]]
[[ceb:Politika]]
[[cs:Politika]]
[[co:Pulitica]]
[[cy:Gwleidyddiaeth]]
[[da:Politik]]
[[de:Politik]]
[[et:Poliitika]]
[[el:Πολιτική]]
[[es:Política]]
[[eo:Politiko]]
[[eu:Politika]]
[[fa:سیاست]]
[[fr:Politique]]
[[fy:Polityk]]
[[fur:Politiche]]
[[ga:Polaitíocht]]
[[gl:Política]]
[[ko:정치]]
[[hi:राजनीति]]
[[hr:Politika]]
[[io:Politiko]]
[[id:Politik]]
[[ia:Politica]]
[[ie:Politica]]
[[os:Политикæ]]
[[is:Stjórnmál]]
[[it:Politica]]
[[he:פוליטיקה]]
[[jv:Pulitik]]
[[ka:პოლიტიკა]]
[[ky:Саясат]]
[[sw:Siasa]]
[[ht:Politik]]
[[lad:Politika]]
[[lo:ການເມືອງ]]
[[la:Civilitas]]
[[lv:Politika]]
[[lb:Politik]]
[[lt:Politika]]
[[li:Politiek]]
[[ln:Politíki]]
[[hu:Politika]]
[[mk:Политика]]
[[ms:Politik]]
[[nah:Cemitquimatiliztli]]
[[nl:Politiek]]
[[ne:राजनीति]]
[[ja:政治]]
[[no:Politikk]]
[[nn:Politikk]]
[[nrm:Politique]]
[[nov:Politike]]
[[oc:Politica]]
[[pi:राज्यनीति]]
[[ps:سياست]]
[[nds:Politik]]
[[pl:Polityka]]
[[pt:Política]]
[[ro:Politică]]
[[qu:Kawpay]]
[[ru:Политика]]
[[sc:Polìtica]]
[[sco:Politics]]
[[sq:Politika]]
[[scn:Pulìtica]]
[[simple:Politics]]
[[sk:Politika]]
[[sl:Politika]]
[[sr:Политика]]
[[sh:Politika]]
[[stq:Politik]]
[[su:Pulitik]]
[[fi:Politiikka]]
[[sv:Politik]]
[[tl:Politika]]
[[ta:அரசியல்]]
[[kab:Tasertit]]
[[th:การเมือง]]
[[vi:Chính trị]]
[[tpi:Politikis]]
[[tr:Siyaset]]
[[uk:Політика]]
[[vec:Pułitega]]
[[fiu-vro:Poliitiga]]
[[war:Politika]]
[[wo:Politig]]
[[yi:פאליטיק]]
[[zh-yue:政治]]
[[diq:Siyaset]]
[[bat-smg:Puolitėka]]
[[zh:政治]]
{{Politics}}
'''Politics''' is the process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil [[government]]s, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including [[corporation|corporate]], [[academia|academic]], and [[religion|religious]] institutions.{{Fact|date=March 2008}}
Politics consists of "social relations involving authority or power"<ref>[http://dict.die.net/politics/ Definition of politics from die.net]</ref> and refers to the regulation of a political unit, <ref>[http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=303454 Politics (definition)@Everything2.com<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply [[policy]].<ref name="freedict">[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/politics Definition of politics from "The Free Dictionary"]</ref>
[[Political science]] (also political studies) is the study of political behavior and examines the acquisition and application of [[political power|power]]. Related areas of study include [[political philosophy]], which seeks a rationale for politics and an ethic of public behavior, and [[public administration]], which examines the practices of governance.
==Key political concepts==
===Pragmatic view of power===
[[Samuel Gompers]]' maxim, often paraphrased as,"Reward your friends and punish your enemies,"<ref>[[Samuel Gompers|Gompers]], Samuel, “Men of Labor! Be Up and Doing,” editorial, ''American Federationist'', May 1906, p. 319</ref> hints at two of the five types of power recognized by [[social psychology|social psychologists]]: '''incentive power''' (the power to reward) and '''coercive power''' (the power to punish). Arguably the other three grow out of these two:
'''Legitimate power''', the power of the policeman or the referee, is the power given to an individual by a recognized authority to enforce standards of behavior. Legitimate power is similar to coercive power in that unacceptable behavior is punished by fine or penalty. A policeman has no power outside his own jurisdiction.
'''Referent power''' is bestowed upon individuals by virtue of accomplishment or attitude. Fulfillment of the desire to feel similar to a celebrity or a hero is the reward for obedience. This is an example of incentive power as one rewards oneself.
'''Expert power''' springs from education or experience. Following the lead of an experienced coach is often rewarded with success. Power is conditional to the circumstances. For example, a brain surgeon's advice does not carry as much weight when pipes are leaking.
=== Authority and legitimacy ===<!-- This section is linked from [[Politics]] -->
{{mainarticle|Tripartite classification of authority}}
[[Authority]], in a political sense, is different from political power in that it implies [[legitimacy]] and [[acceptance]]; it implies that the person or state exercising power has a perceived right to do so.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authority/ "Authority" at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]</ref> [[Legitimacy]] is an attribute of government gained through the acquisition and application of power in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles.
[[Max Weber]] identified three sources of [[legitimacy]] for [[authority]], known as the [[tripartite classification of authority]].<ref name="Weber">[[Max Weber|Weber]], Max, [http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation.html Politics as a Vocation]</ref> He proposed three reasons why people follow the orders of those who give them:
====Traditional authority====
[[Traditional domination|Traditional authorities]] receive loyalty because they continue and support the preservation of existing values, the status quo. Weber called this "the authority of the eternal yesterday".<ref name="Weber"/>[[Patriarchy|Patriarchal]] (and more rarely [[Matriarchy|matriarchal]]) societies gave rise to hereditary monarchies where authority was given to descendants of previous leaders. Followers submit to this authority because "we've always done it that way." Examples of traditional authoritarians include [[absolute monarch]]s.
====Charismatic authority====
[[Charismatic domination|Charismatic authority]] grows out of the personal charm or the strength of an individual personality (see [[cult of personality]] for the most extreme version). Charismatic regimes are often short-lived, seldom outliving the charismatic figure that leads them. For a charismatic regime to survive the rule of the individual personality, it must transform its legitimacy into a different form of authority. An example of this would be [[Augustus]]' efforts to create the position of the [[Roman Empire|Roman]] [[principate]] and establish a ruling dynasty, which could be viewed as a shift to a traditional form of authority, in the form of the principate that would exist in Rome for more than 400 years after his death.
====Legal-rational authority====
[[Legal domination|Legal-rational authorities]] receive their ability to compel behavior by virtue of the office that they hold. It is the authority that demands obedience to the office rather than the office holder; Weber identified "rationally-created rules"<ref name="Weber"/> as the central feature of this form of authority. Modern [[democracy|democracies]] are examples of legal-rational regimes. People also abide by legal-rational authority because it makes sense to do so for their own good, as well as for the greater good of society. {{Fact|date=July 2007}}
===Sovereignty===
{{mainarticle|Sovereignty}}
[[Sovereignty]] is the ability of a government to exert control over its sphere of influence free from outside interference.
==Political philosophies==
{{mainarticle|Political philosophy}}
===Confucius===
The [[Chinese people|Chinese]] [[philosopher]] [[Confucius]] ([[551]]-[[471]] [[BCE]]) was one of the first thinkers to adopt a distinct approach to [[political philosophy]]. His philosophy was "rooted in his belief that a ruler should learn self-discipline, should govern his subjects by his own example, and should treat them with love and concern."<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/#ConPol Confucius on Politics] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> His political beliefs were strongly linked to personal [[ethics]] and [[morality]], believing that only a morally upright ruler who possessed "de", or [[virtue]], should be able to exercise power, and that the behavior of an individual ought to be consistent with their rank in society. He stated that "Good government consists in the ruler being a ruler, the minister being a minister, the father being a father, and the son being a son."<ref>''Lunyu'' 12.11, [[The Analects of Confucius]] ([http://classics.mit.edu/Confucius/analects.html available in English here])</ref>
===Plato===
The [[Ancient Greece|Greek]] [[philosopher]] [[Plato]](428-328 BC), in his book [[The Republic (Plato)|The Republic]], argued that all conventional political systems ([[democracy]], [[monarchy]], [[oligarchy]] and [[timarchy]]) were inherently corrupt, and that the state ought to be governed by an elite class of educated philosopher-rulers, who would be trained from [[birth]] and selected on the basis of [[aptitude]]: "those who have the greatest skill in watching over the community."<ref name="Plato">p113, [[Plato]], ''The Republic'', translated by Desmond Lee, 1955, Penguin Classics, ISBN 0-140-44914-0</ref> This has been characterised as [[authoritarian]] and [[elitist]] by some later scholars, notably [[Karl Popper]] in his book ''The Open Society and its Enemies'', who described Plato's schemes as essentially [[totalitarian]] and criticised his apparent advocacy of [[censorship]].<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/#4.4 Totalitarianism in Plato's Republic] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> The Republic has also been labeled as [[communist]], due to its advocacy of abolishing [[private property]] and the [[family]] among the ruling classes; however, this view has been discounted by many scholars, as there are implications in the text that this will extend ''only'' to the ruling classes, and that ordinary citizens "will have enough private property to make the regulation of wealth and poverty a concern."<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/#4.2 Communism in The Republic] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]</ref>
===Aristotle===
[[Image:Aristoteles Louvre.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Aristotle]]
In his book ''[[Politics (Aristotle)|Politics]]'', the [[Ancient Greece|Greek]] [[philosopher]] [[Aristotle]](384–322BC) asserted that man is, by nature, a political animal. He argued that [[ethics]] and politics are closely linked, and that a truly ethical life can only be lived by someone who participates in politics.<ref>Aristotle's ''Politics'' at [http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-pol.htm#H2 The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]</ref>
Like Plato, Aristotle identified a number of different forms of government, and argued that each "correct" form of government may devolve into a "deviant" form of government, in which its institutions were corrupted. According to Aristotle, [[monarchy|kingship]], with one ruler, devolves into [[tyranny]]; [[aristocracy]], with a small group of rulers, devolves into [[oligarchy]]; and [[polity]], with collective rule by many citizens, devolves into [[democracy]].<ref name="arpsep">[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/#supplement3 Aristotle's views on politics] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> In this sense, Aristotle does not use the word "[[democracy]]" in its modern sense, carrying positive connotations, but in its literal sense of rule by the ''demos'', or common people.<ref name="arpsep"/> A more accurate view of Aristotle denouncing democracy was that it was described as mob rule, or [[ochlocracy]].
===Niccolò Machiavelli===
In his work ''[[The Prince]]'', the [[Renaissance]] [[Italy|Italian]] political theorist [[Niccolò Machiavelli|Machiavelli]] put forward a political worldview which described practical methods for an [[Autocracy|absolute ruler]] to attain and maintain [[political power]]. His work is sometimes viewed as rejecting traditional views of [[morality]] for a ruler: "for Machiavelli, there is no moral basis on which to judge the difference between legitimate and illegitimate uses of power."<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/#2 Machiavelli's The Prince] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> It is from Machiavelli that the term [[Machiavellian]] is derived, referring to an [[amoral]] person who uses manipulative methods to attain power; his works have been studied and theories practiced by leaders including totalitarians such as [[Benito Mussolini]], and [[Adolf Hitler]], each of whom justified the use of brutality for purposes of state security.<ref>Machiavelli, Niccolò, ''The Prince'', Editor's Introduction by Angelo Codevilla, page xvii. Yale University Press, 1997.</ref> However, many scholars have questioned this view of Machiavelli's theory, arguing that "Machiavelli did not invent '[[Machiavellianism]]' and may not even have been a 'Machiavellian' in the sense often ascribed to him."<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/ Niccolo Machiavelli] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> Instead, Machiavelli considered the stability of the [[state]] to be the most important goal, and argued that qualities traditionally considered morally desirable, such as generosity, were undesirable in a ruler and would lead to the loss of [[political power|power]].
===Thomas Hobbes===
In 1651, [[Thomas Hobbes]] published his most famous work, ''[[Leviathan (book)|Leviathan]]'', in which he proposed a model of early human development to justify the creation of [[polity|polities]], i.e. governed bodies. Hobbes described an ideal [[state of nature]] wherein every person had equal right to every resource in nature and was free to use any means to acquire those resources. He claimed that such an arrangement created a “war of all against all” (''[[bellum omnium contra omnes]]''). The book has been interpreted by scholars as posing two "stark alternatives"; total obedience to an [[absolute monarchy|absolute ruler]], or "a state of nature, which closely resembles civil war...where all have reason to fear a violent death".<ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hobmoral.htm Thomas Hobbes] at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]</ref> Hobbes' view can therefore be interpreted as a defense of [[Autocracy|absolutism]], arguing that human beings enter into a [[social contract]] for their protection and agree to obey the dictates of the [[sovereign]]; in Hobbes' worldview, "the sovereign is nothing more than the personal embodiment of orderly government."<ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hobmoral.htm Thomas Hobbes] at Britannica's Philosophy Pages</ref> Hobbes himself argued "The final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby."<ref name=Hobbes>Hobbes, Thomas, [[Leviathan]] (available online [http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html#THESECONDPART here])</ref>
===John Locke===
{{main|John Locke}}
In the ''First Treatise of Government'', Locke refutes the theory of the [[Divine Right of Kings]] as put forward by [[Robert Filmer]]; he "minutely examines key [[Bible|Biblical]] passages"<ref name="lsep">[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#TwoTreGov John Locke's Two Treatises of Government] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> and concludes that [[absolute monarchy]] is not supported by [[Christian]] [[theology]]. "Locke singles out Filmer's contention that men are not 'naturally free' as the key issue, for that is the 'ground'...on which Filmer erects his argument for the claim that all 'legitimate' government is 'absolute monarchy'."<ref name="lsep"/>
In the ''Second Treatise of Government'', Locke examines the concept of the [[social contract]] put forward by other theorists such as [[Thomas Hobbes]], but reaches a different conclusion. Although he agreed with Hobbes on the concept of a [[state of nature]] before existing forms of government arose, he challenged Hobbes' view that the state of nature was equivalent to a state of [[war]], instead arguing that there were certain [[natural rights]] belonging to all human beings, which continued even after a political authority was established. "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone...being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, health or possessions".<ref>Locke, John, ''Second Treatise of Government''</ref> According to one scholar, the basis of Locke's thought in the Second Treatise is that "contract or consent is the ground of government and fixes its limits...behind [this] doctrine lies the idea of the independence of the individual person."<ref>[http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/locke.htm#Two%20Treatises%20of%20Government John Locke's Two Treatises of Government] at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> In other words, Locke's view was different from Hobbes' in that he interpreted the idea of the "state of nature" differently, and he argued that people's natural rights were not necessarily eliminated by their consent to be governed by a political authority.
===Jean-Jacques Rousseau===
The [[18th century]] [[France|French]] [[philosopher]] [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], in his book [[The Social Contract]], put forward a system of political thought which was closely related to those of Hobbes and Locke, but different in important respects. In the opening sentence of the book, Rousseau argued that "...man was born free, but he is everywhere in chains"<ref name="britross">[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-23965/Jean-Jacques-Rousseau Jean-Jacques Rousseau] at the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' online</ref> He defined political authority and legitimacy as stemming from the "general will", or ''volonté generale''; for Rousseau, "true Sovereignty is directed always at the public good".<ref name="iepross">[http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rousseau.htm#SH4b The Social Contract] at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> This concept of the general will implicitly "allows for individual diversity and freedom...[but] also encourages the well-being of the whole, and therefore can conflict with the particular interests of individuals."<ref name="iepross"/> As such, Rousseau also argues that the people may need a "lawgiver" to draw up a constitution and system of laws, because the general will, "while always morally sound, is sometimes mistaken".<ref name="britross"/>
Rousseau's thought has been seen by some scholars as contradictory and inconsistent, and as not addressing the fundamental contradiction between individual freedom and subordination to the needs of [[society]], "the tension that seems to exist between liberalism and communitarianism".<ref name="iepross"/> As one [[Catholic]] scholar argues, "that it [The Social Contract] contains serious contradictions is undeniable...its fundamental principles--the origin of society, absolute freedom and absolute equality of all--are false and unnatural."<ref name="catross">[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04335a.htm The Social Contract] at the Catholic Encyclopedia</ref> The ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' further argues that Rousseau's concept of the general will would inevitably lead to "the suppression of personality, the reign of force and caprice, the tyranny of the multitude, the despotism of the crowd", i.e. the subordination of the individual to society as a whole.<ref name="catross"/>
[[Image:JohnStuartMill.JPG|left|thumb|150px|John Stuart Mill]]
===John Stuart Mill===
In the [[19th century]], [[John Stuart Mill]] pioneered the [[liberal]] conception of politics. He saw [[democracy]] as the major political development of his era<ref>p11, Tansey, Stephen J., ''Politics: The Basics'', 1995, London, ISBN 0-145-19199-8</ref> and, in his book ''[[On Liberty]]'', advocated stronger protection for individual rights against government and the rule of the majority. He argued that [[liberty]] was the most important right of human beings, and that the only just cause for interfering with the liberty of another person was self-protection.<ref name="jsms">[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#SocPol Social and Political Philosophy of John Stuart Mill] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> One commentator refers to ''[[On Liberty]]'' as "the strongest and most eloquent defense of [[liberalism]] that we have."<ref name="jsms"/> Mill also emphasised the importance of [[freedom of speech]], claiming that "we can never be sure that the opinion we are attempting to stifle is a false opinion, and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."<ref>p229, Mill, John Stuart, ''On Liberty'', ISBN 1-59986-973-X (also available online [http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/ here]</ref>
===Karl Marx===
[[Karl Marx]] was among the most influential [[political philosophy|political philosophers]] of history. His theories, collectively termed [[Marxism]], were critical of [[capitalism]] and argued that in the due course of history, there would be an "inevitable breakdown of capitalism for economic reasons, to be replaced by [[communism]]."<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/#4 Karl Marx] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> He defined history in terms of the [[class struggle]] between the [[bourgeoisie]], or property-owning classes, and the [[proletariat]], or workers, a struggle intensified by [[industrialisation]]: "The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.<ref name=manifesto>Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1848), [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm ''The Communist Manifesto'']</ref> [[Utopia]] for Marx was the [[classless society]] in which the state and the church would be very weak or nonexistent. The workers ultimately would own the [[means of production]], state ownership would be a mere transition period, therefore the people would be free. Because the state as Marx knew it would practically disappear over time, there would be no need for borders so individuals would be free to move from nation to nation without prosecution. This latter idea of internationalism is the direct opposition to the [[Nazi]] utopia of the [[Master race]] and [[national socialism]]. Although Marxism is mostly associated with the Soviet Union for obvious reasons, one may also see in the European Union many but not all of Marx's ideas such as [[universal health care]], open border and the free movement of people, and less economic inequality.
Many subsequent political movements have based themselves on Marx's thought, offering widely differing interpretations of [[communism]]; these include [[Marxism-Leninism]], [[Maoism]], and [[libertarian Marxism]]. Possibly the most influential interpreter of Marxist theory was [[Lenin]], founder of the [[Soviet Union]], who created a revolutionary theory founded on Marxist thinking. However, [[libertarian Marxism|libertarian Marxist]] thinkers have challenged Lenin's interpretation of Marx; [[Cornelius Castoriadis]], for instance, described the Soviet Union's system as a form of "bureaucratic capitalism" rather than true communism.<ref>[http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i29/29a01401.htm The Strange Afterlife of Cornelius Castoriadis] by Scott McLemee, ''[[Chronicle of Higher Education]]'', March 26, 2004.</ref>
The multiple notions of political power that are put forth range from conventional views that simply revolve around the actions of politicians to those who view political power as an insidious form of institutionalized social control - most notably "[[anarchism|anarchists]]" and "[[anarcho-capitalism|radical capitalists]]". The main views of political power revolve around [[normative]], [[post-modern]], and [[pragmatic]] perspectives.
=== Normative faces of power debate ===
The faces of power debate has coalesced into a viable conception of three dimensions of power including ''decision-making'', ''agenda-setting'', and ''preference-shaping''. The decision-making dimension was first put forth by [[Robert Dahl]], who advocated the notion that political power is based in the formal political arena and is measured through voting patterns and the decisions made by politicians.<ref>Dahl, Robert A., ''Who Governs? : Democracy and Power in the American City'', (Yale University Press, 1961)</ref> This view has been criticised by many as simplistic, notably by the sociologist [[G. William Domhoff]],<ref>[[G.William Domhoff|Domhoff]], G. William, [http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/new_haven.html Who Really Ruled in Dahl's New Haven?]</ref> who argues that political and economic power is monopolised by the "elite classes".
A second dimension to the notion of political power was added by academics Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz involving "agenda-setting". Bachrach and Baratz viewed power as involving both the formal political arena and behind the scenes agenda-setting by elite groups who could be either politicians and/or others (such as industrialists, campaign contributors, special interest groups and so on), often with a hidden agenda that most of the public may not be aware of. The third dimension of power was added by British academic [[Steven Lukes]] who felt that even with this second dimension, some other traits of political power needed to be addressed through the concept of 'preference-shaping'. Lukes developed the concept of the "Three faces of power" - decision-making power, non-decision-making power, and [[ideology|ideological]] power.<ref>Lukes, Steven, ''Power: a Radical View'', [[Macmillan Publishers|Macmillan]], ([[1974]])</ref>
This third dimension is inspired by many [[Neo-Gramscianism|Neo-Gramscian]] views such as [[cultural hegemony]] and deals with how [[civil society]] and the general public have their preferences shaped for them by those in power through the use of propaganda or the media. Ultimately, this third dimension holds that the general public may not be aware of what decisions are actually in their interest due to the invisible power of elites who work to distort their perceptions. Critics of this view claim that such notions are themselves elitist, which Lukes then clearly admits as one problem of this view and yet clarifies that as long as those who make claims that preferences are being shaped explain their own interests etc., there is room for more transparency.
=== Postmodern challenge of normative views of power ===
Some within the [[postmodern]] and [[post-structuralist]] field claim that power is something that is not in the hands of the few and is rather dispersed throughout society in various ways. As one academic writes, "...postmodernists have argued that due to a variety of inherent biases in the standards by which ”valid“ knowledge has been evaluated...modernist science has tended to reproduce ideological justifications for the perpetuation of long-standing forms of inequality. Thus, it is the strategy of postmodern science...to identify and, thereby, attack the ”deceiving“ power of universalizing scientific [[epistemology|epistemologies]]."<ref>McGettigan, Timothy,[http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/mcgettigan.html Redefining Reality:
Epiphany as a Standard of Postmodern Truth], Electronic Journal of Sociology</ref>
==Political spectra==
===Left-Right politics===
{{mainarticle|Left-Right politics}}
Most political analysts and politicians divide politics into [[left wing]] and [[right wing]] politics, often also using the idea of center politics as a middle path of policy between the right and left. This classification is comparatively recent (it was not used by [[Aristotle]] or [[Hobbes]], for instance), and dates from the [[French Revolution]] era, when those members of the [[National Assembly]] who opposed the [[monarchy]] sat on the left, while those who supported it sat on the right.<ref>The Architecture of Parliaments: Legislative Houses and Political Culture
Charles T. Goodsell
British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1988), pp. 287-302
</ref>
The meaning of left-wing and right-wing varies considerably between different countries and at different times, but broadly speaking, it can be said that the right wing is often linked to moral and social [[conservatism]], [[Law and order (politics)|law and order]], and [[religion]], while the left wing is often linked with [[redistribution of wealth]] and resources towards the poorer or less successful sections of society (which are generally perceived by the left as unfairly disadvantaged), and with [[secularism]].<ref>p73 Tansey, Stephen J., ''Politics: The Basics'', 2000, London, ISBN 0-415-19199-8</ref> The right wing is more often linked to the idea of social ''equity'', and the left wing to the idea of social ''equality''.
According to [[Norberto Bobbio]], one of the major exponents of this distinction, the Left believes in attempting to eradicate social inequality, 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.<ref name="Bobbio">[[Norberto Bobbio|Bobbio]], Norberto, "Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction" (translated by Allan Cameron), 1997, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226062465</ref>
Some ideologies, notably [[Christian Democracy]], claim to combine left and right wing politics; according to Geoffrey K. Roberts and Patricia Hogwood, "In terms of ideology, Christian Democracy has incorporated many of the views held by liberals, conservatives and socialists within a wider framework of moral and Christian principles."<ref>Roberts and Hogwood, ''European Politics Today'', Manchester University Press, 1997</ref> Movements which claim or formerly claimed to be above the left-right divide include [[Gaullism]] in France, [[Peronism]] in Argentina, and [[National Action Party (Mexico)#"National Action" politics|National Action Politics]] in Mexico.
===Authoritarian-Libertarian===
While left and right refer to different methods of developing an economically stable and just society, {{Fact|date=July 2007}} [[authoritarianism]] and [[libertarianism]] refer to the amount of individual [[Freedom (political)|freedom]] each person possesses in that society relative to the state. One author describes authoritarian political systems as those where "individual [[rights]] and goals are subjugated to group goals, expectations and conformities",<ref>{{cite journal|author=Markus Kemmelmeier et al.|title=Individualism, Collectivism, and Authoritarianism in Seven Societies|year=2003|journal=Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology|volume=34|issue=3|pages=304-322|doi=10.1177/0022022103034003005}}</ref> while a libertarian political system is one in which individual [[rights]] and [[civil liberties]] are paramount. More extreme than libertarians are [[anarchism|anarchists]], who argue for the total abolition of [[government]], while the most extreme authoritarians are [[totalitarianism|totalitarians]] who support state control over all aspects of [[society]].
Authoritarianism and libertarianism are separate concepts from the [[Left-right politics|left-right]] political axis. For instance, [[classical liberalism]] and contemporary American libertarianism are socially liberal, but reject extensive governmental intervention in the [[economy]] and [[Social welfare provision|welfare]]. According to the libertarian [[Institute for Humane Studies]], "the libertarian, or 'classical liberal,' perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by 'as much liberty as possible' and 'as little government as necessary.'"<ref>[http://www.theihs.org/about/id.1084/default.asp What Is Libertarian?], Institute for Humane Studies</ref>
== See also ==
{{portal}}
'''
{{sisterlinks|Politics}}
=== Lists ===
* [[List of basic political science topics|List of basic political topics]]
* [[List of politics by country articles]]
* [[List of years in politics]]
=== Related topics ===
* [[Food politics]]
* [[Government simulation game]]
* [[Music and politics]]
* [[Political activism]]
* [[Political compass]]
* [[Political corruption]]
* [[Political criticism]]
* [[Political economy]]
* [[Political philosophy]]
* [[Politics in fiction]]
* [[Political labels]]
* [[Political movement]]
* [[Political parties of the world]]
* [[Political party]]
* [[Political psychology]]
* [[Political science]]
* [[Political simulation]]
* [[Political sociology]]
* [[Political spectrum]]
* [[Political game]]
* [[Strategic planning]]
* [[Theology Online]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Ideologies}}
[[Category:Politics|Politics]]
[[af:Politiek]]
[[ar:سياسة]]
[[an:Politica]]
[[ast:Política]]
[[az:Siyasət]]
[[bm:Politiki]]
[[bn:রাজনীতি]]
[[be-x-old:Палітыка]]
[[bar:Politik]]
[[bs:Politika]]
[[br:Politikerezh]]
[[bg:Политика]]
[[ca:Política]]
[[ceb:Politika]]
[[cs:Politika]]
[[co:Pulitica]]
[[cy:Gwleidyddiaeth]]
[[da:Politik]]
[[de:Politik]]
[[et:Poliitika]]
[[el:Πολιτική]]
[[es:Política]]
[[eo:Politiko]]
[[eu:Politika]]
[[fa:سیاست]]
[[fr:Politique]]
[[fy:Polityk]]
[[fur:Politiche]]
[[ga:Polaitíocht]]
[[gl:Política]]
[[ko:정치]]
[[hi:राजनीति]]
[[hr:Politika]]
[[io:Politiko]]
[[id:Politik]]
[[ia:Politica]]
[[ie:Politica]]
[[os:Политикæ]]
[[is:Stjórnmál]]
[[it:Politica]]
[[he:פוליטיקה]]
[[jv:Pulitik]]
[[ka:პოლიტიკა]]
[[ky:Саясат]]
[[sw:Siasa]]
[[ht:Politik]]
[[lad:Politika]]
[[lo:ການເມືອງ]]
[[la:Civilitas]]
[[lv:Politika]]
[[lb:Politik]]
[[lt:Politika]]
[[li:Politiek]]
[[ln:Politíki]]
[[hu:Politika]]
[[mk:Политика]]
[[ms:Politik]]
[[nah:Cemitquimatiliztli]]
[[nl:Politiek]]
[[ne:राजनीति]]
[[ja:政治]]
[[no:Politikk]]
[[nn:Politikk]]
[[nrm:Politique]]
[[nov:Politike]]
[[oc:Politica]]
[[pi:राज्यनीति]]
[[ps:سياست]]
[[nds:Politik]]
[[pl:Polityka]]
[[pt:Política]]
[[ro:Politică]]
[[qu:Kawpay]]
[[ru:Политика]]
[[sc:Polìtica]]
[[sco:Politics]]
[[sq:Politika]]
[[scn:Pulìtica]]
[[simple:Politics]]
[[sk:Politika]]
[[sl:Politika]]
[[sr:Политика]]
[[sh:Politika]]
[[stq:Politik]]
[[su:Pulitik]]
[[fi:Politiikka]]
[[sv:Politik]]
[[tl:Politika]]
[[ta:அரசியல்]]
[[kab:Tasertit]]
[[th:การเมือง]]
[[vi:Chính trị]]
[[tpi:Politikis]]
[[tr:Siyaset]]
[[uk:Політика]]
[[vec:Pułitega]]
[[fiu-vro:Poliitiga]]
[[war:Politika]]
[[wo:Politig]]
[[yi:פאליטיק]]
[[zh-yue:政治]]
[[diq:Siyaset]]
[[bat-smg:Puolitėka]]
[[zh:政治]]
