An analysis of the problem of Political Power - essee (0)

An analysis of the problem of Political Power
Written by: Katre Kikkas
Introduction
It is said that in the political philosophy there are only two questions : „Who can have what?“ and „Who will decide over it?“. It is not exactly like that but it is quite close to the trough, to begin with. The first question includes material amenity's, and dividing rights and liberties.( Wolff , 1996) What is power? It is ability to influence others to do something they otherwise would not. Also, others can be affected with threats and force . (Kilp, 2010) Political power includes also right to force the others and to punish them if they disobey. Who should have that kind of power? Actually the political power is quite mysterious by itself. If someone has legitimate political power over me then he or she has a right to force me to do things that they want.(Wolff, 1996) But how can other person have rights to tell me what I have to do? It feels insulting if someone says to me what I have to do – especially if he or she thinks that he or she has a right to punish me if I disobey. But of course there is a different view. We need to think about, how will the others behave if they were not held back by laws . If we think about it then there might be a lot to say about the importance of political power. (Wolff, 1996)
Nature – condition
We think that it is self-evident that we live in the world of political institutions .(Wolff, 1996) These institutions divide and make political power. They determine people to their work positions which need responsibility. That way these people say that they have right to tell us what we have to do, and if we do not agree we will be punished . We visualize nature – condition as a situation where state does not exist and political power do not belong to anyone . In this situation we need to decide how can people live in this kind of conditions . This way we will understand how would the life be without the state and hopefully it will help us to see why do we even need the state. For example Jean- Jacques Rousseau thought that it should have been taken more time to develop from nature – condition to the civil – society. (Wolff, 1996) Some theoretics say that we have a lot of proofs about how people are managed to live without the state. (Wolff, 1996) Hobbes thought that power is only a way to get what the person wants. To be sure about being successful it needs to get powerful . According to Hobbes to be powerful it is necessary to have good reputation, a lot of money and friends . By the virtue of human wanting power it is obvious that being powerful is connected with competitiveness.(Wolff, 1996) But competitiveness is not bad because it is only impulsion. Hobbes also said that sometimes power depends from our strength . (Wolff, 1996) It means that stronger person will have power over the weakers. Hobbes adds also that it is because of human personality. It means that there are more than one people who wants the same thing . So Hobbes says that in nature – condition no one can be protected from possible attack. Everything that I have might others desire so I must be beware of that. What is even worse, people do not only search possibilities to satisfy one need, but also power to satisfy every kind of needs that may come in the future. (Wolff, 1996) There are also people who use power to attack even those who do not threat them. They use power just to get the reputation of power as a protection to the future. To conclude, Hobbes sees three main reasons of to attack in the nature – condition: benefit , security and fame or reputation. Hobbes mainly leans on the idea that for the search of happiness people usually try to maximize their power. (Wolff, 1996) Locke says that it is possible to live without a state. Nature – condition is a condition of total freedom , it is fair and connected to natural laws. (Wolff, 1996) Locke also says that it is obvious that no-one has natural right to rule because the God has not designate anyone to do it. Locke explains that even if we do not have rulers on the Earth, we have the ruler in heaven . (Wolff, 1996) Rousseau believes that it is impossible to live without the state. To opposite this belief, anarchists insist that we offer the state as a way against antisocial behaviour, but mainly they think that the state is the reason of that kind of behaviour. (Wolff, 1996)
Who should rule ?
Which should the government be? Who should rule? There are a lot of different theories about the problem of power. Every society finds the best one for themselves. We must ask, who has the right to rule? There are several reasons how people get political power. (McLaughlin, 2010) Firstly, from nature. It means that person will get the right to rule from the moment he or she was born. This way the right is natural and legal . (McLaughlin, 2010) Secondly, from force. It means that person will get the right to rule by using force. This way it can be also called „the right of the strongest“, because then other people will be afraid of them. (McLaughlin, 2010) Thirdly, theological. It means that person will get divine right to rule. This system can work mostly in the states , where people are seriously and deeply religious, because theological power means that it is God's will and God has chosen the ruler. (McLaughlin, 2010) Fourthly, voluntaristic. It means that person will get the right to rule voluntarily. It contains duty of gratitude (benefits I did not ask). (McLaughlin, 2010) Mostly we think that only democracy can be totally acceptable. But what is democracy? Is it really so drawing power? (Wolff, 1996) Some say that democracy is the rule of the people, by the people, for the people. But does democracy really deserve the reputation that it has? (Wolff, 1996) The word of (citicens) means that democracy is internal. The word by means that in is collective (selfgovernment). The word for means that there should be public interest about political power.
Three theories
Firstly, Plato Statesman: He divides forms of government into good- ones (rule of law) and bad-ones (lawless rule). So, when one person rules de jure it is called Monarchy, but if he or she rules illegally, it is called Tyranny. When a few people rules de jure it is called Aristocracy and when they do not have the legal right to rule, it is called Oligarchy. If many people rule de jure it is called Good- or The Real - Democracy, but if they rule illegally, it is called “Bad” Democracy. (McLaughlin, 2010)
Secondly, Aristotle Politics : His dividing is the same as Plato's, but there are one little difference. If Plato divided good- and bad-ones considering law, then Aristotle considers goodness (good – the tule of common good, bad – for good of rules). Aristotle says that when many people rule for common good, it should be
named mixed formal government and the bad form of government when many people rules is, according to Aristotle, democracy. (McLaughlin, 2010)
Thirdly, Andrew Heywood Politics: Heywood divides the forms of government considering who rules and in who's interest does he, she or they rule. According to Heywood, when there is one person who rules in his on her own interest, it is called Tyranny, but when he or she rules in the others interest, it is called Monarchy. When there are a few rulers, who rule in their own interest, it is called Oligarchy, but when they rule in others interest, it is called Aristocracy. When there are many people who rule in the others interest, it is called Democracy, but when they rule in the others interest, it is called Polytheism. (Kilp, 2010)
Conclusion
To conclude, I must say that ruling with political power is necessary, because every society needs some kind of leader . Usually it does not even matter is he or she good or bad, does one people rule the state, a few people or many people. There are many different ways to get political power. For example from nature, from force etc. There are also different views about naming forms of government, for example Platos and Aristotles. I also added Andrew Heywoods opinion, who is a political scientist. I personally think that it is really necessary to discuss that kind of things and young people should do it more and more.
References:
Jonathan Wolff “Sissejuhatus poliitikafilosoofiasse” pages: 15, 16, 20-22, 24-26, 32, 33, 47, 81-82.
Conspectus about Paul McLaughlin's lecture - Introduction to Social and Political Philosophy
Conspectus about Alar Kilp's lecture - Introduction to Political Science