In short, pluralism for Mouffe is radical. She restricts extreme forms of pluralism but how can we distinguish the extreme from non-extreme is unclear. Although she would have said the procedure of distinguishing these forms, her model transforms into something like Habermas’. Even so her model of democracy is very important think from different angle because the notion of adversaries and agonistic pluralism make possible to think differently from political theorists such as Habermas and Rawls. They aim at reaching consensus but Mouffe thinks that consensus is not necessary for democratic politics what people need is agonistic pluralism to live side by
“When the British Parliament turned to its next attempt to tax the colonies, this time by a set of taxes which it hoped would not excite as much opposition, the colonial leaders organized boycotts” (A People’s History of the United States, 1492-Present 62) is an example of how the colonies disobeyed England. Adams stated, he wanted “"No Mobs- No Confusions-No Tumult" (A People’s History of the United States, 1492-Present 63) against the British. He supported civil disobedience with England, but not with the US because he felt that people had a voice in their government unlike the people who had a
The American civil war was a four year period of bloodshed on American soil due to the wars between the North and South. Arguably the main five causes of this catastrophe were: the economic and social differences between the North and the South, the fight between slave and non-slave state proponents as the South still wanted slavery to continue but the North wanted to abolish it , the growth of the Abolition Movement, the states versus federal rights and the election of Abraham Lincoln. However there were many more causes that led up to the American civil war like: The Underground Railroad and “the bleeding kansas”, a territory close to the state of Missouri where a lot of battles were fought. The South believed in an antiquated social
Nietzsche even pointed out that liberalism, like religion, can be used as a form of legitimation (Cristi, 2010). A modern liberal state is founded on “consent” of the people (ibid). The problem with this is that it cannot guarantee the compliance of every individual (i.e. if they do not feel obligated to obey the laws) and this would eventually lead the state to its downfall (ibid). Likewise, Weber argues that because of the democratic ideas brought in by the French Revolution, “people are reluctant to accept that anyone is entitled to rule except the people themselves” (Shaw, 2008).
However, this is tied directly to the fundamental understanding of democracy in that citizens have the power to influence their sovereign through becoming the sovereign (through majority decisions). Democracy is good. Democracy is bad whenever the majority abuses its freedoms to serve individual desire. In other words, the characteristics of a democracy are solely dependent on its citizens and there might be more of a convincing reason to believe that both Plato and Aristotle’s criticisms are a result of human nature, instead of democracy itself. IV.
Civil Society has become one the most important features of the Morden State, whether operate independently or cooperated by the state. The primary role for the civil society is to limit the control of power by the state but more often now more civil society organisations have been co-opted into the state. This move has been criticized as it is view as that the state only do it to advance its own interest. Starting off with the idea of civil as state society, Marx does not go with the idea that it is the state that creates and sustains civil society. Below some of Marx criticism of this idea by different scholars in discussed.
Another component was that of the rights of the states, and the citizens. The anti-federalist opposed this on the grounds that their rights will be quashed by the strong central governments. Which is the reasoning behind the reason for needing the Bill of Rights. The Federalist responded with the system of checks and balances. This would help to form a framework from amassing too much power centered onto one single branch of government.
Consent is not always risen from a direct act, it could be indirect and many philosophers have tried to get around this whole concept of indirect consent. A classic example of indirect consent, could be nationwide elections. By taking part in the elections, you are indirectly consenting to the authority of the state, because if you intend to become obligated by voting then you are allowing the state to enforce laws that should be obeyed, even though you may not always agree with them. If we do not like the laws implemented upon us, we can protest them, but this disqualifies the whole concept of a democratic state, because a state that is democratic would administer certain laws and its citizens would be obligated to obey them. What about a person who did not vote?
It can be concluded that exit is not a feasible option in response to a government policy as there might be possibility that an individual faces the same problem wherever he goes. India is a democratic country and people have right to choose the government. If something is not going correct in the body which itself is made by the citizens of this country, rather than leaving, people should choose to stay and fight back. This is because every decision made by this government indirectly points towards the decision made by the people at the time of
In cases of unjust laws, by obeying them, the country is put in harm and not in benefit. In Gandhi’s Satyagraha it is stated “An oppressor’s efforts will be put in vain if we refuse to submit to his tyranny,” (page 38). This means to make a change in the law, it is the responsibility of citizens to stand up for the wrong of the country. This act is what giving back to the country means, not, obeying unjust laws. As mentioned before, unjust laws don't seem unjust to everyone, there are some people benefitting from it in the wrong way which is why it is unjust.