POLS 1502 Ch.1.docx

POLS 1502 Ch.1-Politics and the State Intro Political theory, while often perceived as dry, encompasses significant ideas about justice, equality, freedom, power, morality, war, and peace, shaping revolutions and inspiring creativity across civilizations. These concepts not only influence societies...

POLS 1502 Ch.1-Politics and the State Intro Political theory, while often perceived as dry, encompasses significant ideas about justice, equality, freedom, power, morality, war, and peace, shaping revolutions and inspiring creativity across civilizations. These concepts not only influence societies internally but also contribute to global perspectives. Political philosophers continually revisit and reinterpret earlier theories, ensuring that political theory evolves alongside the changing world. In 2019, millions worldwide protested government inaction on global warming, drawing inspiration from centuries of political ideals. In principle, political philosophers ask two kinds of questions about political phenomena: semantic and normative. Though as discussed, empirical observation does have an important role to play in the normative realm. Among the fundamental questions that political theorists ask is what gives a state legitimacy: in other words, why should we obey it? Western political philosophy has faced challenges throughout its history, with some questioning its relevance in the aftermath of the Jewish Holocaust, particularly in Germany, a country considered philosophically sophisticated. Logical positivism further challenged the value of normative analysis. In addition, the 1960s and the onset of decolonization and civil rights movements highlighted the obsolescence and narrowness of dominant Western perspectives that favored white male European viewpoints in history and political thought. Western political philosophy faced further upheaval with protests against the Vietnam War in the mid-1960s and economic crises in the 1970s. At the same time, the decline of logical positivism coincided with the emergence of influential works in political philosophy during the 1970s, notably John Rawls's "A Theory of Justice". In the early 21st century, political theory confronted a new challenge as globalization raised uncertainties about the significance of the sovereign state, challenging the existing political theories centered around it. Scholars have been addressing the impact of globalization, exploring cosmopolitan theories of democracy and justice. Additionally, newer ideas such as environmentalism and multiculturalism reflect the growing interconnectedness of people and nations globally. The Political Importance of the State Defining the state is a complex task, with ongoing debates about its essential components. Max Weber's definition views the sovereign state as the highest authority in a territory, theoretically beyond challenge internally and externally. Originating in 15th and 16th-century Europe, sovereign states replaced feudal societies where aristocracy (emperors, kings, princes, dukes, and so on) and the Roman Catholic Church held authority. Since then, most countries globally adopted this model to gain international recognition and autonomy. Postcolonial state borders, established from the 1940s, often cause problems, and the imposition of settler state systems on Indigenous peoples' governance is seen as frustrating and lacking legitimacy by many. The concept of sovereignty, as applied in constitutional theory, implies state autonomy, but states face challenges both internally and externally, limiting their autonomy. There is a distinction between de jure sovereignty (legal right to absolute control) and de facto sovereignty (actual political power wielded by the government) is crucial. David Held notes that while sovereignty is valuable for legal analysis, it can be misleading as a political idea. For instance, the concept is problematic when discussing a "failed state" like Somalia, unable to perform essential sovereign functions controlling the territory, enforcing the laws, collecting taxes, and so on. Additionally, some modern states were formed with borders created during the era of colonialism. The borders were often drawn without regard to the existing ethnic, cultural, or national identities of the people inhabiting the regions. This lack of alignment between political boundaries and pre-existing social, cultural, or ethnic groups can lead to challenges in the development and stability of these states. A Typology of the State States can be classified based on their level of intervention in society and the economy. At one end of this spectrum is the "night-watchman state," where the government focuses primarily on ensuring external and internal security. In this model, the state plays a limited role in civil society and allows businesses to operate with minimal interference. The night-watchman state, rooted in classical liberal thought, emphasizes the state's duty to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property without intervening in social programs or establishing a welfare state for equal access to education, employment, or healthcare. This concept significantly influenced 19th-century politics in Western settler nations, including Canada and the United States. The night-watchman model, which underscores individual rights to private property, remains popular among libertarians. Libertarians advocate for a minimal state role, expressing criticism towards large state bureaucracies and objecting to the maintenance of expansive military forces, especially for overseas interventions. This viewpoint led many American libertarians to oppose the 2003 invasion of Iraq, asserting that governments should not interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. Libertarians also disapprove of welfare state programs, including universal healthcare, believing that local governments and private enterprises are more efficient providers of essential services. Rooted in an almost utopian belief, libertarianism asserts that individuals can make the best choices for themselves and lead ethical and responsible lives without significant government interference. That said, the ideal of a minimal state has never truly existed, with the closest example being Hong Kong under British colonial rule, where government activity was limited to basic services. Presently, the extent and nature of state intervention in the world vary significantly. The developmental state, situated toward the interventionist side of the spectrum, involves close collaboration between the state and private economic institutions to foster economic development. East Asian countries, particularly Japan (the prime example), South Korea, and Malaysia (considered illiberal democracies), have embraced this approach since 1945. (Reference: Johnson, 1995) Developmental states not only drive economic development but also aim to achieve greater social and economic equality. Critiques of post-1945 Britain, as well as Canadian and American governments during the establishment of welfare state programs in the 50s and 60s, highlight the perceived neglect of the developmental aspect, hindering potential economic growth to support social democratic goals. This concern remains relevant today, particularly with the recent decrease in oil prices. (Reference: Marquand, 1988). States can be classified based on the extent to which political leaders are accountable to the people, distinguishing between liberal democracies, illiberal democracies, and authoritarian regimes (Hague & Harrop, 2007, pp. 7–9). Liberal democracies, exemplified by Canada, the United States, and New Zealand, feature free and fair elections, universal suffrage, personal liberty, and protection of individual rights, though they are not without flaws such as corruption and economic inequality. This happened during Canada’s 2015 federal elections when a strong ABC, or “Anything but Conservative,” movement developed, which eventually put the Liberal Party in power. The fear of a return to Conservative rule was still palpable in the 2019 elections when the Liberals claimed that then–Conservative leader Andrew Scheer was simply a new version of Stephen Harper. The Liberals succeeded in gaining a second term in office although only with a minority government. Despite occasional frustrations and shifts in support for political parties, these democracies generally maintain satisfaction with their effectiveness and accountability. Illiberal democracies, exemplified by countries like Russia and Malaysia, conduct regular elections but provide limited protection for rights and liberties. These states exert control over communication channels, including traditional media and, in some cases, attempt to regulate Internet content. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin orchestrated a constitutional referendum in 2020, potentially extending his rule until 2036. The 2019 Mueller Report revealed substantial Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, primarily through social media manipulation, as confirmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Authoritarian regimes lack fair elections and lack accountability for their political rulers. Approximately one-third of the global population resides under authoritarian regimes, exemplified by countries like China (representing nearly 20% of the world's population) and many Middle Eastern states such as Saudi Arabia. These regimes are characterized by political elites centered around entities like royal families, the military, ruling parties, or individual dictators. However, events in 2011 in Egypt, Libya, and other Arab states demonstrated that even highly repressive governments can be overthrown if there is sufficient popular will. Authoritarian regimes vary in their degree of intervention in economic and social life, with totalitarian states representing the extreme end of extensive intervention. Totalitarian regimes, a phenomenon primarily of the 20th century, such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Stalin, East Germany, China under Mao Zedong, and North Korea under the Kim dynasty, employ brutal state police to control all aspects of life. Unlike liberal states that prioritize civil society and intervene infrequently, totalitarianism involves severe repression of civil society. The rise of totalitarianism is closely linked to modern communication technology, particularly the development of mass media in the early 20th century. This technology facilitated the spread of state propaganda, with radio broadcasts playing a significant role in establishing a personal connection between leaders like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and the public. Additionally, surveillance technologies allowed these states to monitor opposition groups, discourage dissent, and impose harsh penalties for any communication critical of the government (e.g., including conversations, letters, and publications). Theories of the State Another crucial dimension of the state involves power. There are different theories of the state that focus on different accounts of power distribution. The three major theories of the state are pluralism, elitism, and Marxism, plus one that is slightly more peripheral (that of the New Right). Pluralism Until the mid-20th century, political theorists commonly believed that governance was the domain of government and elite decision-makers, entrusting the expertise of experienced and educated individuals to run the country. However, in the 1960s, North American political scientists shifted towards a pluralist theory of the state. This move involved moving away from studying elected elites exclusively and focusing on a broader range of political actors. Classical pluralism, advocated by scholars like Robert Dahl, posits that society is comprised of numerous groups pursuing various activities, competing for political, social, and economic influence. Pluralists consider the existence of competing groups a natural aspect of any complex society, and suppression is seen as the only way to prevent group formation, as seen in the old Soviet system. For pluralists, the state's role is understood in relation to the activities of various groups. In this political pluralism, the state is tasked with regulating and mediating between these groups, each with its own agenda. Some pluralists view the state as a neutral mediator, while others see it as a competing group, contending against other societal groups. The actions of the government are considered outcomes influenced by group pressure. What governments choose to do reflects the power balance among the diverse groups in society. While not all groups or interests are deemed equal, competition ensures that none can become predominant, as they all can voice their concerns in the political process and achieve at least some of their objectives. An interest group is an organization established to advocate for or defend a specific interest or cause. There are two main types of interest groups: sectional groups, which focus on safeguarding the economic interests of their members (e.g., labor unions or business organizations), and cause or promotional groups, which advocate for specific groups of people or ideals (e.g., groups supporting the homeless, environmental protection, or opposing pornography). Some political scientists argue that business organizations often wield more influence on government policy, particularly in crucial economic matters, compared to environmental or other interest groups. Pluralists argue that power in society is decentralized and spread among various interest groups. According to this theory, most interest groups can exert some influence on public policy outcomes. Dahl (1971) defines modern liberal democratic politics as "minorities rule" in pluralist terms, emphasizing polyarchy over democracy. In this view, politics involves the continuous interaction of numerous minority groups, and successful political parties unite these groups into majority coalitions. Essentially, political parties function as umbrella organizations, bringing together diverse groups with varying ideas and interests. The pluralist conclusion that power is decentralized stems from several arguments. Firstly, political influence is not tied to a singular resource; instead, various resources like wealth, organization, public support, economic position, and the capacity to employ sanctions contribute to influence. No single interest group monopolizes any of these resources. Different groups possess distinct strengths and weaknesses. For instance, essential workers like nurses or doctors may lack substantial wealth or widespread public support, but their influence can arise from the critical roles they play in society. Another argument supporting the pluralist perspective is that, even if a group or a small set of groups holds influence in a specific issue domain, the same groups may not wield influence in other areas. For instance, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool historically played a significant role in shaping agricultural policy, especially regarding grain prices. However, it does not exert substantial influence in policy areas such as education or healthcare, affirming the pluralist notion that different groups are significant in diverse policy domains. The third argument in favor of the pluralist perspective is that influential groups in different policy areas are typically countered by opposing influences. For instance, in the economic realm, the sway of business groups is offset by the influence of trade unions, illustrating a constant interplay of competing forces in various policy domains. A Continuum from Pluralism to Elitism The classical pluralist perspective represents one end of a continuum, and there are alternative theories lying between classical pluralism and classical elitism. Elite pluralism, or elitism, emerged in response to challenges to classical pluralism in the late 1950s and early 1960s, notably by critics like C. Wright Mills. Mills, in his 1956 book "The Power Elite," contended that power in American society was concentrated in the hands of a powerful elite dominating the economic, military, and governmental spheres. Recent studies further highlight the close connections between political elites and corporations, with examples such as 72% of the Trump administration's top personnel coming from the corporate sector. This challenges the plausibility of pluralism, revealing that the corporate sector, especially in the United States, enjoys significant access to political power. Further along the continuum between pluralism and elitism lies corporatism, which can be categorized into state and societal varieties. State corporatism traditionally involves a top-down model where the state integrates economic interests, coordinating policies with trade unions and industries to control them and civil society at large. Examples of attempts at state corporatism include Spain, Portugal, and Greece in the early 20th century, as well as Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy. Mussolini, from 1922 to 1939, maintained the facade of broad consultation with labor unions and corporations, but he centralized power in his own hands and only pretended to engage with other sectors of society. CASE STUDY BOX 1.1 Corporatism: Europe versus North America Corporatism, particularly neo-corporatism, has been more prevalent in certain European states and less so in North America. A 1991 study of 18 industrialized countries identified Austria, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands as having the most corporatist political systems, while New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States were considered the least corporatist and closer to the pluralist model. The study highlighted social democracy in government as the most influential variable explaining the presence of corporatism, closely followed by the level of consensus in the political system. The Austrian system of "social partnership" represents a highly corporatist structure, featuring trade unions and employers organized into four institutions. These include a trade union organization (OGB) and three legally mandated "chambers" with compulsory membership. The chambers, which have the authority to review government bills before they reach Parliament, consist of one Chamber of Labour (BAK) and two employer chambers—the Economic Chamber (WKO) and the Chamber of Agriculture (PKLWK). While informal relationships between various actors have traditionally characterized this system, its key attributes include the centralization and hierarchical nature of the peak associations representing labor and business. Until the 1970s, corporatism was praised for its economic success, but since then, it has faced declining popularity. A survey of Scandinavian corporatism, for example, indicates a reduction in both the number of corporatist actors in public bodies and the extent to which governments make decisions based on corporatist-style agreements. Even in Austria, while the corporatist structure remains intact, public support has decreased, opposition from certain organizations has grown, and relations between chambers have become more adversarial. Consequently, the government has gained more autonomy, relying less on peak associations of economic interests. While this form of corporatism, particularly the neo-corporatist model, avoids the negative connotations associated with top-down approaches seen in fascist and authoritarian regimes, it has not escaped criticism. First, some argue that neo-corporatist governments may be excessively influenced by business interests. Even with successful integration of trade unions, neo-corporatism is criticized for being less open and democratic than pluralist systems due to its hierarchical organization and the disproportionate power granted to economic elites. Second, from the perspective of the New Right, it is perceived as restrictive to the market, succumbing to what they view as "unrealistic" demands from unions and social pressure groups. Modern societal corporatism, or neo-corporatism, is characterized by a cooperative relationship between governments, capital owners, and labor representatives, aiming to make decisions collectively for the mutual benefit of all parties. In contrast to problematic pluralist views, neo-corporatism rejects the notion that various groups have an equal chance to be heard. Instead, it assigns a special role to economic elites, asserting that government outcomes result from a tripartite relationship involving elites in government, business, and trade unions. The state sanctions the insider role of economic elites in exchange for their cooperation in gaining support for government policies from their members. The statement means that in the context of neo-corporatism, the government officially approves or supports the involvement of economic elites (such as business leaders and influential figures in the economic sector) in decision-making processes. This approval is granted with the understanding that these economic elites will, in turn, cooperate with the government to ensure the support of their members—typically workers, employees, or those within their economic sphere—for the policies and decisions made by the government. Elitism The elite theory of the state stands in contrast to classical pluralism. While pluralists believe that various groups compete for influence in Western liberal democracies, elite theorists argue that, despite democratic rhetoric, all societies are ultimately governed by a singular, cohesive, and self-aware elite. In visual terms, a diagram of elite pluralism would depict multiple pyramids, symbolizing competing groups, while a diagram of elitism would illustrate a single pyramid with the elite positioned at the top and the masses at the bottom. Elitism is closely associated with a group of scholars, including Robert Michels, Gaetano Mosca, and Vilfredo Pareto, who wrote in Italy around the turn of the 20th century. Their ideas were further developed by later American writers. Contrary to Marx's vision of a future egalitarian society, the original elite theorists asserted that a ruling elite was an inevitable aspect of all complex societies, whether capitalist democracies or communist systems rooted in the working class. They introduced the "iron law of oligarchy," as articulated by Michels, suggesting that in any complex organization, be it political parties or interest groups, there will always emerge a dominant group capable of taking control due to factors such as resources, psychological characteristics, or societal position. Unlike Marxism, this perspective acknowledges that various factors beyond economic ones, such as military, administrative, or religious elements, can contribute to the formation of elites. Later scholarship on elitism came from the United States. Whereas the original Italian version saw elite rule as inevitable (and preferable to Marxist egalitarianism), mid-20th-century thinkers such as James Burnham (1941) and C. Wright Mills (1956) argued that it is illegitimate and should be challenged. Socialism and the State Throughout much of the 20th century, a significant portion of the global population lived under regimes influenced, at least in part, by the ideas of Karl Marx (1818–83). Marxist socialism, which also played a role in shaping social democratic principles, inspired political movements such as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the New Democratic Party in Canada. Socialism is rooted in Marx's ideas, though there are variations that have evolved beyond Marxism, shares with elitism the perspective that every modern capitalist society is controlled by a unified, self-interested ruling group. Despite the existence of elections, both Marxist socialism and elitism argue that the influence of most citizens in such societies is minimal. The passage highlights two key distinctions between elitism and socialism. Firstly, while elitists suggest that the ruling group's power can stem from various sources, socialists, particularly influenced by Marx, assert that in capitalist societies, the dominant group's power is primarily rooted in controlling the means of production. According to Marxist terminology, the ruling class is the bourgeoisie, and the subordinate class is the proletariat or working class. Marx's extensive body of literature is subject to various interpretations, with a predominant view suggesting that achieving working-class emancipation through electoral politics is futile. This perspective contends that true political and economic power resides not in elected governments but in the economic realm. According to this interpretation, those with economic influence also wield political authority. In practical terms, this means that figures like Prime Minister Trudeau are not the ultimate decision-makers; rather, economic elites, such as bankers in Toronto's Bay Street or Wall Street in the United States, hold the real power. Consequently, the path to empowerment for the working class involves confronting and challenging this economic power structure. Socialists historically envision a communist revolution leading to an egalitarian society, dismantling hierarchical power structures. In contrast, elitist theorists contend that complex societies inherently necessitate a hierarchical power system, challenging the feasibility of eliminating it. Elite theorists argue that even in a communist society, patterns of inequality may persist, with changes in leadership and groups, but the fundamental power dynamics could endure. The New Right Theory of the State From the 1970s onward, the New Right advanced an alternative theory of the state, attributing their ideas to liberal free-market advocates. This theory is seen by some as a creative anachronism, as it suggests that early political and economic philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, and Smith were proponents of a modern free market, a notion subject to intellectual skepticism. According to the New Right, the state tends to overextend its activities due to competitive electoral politics. Politicians, in their pursuit of votes, make increasingly generous promises, leading to challenges in fulfilling them once in office. This phenomenon, termed the "economic consequences of democracy" by Brittan (1977), can result in governments facing financial instability as they struggle to fulfill their commitments. According to New Right thinkers, the second force driving the expansion of the state is the inherent interest of the state bureaucracy to grow, as proposed by Niskanen in 1971. In this perspective, bureaucrats have a vested interest in expanding government intervention and promoting a larger state apparatus. To achieve this, bureaucrats establish relationships with interest groups. Both the bureaucrats and these interest groups share a common interest in advocating for governments to provide more benefits, often in the form of financial incentives. Dunleavy and O'Leary (1987) coined the term the "oversupply thesis" to describe this phenomenon, highlighting the collaborative effort between bureaucrats and interest groups to drive the expansion of government and the provision of benefits. The New Right challenges the pluralist theory of the state on two grounds. Firstly, it rejects the idea of state neutrality, asserting that the state pursues its own interests. Secondly, contrary to the pluralist belief in the stabilizing effect of competing interests in a democracy, the New Right argues that it leads to "hyperpluralism," where powerful groups overpower weak governments, potentially causing legislative paralysis (Dearlove & Saunders, 2000). These perspectives gained prominence in Canada, the United States, and the UK in the 1980s, particularly during the Mulroney, Reagan, and Thatcher administrations. Policies implemented during this time included tax cuts, reduction of the welfare state, privatization of state assets, and increased outsourcing of government services to private companies. In Canada, Mulroney established a "privatization secretariat" that sold off state-owned enterprises. The New Right also advocated for freer trade and less restrictive capital flow across borders. Mulroney's government, despite facing controversy, took pride in privatizing state industries and fostering foreign investment in Canada. Subsequent administrations, both Conservative and Liberal, continued to prioritize business interests to boost employment. Notably, the Trudeau government, in 2018, spent billions of taxpayer dollars to acquire the Trans Mountain pipeline. The Trump administration in the United States, seen as an outspoken supporter of New Right principles and policies, surpassed what major Western leaders in the 1980s would have considered prudent. The Empirical Dimension of the State The discussed state theories encompass both empirical and normative dimensions. Prior to delving into the normative aspect, it is essential to assess the empirical validity of each theory in reflecting the reality of a given political system. An empirical evaluation of pluralism, as a theory of the state, suggests that power is distributed among various interest groups in a more equal and fragmented manner than what might be reflected in reality. Evidence suggests that certain interests hold significantly more power than others. Similarly, Empirical analyses raise questions about the assumption of impunity that elitism suggests for its elites and Marxist theories of the state. Questions arise: Are ruling elites entirely unaffected by elected bodies in liberal democracies? Do economic elites consistently dominate politicians? These empirical considerations prompt scrutiny of many of Marx's assertions about the future trajectory of capitalism. Furthermore, post-Marxian Marxists have adapted classical theories to address circumstances divergent from Marx's original envisioning. The distinction between empirical and juridical statehood is emphasized in the work of Jackson and Rosberg. Empirical statehood relates to the actual power a government possesses, specifically its capability to create and implement policies effectively. On the other hand, juridical statehood pertains to the international legal recognition of a state's sovereignty, often facilitated by institutions like the United Nations and the post–World War II international order. The authors highlight that while states may receive external acknowledgment of their sovereignty and their capacity to exert political authority through juridical statehood, this doesn't necessarily mean that, empirically, they possess the ability to wield such power effectively within their own borders. In other words, the on-paper recognition of a state's sovereignty might not fully align with its practical ability to govern and implement policies. This distinction underscores the importance of considering both the legal and practical dimensions when assessing the strength and capabilities of states. The Role of the State: What Should the State Do? We can also assess theories of the state on normative grounds. Here the question is how well they represent how the state should be organized. We will spend some time discussing what constitutes the ideal polity and the good society in Chapters 3 and 4, particularly in the context of the crucial question of political obligation. First, though, we will sketch out some of the major answers to this normative question. Pluralism and Elitism: A Normative Critique Two main normative critiques of pluralism can be identified. Firstly, it is criticized for emphasizing societal differences to the extent that it devalues the concept of a general or public interest. This perspective neglects the possibility of shared interests and values, as well as the potential for human cooperation. Secondly, another critique of pluralism is that it may undermine the potential for politicians to collaborate as teams rather than merely competing against each other, questioning whether competition between political elites is the best outcome within democracy? Some political philosophers argue for an enhancement of opportunities for participation, challenging the notion that elite competition is the best democratic achievement. A normative evaluation of elite theory is that it does not make a value judgment about the desirability of elite rule but asserts that modern societies are inevitably dominated by a ruling elite. This empirical claim is often mistaken as a normative one. That said, this assertion can be argued to be a normative one, justifying that the elite keep society in check; the best should govern without interference from the less capable masses, a perspective echoed in Plato's concept of "philosopher kings." Democratic elitism also argues normatively that elites should govern independently due to concerns about authoritarian values among the masses leading to instability and crisis. However, proponents of this theory are not in ideological opposition to public participation, but rather realistically assess what they consider to be a more effective governance structure. The Liberal Social Contract Tradition The liberal social contract tradition, as articulated by thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and later John Rawls, involves a conceptual exploration of an imaginary state of nature where individuals exist without a government. The underlying idea is to consider what life would be like without the presence of a state to determine what form of government is justified and why. In this hypothetical scenario, social contract theorists suggest that individuals would come together to collectively decide the nature of the political system under which they want to live. The notion of a social contract implies an agreement among individuals to create a government that would protect their rights, maintain order, and serve the common good. This approach is foundational to understanding the role and legitimacy of the state in political philosophy, emphasizing the idea that government authority is derived from the consent of the governed. This approach was later embraced by 20th-century liberal philosopher John Rawls, whose ideas will be further explored. Hobbes and Locke, despite both starting with the concept of a social contract, present contrasting visions of an ideal state, primarily influenced by their views on human nature. Hobbes depicts human nature as self-serving and competitive, famously describing life in the state of nature as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Due to this perspective, he argues for the necessity of a political system to impose order and ensure security against external threats and internal conflicts. Hobbes advocates for rule by an all-powerful sovereign, termed the "Leviathan," emphasizing a secular system where individuals surrender their freedom in exchange for security, not due to divine authority. Locke, writing later than Hobbes, held a less pessimistic view of human nature, and believed in the capacity of individuals to live together harmoniously. Unlike Hobbes, Locke argued that people should only opt for political rule when it safeguards the natural rights they possess in the state of nature. Locke advocated for what became known as negative rights, including the rights to life, liberty, and property. These rights are conceived as protections against state interference, emphasizing the idea that political authority should respect and preserve individual liberties rather than infringing upon them. KEY CONCEPT BOX 1.2 Natural Rights Philosophers often distinguish between natural rights and legal rights. Legal rights are specific to a particular society and time, representing statements of existing laws. In contrast, natural rights are considered inherent to humans regardless of the legal and political system they live under. These rights are thought to derive from natural law, a higher law attributed to nature or God. The concept of natural law played a crucial role in the Nuremberg trials (1945–6), where German Nazi leaders were brought to justice. The Nuremberg trials were exceptional in that they went beyond the narrow legalistic context of national laws. The leaders of Nazi Germany were accused of committing heinous crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, during World War II. While the actions of these leaders may not have violated the laws of Nazi Germany at the time, the international community, in conducting the Nuremberg trials, deemed them accountable for violating higher principles of natural law and morality. Since 1945, modern liberal thinkers have advocated for the recognition of positive rights, which involve entitlements to social goods like free education and healthcare. These rights have been formally acknowledged in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights established in 1948. The concept of positive rights can create conflicts with the negative rights championed by Locke, particularly in cases where the right to own property clashes with positive rights to basic necessities like food and shelter. Critics, such as Canadian political scientist C. B. Macpherson, have criticized Locke for endorsing a possessive individualism that they argue justifies selfishness, greed, and substantial social inequalities. In the context of capitalism, negative rights are often seen as protecting individual freedoms and property rights. In this sense, positive rights are seen as more directly connected to social and economic justice, irrespective of the economic system in place. Later theorists have critiqued the idea of a social contract, asserting that it had strong racial dimensions, suggesting that only European men possessed sufficient intelligence and reason to participate in government. Errol Henderson, in particular, has criticized both Hobbes and Locke for perpetuating a myth of "tropical anarchy." This concept attributes an undesirable nature to non-European peoples in Africa and the Americas, while Europeans are considered to face this situation only hypothetically. Henderson argues that Locke, along with other social contract theorists like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, held overtly racist views toward Africans and Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Consequently, these perspectives reflect an ethnocentric evaluation, where the lack of government is perceived through a biased lens, contributing to a theoretical framework that is criticized for its racial prejudices. Mary Wollstonecraft, an influential political commentator, presented a distinct perspective on social contract theory and democracy, specifically focusing on challenging gender inequality within the framework of government. In her work "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" (1792), she argued that liberty was nearly impossible without equality. Wollstonecraft envisioned a society free from poverty and inherited wealth, enabling everyone, including women, to participate in governing society. She criticized the British aristocracy, condemning their leadership as "voluptuous tyrants" and their followers as "cunning envious dependents." Wollstonecraft asserted that human reason and the ability to engage in political life are skills that need development. The exclusion of women from the public sphere, she argued, was not due to inherent inferiority but because men, who dominated society, denied women the same rights and privileges. Women faced legal inequality, limited formal education, and societal norms that hindered their equal participation. In challenging societal norms, Wollstonecraft attacked what she referred to as the "divine right of husbands," paralleling Hobbes's critique of the "divine right of kings." According to Held (2006), until the twentieth century, few writers explored the relation between public and private spheres and the impact of unequal gender relations on both. Mary Wollstonecraft stands out for her perceptive analysis in this regard. Her radical argument raised important questions about the conditions necessary for the development of a democracy that is open to the participation of both women and men, highlighting the detrimental effects of gender inequality on the quality of life in both public and private domains. Building on Wollstonecraft's critique of social contract theories, J. Ann Tickner noted that figures like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau held assumptions about human nature from a narrow, male-centered perspective. This perspective viewed cooperation and optimism as vices rather than virtues, while considering violence and competitiveness as natural for all humans. Carole Pateman further contributed to this critique with her groundbreaking work, "The Sexual Contract" (1998), providing a gendered analysis not only of liberal and conservative traditions but also of socialist and left-leaning traditions. Both Tickner and Pateman argue that understanding human nature as favoring cooperation and peace could significantly reduce the rights individuals might be willing to relinquish to a powerful state. KEY QUOTE BOX 1.4 State of Nature or State of Man? J. Ann Tickner on How Women Can Change Perceptions and Bring Peace The passage suggests an alternative perspective on the behavior of individuals in the state of nature, using a true story from early nineteenth-century America. During the 1804–1806 Lewis and Clark expedition into the northwest territories, Sacajawea, a member of the Shoshone tribe, was present in the first winter encampment. Sacajawea, married to a French interpreter, played a crucial role in ensuring the security of the expedition members tasked with exploring uncharted territory and establishing contact with native inhabitants to inform them of U.S. territorial claims. Her unexpected presence had an unforeseen benefit: it reassured the native inhabitants that the expedition was peaceful, as war parties were not expected to include women. Consequently, the expedition was perceived as non-threatening, contributing to its safety as it explored unfamiliar territories without the need for weapons. The story of Sacajawea illustrates how the introduction of women can alter assumptions about human behavior in the state of nature. Like how Sacajawea's presence changed Native Americans' expectations regarding the behavior of intruders into their territory, the inclusion of women in state-of-nature myths could reshape perceptions of the behavior of states in the international system. The use of the Hobbesian analogy in international relations theory often relies on a narrow view of human nature, stereotypically characterized as masculine and conflict prone. The passage suggests that a more inclusive perspective on human nature recognizes both conflict and cooperation, incorporating elements of social reproduction, interdependence, domination, and separation. A feminist perspective, drawing from this comprehensive view, assumes the potential for international community and challenges the notion that the international system is inherently atomistic and conflictual. It contends that an exclusively conflict-oriented view is only a partial representation of the complex reality of human nature and international relations (Tickner, 1992). The Night-Watchman State The New Right often refers to the philosophies of Locke and Hobbes to justify unrestricted aspects of the free market. They revive the classical liberal tradition, emphasizing minimal state interference for maximizing individual freedom. Classical liberals historically advocated for a limited state until the late 19th century. Political figures like Mulroney, Thatcher, and Reagan popularized these ideas, while academic support came from figures like Hayek, Friedman, and Nozick. The Fraser Institute in Calgary, aligning with New Right principles, influenced policies in Alberta and Ontario during the 1990s and impacted conservative governments in Canada, such as those of Stephen Harper in Ottawa and Jason Kenney in Alberta elected in 2019. The New Right criticized post-1945 state interventionism in liberal democracies, targeting welfare programs, market regulation, and demand management influenced by John Maynard Keynes. They argued that state intervention stifled self-reliance, individual initiative, and entrepreneurship, and was inefficient in supporting unprofitable businesses and bureaucracies. Despite these principles, New Right leaders, like Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney, resorted to Keynesian-style stimulus measures during economic crises, contradicting their theoretical stance on limited state intervention. For example, Harper used such policies after the 2008 financial crisis, and Kenney did the same in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic when oil prices collapsed. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism, associated with Jeremy Bentham, is a strand of liberal thought that judges the legitimacy of a government based on its promotion of the greatest happiness, or the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Bentham linked happiness with pleasure, asserting that accountable rulers striving for the overall happiness of the populace validate a government. This idea forms the basis of the utilitarian theory of democracy. Utilitarianism's advantage lies in its focus on collective goals, aligning with the welfare state. However, it has been criticized for potentially disregarding the human rights of minorities in favor of majority interests, particularly in the classical version associated with Bentham. Since utilitarianism focuses on maximizing overall happiness or pleasure and often operates on the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number, this approach could lead to decisions or policies that prioritize the happiness of the majority at the expense of the rights or happiness of minority individuals or groups. Critics argue that this aspect of utilitarianism raises ethical concerns, particularly regarding the protection of individual rights and the potential for the majority to override the interests of the minority. Liberalism and Communitarianism The classical liberal theory of the state, closely tied to pluralism, asserts that the state should adopt a neutral stance in discussions about different visions of the good. In this view, a liberal society's role is to serve individuals by respecting their autonomy and refraining from interfering with their rights, if their actions do not harm others. This harm principle, attributed to John Stuart Mill, is fundamental to liberal values of freedom and tolerance. John Rawls, in his later work, particularly in "Political Liberalism" (1993), also emphasizes this principle as a central theme. Historically, liberalism's primary ideological opposition emerged from the left, notably from Marxism. However, in more recent times, liberal theory has faced challenges from a perspective known as communitarianism. Communitarianism, as a broad range of views, generally advocates for the state to actively contribute to fostering a shared set of values within society. This stands in contrast to liberal ideals that emphasize the state's role in allowing the coexistence of multiple belief systems. KEY CONCEPT BOX 1.5 Communitarianism Since the 1970s, communitarianism has offered a potent ideological challenge to liberalism. The essence of the approach is an attack on the asocial individualism of liberalism. This attack is both methodological and normative (Avineri & de-Shalit, 1992, p. 2). In terms of methodology, communitarians argue that the most effective way to understand human behavior is by considering the individual's social, historical, and cultural surroundings. They contend that people's understanding of themselves and how they should live their lives is significantly influenced by the type of society in which they reside. Thus, communitarians argue that liberalism, particularly in its emphasis on individualism and individual rights, often tends to isolate individuals from their societal context. Communitarians also critique liberalism on both normative and descriptive grounds. Some agree with liberalism to some extent, believing liberal theory accurately mirrors liberal society and should undergo transformation, while others contend that it misrepresents modern societies, where social ties play a more crucial role in shaping individuals' beliefs than liberalism acknowledges. Normatively, communitarians stress the significance of communal existence and advocate for the state to foster a shared vision of good, a tradition traceable back to Aristotle according to thinkers like MacIntyre (1985). The Future of the State Scholars are questioning the concept of the state, challenging both its usefulness and existence. The debate involves empirical arguments, indicating that factors like globalization are diminishing the state's relevance. On a normative level, some argue that the state is an exploitative institution that should be eliminated. Is the State Being “Hollowed Out”? The "hollowing out" thesis, proposed by Jessop in 1990, suggests that the state has diminished in significance. In the globalized era, economic and political interdependence has limited states' maneuverability, giving more power to entities like currency speculators. This theory implies a considerable gap between modern political reality and traditional political theory, which focuses on sovereign nation-states, as well as the realist tradition in international relations that emphasizes autonomous and competing sovereign states. Globalization poses challenges to both assumptions. Currently, we consider it from two perspectives: empirical and normative. Empirically, globalization is primarily driven by the internationalization of the economy. The rise of multinational corporations, comparable in power to states, and the liberalization of world trade have shifted the determination of economic policies away from individual states. This has led to the emergence of supranational institutions challenging the authority of states, facilitated by increased economic interdependence, advanced communication technologies, and global environmental issues. Critics argue that realists, who emphasize the primary role of sovereign states in the international system, are outdated. They assert that the contemporary era resembles a new medievalism, where sovereignty is shared among interacting societies. State borders are no longer rigid but porous, and governments compete with various transnational and international entities like the United Nations, multinational corporations, and non-governmental organizations such as Greenpeace and Human Rights Watch. Companies like Amazon, with significant economic influence, exert outsized impact on both domestic and global politics. Proponents of this form of globalization view the liberalization of world markets as a positive force, fostering greater prosperity. They argue that global environmental challenges, terrorism, and pandemics necessitate global solutions beyond the capacity of individual states. Additionally, globalization aligns with cosmopolitan ideals, emphasizing peace, tolerance, and justice on a global scale, promoting a sense of allegiance to humanity rather than a specific nation. Conversely, critics argue that the nation-state is not an obstacle to cosmopolitanism and contend that an unregulated market system exacerbates global inequality and exploitation, particularly in developing countries. List of Key Terms Authoritarian: a political system where power is centralized in a leader or a small group, who are not constitutionally accountable to the citizens. These regimes lack fair elections, suppress political freedoms and civil liberties, and can vary in their degree of economic and social intervention. Examples include China, Saudi Arabia, and historically, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union under Stalin. Despite their repressive nature, they can be overthrown with sufficient popular will. Bourgeoisie-A term associated with Marxist analysis, referring to the merchant or propertied class that possesses essential economic power and therefore has control over the working class or proletariat. Communitarianism-A school of thought that emphasizes the individual’s particular community as the source of his or her identity, rights, and duties; often contrasted with cosmopolitanism. Corporatism-Traditionally, corporatism has referred to a top-down model (for example, fascism) in which the state incorporates economic interests to control them and civil society in general. Modern corporatism refers to a more recent model in which governments incorporate key economic interests—notably trade unions and business groups—into the decision-making process. Cosmopolitanism-The idea that humans ought to be regarded as a single moral community to which universal principles apply, irrespective of national boundaries. Developmental state-A state that gives priority to rapid economic development and uses carrots and sticks to induce private economic institutions to comply; Japan is a classic example. Elitism-In a normative sense, the rule of the most able; in an empirical sense, rule by a group that is beyond popular control. Globalization-a complex phenomenon in the 21st century challenging traditional political theories. It involves heightened economic, political, and cultural interdependence among nations, diminishing the significance of the sovereign state. Empirically, it is driven by the internationalization of the economy, with powerful multinational corporations and liberalized trade shifting economic policy influence away from individual states. Normatively, it is viewed positively by proponents as fostering global prosperity and addressing challenges like environmental issues, terrorism, and pandemics. However, critics argue that unregulated global markets exacerbate inequality, particularly in developing countries, challenging the optimistic narrative of globalization. Human nature-A general term for innate and immutable human characteristics. Thomas Hobbes believed that the competitive and self-serving nature of humans necessitated an all-powerful state, while Karl Marx suggested that human character was shaped by the social and economic structure of society. Illiberal Democracy- A state that holds elections but offers limited rights and liberties protection. This form of government controls communication channels, including traditional media and, in some instances, attempts to regulate online content. Examples include Russia, Malaysia, and South Korea. Interdependence-In international relations, the (primarily liberal) notion that states are increasingly interconnected through a web of relations, especially in the economic field, and that this makes warfare less desirable as a foreign policy strategy. The concept of complex interdependence simply introduces more variables into the equation, deepening the complexity of interdependence and strengthening the case for a more pluralistic approach to international relations than neorealist thought allows for. Interest group-Groups within civil society that seek to press specific interests on governments (also known as pressure groups). Natural Law-Law conceived as both universal and eternal, always applying to all people in all places because it derives from either “nature” or God (as opposed to local laws created within specific communities). Natural Rights-Rights that all humans are said to possess, irrespective of the legal and political systems under which they live. New Medievalism-A system of governance recalling Europe in the Middle Ages in which an overlapping array of local, national, and supranational institutions compete for authority. Night-Watchman State-A model in which the state concentrates on ensuring security (external and internal), playing little role in civil society, and allowing the economic market to operate relatively unhindered. Pluralism-Originated as a normative argument against monism or sameness. In political theory, it is usually associated with a theory of the state according to which political power is diffuse, all organized groups having some influence on state outputs. In international relations, it is associated both with the English School and with neoliberal theory, highlighting the multiplicity, or plurality, of forces at work in the international system. Polyarchy-A term coined by Robert Dahl to refer to a society in which government outcomes are the product of competition between groups. The rule of minorities, not majorities, is postulated as the normal condition of pluralist democracies. Proletariat-In Marxist terminology, the proletariat are the working class who create products and services. These are the people that the bourgeoisie extract surplus funds through. Social Contract-The idea that individuals in the state of nature (that is, society before any form of government has been established) have voluntarily agreed to accept certain limits on their freedom in return for the benefits that government will provide; a device used by several political thinkers to justify a particular form of state. Social democracy-Originally a movement for a peaceful, non-revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism, after the Russian Revolution in 1917 it came to be associated with liberal democracies that adopted redistributive policies and created a welfare state. State of Nature-A hypothetical vision of how people lived before the institution of civil government and society, a concept with a long history in political and social thought. There are different versions of the state of nature, some thinkers emphasizing its dangers and others seeing it in a more positive light. Utilitarianism-The ethical theory that the behaviour of individuals and governments should be judged by the degree to which their actions maximize pleasure or happiness. Welfare state-A political system in which the government takes responsibility for the basic physical and economic well-being of the people.