The first fundamental step in political development is the movement from total lawlessness, or anarchy, to some kind of centralized law and order. The politically developed nations have of course long accepted the concept of a central authority or government, and the Rule of Law which sets restraints upon the scope of people's actions; but this nevertheless remains as the foundation of government and of a nation's compact with its government. When power, that is the ability to physically influence the behavior of others, is centralized, the rule of law is thus imposed. Instead of individuals arguing and settling their differences in a continuing series of battles based on personal power, the authority to establish decisions on social conduct
Interestingly, Ferguson (2011, p. 75) describes Frederick the Great as a ruler opposed to the Machiavellian preference for the balancing of power and being instead a ruler in favor of preventive wars. His discussion significantly points to two different types of realism introduced in the class lectures – Classical Realism and Structural Realism (Neorealism). On one hand, Nicolo Machivelli is among thinkers recognized as major writers and contributors to the school of classical realism. Central to the classical realist school are Machivelli’s key concepts of state national interest and political power; he emphasizes that a good politician must take decisions that are merely in the national interest of his state, and at the same time ensure his state’s security and survival. According to Machivelli, a good politician is thus a ruler in search of power and in favor of preventive wars.
Weber defines a state as a “relationship of rule by human beings over human beings, which rests on the legitimate use of violence” (Weber, Lassman, & Speirs, 1994:311). This means that a state can exist only if the people submit to their leader at any given time. In Weber’s view inner validations, such as people’s belief in the existence of a legitimacy of a particular system or ideology, are the focal points for compliance and provide a reliable foundation for authority. According to Lane (1984:207), “Political power is considered legitimate when it is exercised both with a consciousness on the part of the elite that it has a right to govern and with recognition by the ruled of that
Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault produced extraordinary where they explored issues and models for the reproduction of power. Though both these philosophers do not actually agree on how power and state operates they do come up with incredible arguments that are valid within our current society. Michel Foucault believes that the law within any society operates mostly at the supernatural level, thus he believes power lies within individual, unlike Althusser who believes that the state and its ideology has total control of its citizen due to its major branches. Althusser developed the most essential points of his analysis in his famous essay “ideology and the State’s Ideological Apparatus”. Althusser states that “the State is explicitly conceived as a repressive apparatus.
The traditional argument deriving from Aristotle divided it into monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Accordingly, one of Montesquieu’s aims is to make an emphasis on the sharp distinction between monarchy and despotism, contrary to the traditional argument. They are different, according to him, in that despotism is “one alone, without law and without rule, draws everything along by his will and his caprices” , on the other hand monarchy is “that in which one alone governs, but by fixed and established laws”. In a despotic government, “most peoples are subjected” , and “[i]n order to form a moderate government, one must combine powers, regulate them, temper them, make them act”. On the other hand, in despotic states, “there are scarcely any civil laws concerning the ownership of lands” and “there are no laws concerning inheritance.” In a nutshell, despotism is the worst form of government for him, as there is by no means a law.
Not only do the principles of Idealism assert that the state and people should be considered actors, in fact, both they must be viewed as actors. Actors have interests; while realists such as Machiavelli insist the state is the only unit of analysis necessary in international politics, idealists argue that just as states have interests, people in government have interests as well. Therefore, Realism and Idealism begin their assessment of actors from two different perspectives, however, both schools of thought go on to identify many characteristics of actors which are largely similar. For both realists and idealists, actors are autonomous; they exist independently and retain sovereign rights over material and non-material resources. In both Realism and Idealism actors are said to possess prioritized interests and preferences.
But with all societies, there is something that always seems to be universal… societal structures. Some run off of monarchs others focus more on a dictatorship and then there is what the United States stands for, a democracy. Though it might seem like these societal standards are based on a consensus but they in the long run actually are not. These social structures are built off of control, manipulation, and deception. As a result, they are the reason as to how what and why people view when it comes to mass media or propaganda heard.
Furthermore, would creating one authoritarian organisation enable democracy or rather destroy it? Would reducing the political actors be a democratization practice after all? We can see where the argument of not desirability enters along with non-feasibility. Last but not least as Archibugi (1998) reasons in the book ‘Re-Imagining Political Community: Studies In Cosmopolitan Democracy’ “there is no actual guarantee that the greater coordination in world politics will be informed by the values of
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS- WHY DO WE NEED IT ? The Separation of Powers has been a key feature of our Democratic system. History has time and again shown us that unlimited power in the hands of one person or one group in most cases means that others are suppressed or their powers have been curtailed. The separation of powers in a democracy is to prevent the abuse of power and to safeguard the freedom of all. The doctrine of separation of powers had envisaged a tripartite system of government.
This model presupposes an important distinction between politics and the political. Politics is referred to the ensemble of practices, discourses and institutions which seek to establish the sphere what every people can live side by side although they are in conflictual positions against themselves. The political, on the other hand, is referred to the dimension of antagonism that lies under people’s relations (it can take different types). So under the Mouffe’s democracy, politics’ main aim is to conceive others not as enemy but adversaries. She calls this transformation “antagonism to agonism”.