The anecdote belongs to general documents or practices firmly grounded in the historical travel narratives, penal documents, historical testimonies, confessional narratives. It enables the critic to discover in minute pieces of text the larger structures and operations of power, and to show how power extends its operations from minute anecdotes to the more complex texts embedded in a particular society or culture (1998, 133-134). Catherine Gallagher and Stephen Greenblatt proclaim
Deleuze (1992) has described this shift as a transition from disciplinary societies to ‘societies of control’. Irrespective of the specific form of government that has emerged observers of neoliberalism and theorists of governmentality have however tended to overlook a critical feature of contemporary state practice. This characteristic is the retention by the state of a very strong, indeed dominant, capacity to determine not only the mode of government that is to be deployed but the discursive basis for that deployment. Indeed the state remains the primary site for the articulation of governmental discourse, irrespective of its other activities. The production, articulation and implementation of housing policy, for example, continues to be the domain of the state, irrespective of whether the policy specifies a social or a market mode of action.
Federalists and Anti-Federalists both have an arguable amount of supporters. I am in favor of the Anti-Federalist point of view. The Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution granted too much power to the federal courts, at the expense of the state and local courts. They argued that the federal courts would be too far away to provide justice to the average citizen. In addition the Constitution allows the government too much power,does not provide for a republican government, and it also does not include a Bill of Rights, which is vital.
135). It is important to stress here the difference between political theory and ideology, even if they may overlap and relate to each other. Political theory uses specialist language and is aimed to provide a toolbox to explain or model politics, whereas ideologies are constructed to generate popular appeal and are more concerned with the impact of political ideas (Smith, 2005, pp. 123, 142). Political theory has been and is still the object of profound debates – a contemporary work, for instance, is John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice, in which Rawls develops a variant of the social contract theory and criticises utilitarians for risking the happiness of the few for an increase in happiness of the many (Middleton, 2005, pp.
In this small paper I am going to focus on the two crucial contributions of John Rawls to the field of political philosophy, namely, his theories of justice and political liberalism, as those were presented in Justice as Fairness (later restatement of his fundamental Theory of Justice) and Political Liberalism. I will start with several major assumptions that guide Rawls ' thinking and should, in my opinion, guide any scrutiny of his ideas. First of all, he attempts to develop a political conception, that is, a framework for dealing not with all of the issues concerning a given society, but with essentially political affairs. Although he does not provide a theory of the political as such (in a sense of Schmitt), it is possible to see to what essentials he reduces a political realm. Second, society at stake in Rawls ' theories is indeed 'given '.
Following the theory of separation of powers, organs of a modern government legislature, executive and judiciary are entrusted with three different functions viz. policy making, policy implementation and policy adjudication respectively. One question that arises before the judiciary after every judgement is to whether to put any new guidelines and norms for the executive and legislature for further protection and up to what extend. When judiciary lays down the guidelines, they move a step closer in getting involved in the public administration. It has over the period of time changed from a mere spectator to a proactive player.
Some believe that the separation of powers is essential for the rule of law and others that a pure separation would be inefficient. E.G Henderson[ Foundations of English Administrative Law: Certiorari and Mandamus in the Seventeenth Century ( Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 1962), p. 5] wrote that the separation of this threefold division is a necessary condition for the rule of law in modern society and therefore for democratic government itself. Berent[ An Introduction to Constitutional Law ( Oxford: Oxford Uniiversity Press, 1998), p. 129], shared Hamilton's view and stressed upon the fact that although the judiciary is weak and do not enjoy wide legislative powers, there is no liberty if it is not separated from the other two branches. Barber[ Prelude to the separation of powers (2001) 60(1) Cambridge Law Journal 59,59-64] on the other hand, stated that partial separation would be more efficient due to checks and balances within the constitution. No institution has absolute power.
Cosmopolitanism as an idea is as broad and at times dangerously as vague as the term identity. Therefore, it is essential to deconstruct it into one focused teleological approach in order to understand the manner in which this desired approach can be applied to an understanding of identity construction and identity clashes within and between the EU and its ‘new’ member states, respectively. With regards to this desired approach, this will be an interpretation of Immanuel Kant’s conception of cosmopolitanism. In an edited version of Kant’s seminal publication “Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History”, Allen W. Wood (2006;261) highlights that the central premise underpinning the term cosmopolitanism is that human
It is the purpose of this essay to first to consider the nature and importance of the doctrine and then go on to consider the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom to see whether the doctrine of Separation of Power exist there. Nature and Importance The doctrine dictates that the powers of the state should not be concentrated in one person or body. It should be separated in order that there be adequate check and balance between the institutions of government. The three institutions of the state that the power are separated into in most modern democracies are the legislature (Parliament), the executive (the government and the civil service) and the Judiciary (the courts). The doctrine advocates a separation of powers, functions and personnel between the three institutions.
All the magnifient powers of the modern world rule on the principle ofsupremacy. Sovereign power may be bestowedon an individual as in an autocratic government or it may be bestowon a group as in a constitutional government. Constitutions are written credentials that identify and limit the powers of the different branches of government. The unwritten constitution is persistently being written by the law making branch of government; this is just one of those cases in which the nature of the situations dictates the form of government that is most effective (Amah,