Government and politics

Government and politics - Introduction

The political system is one of the subsystem of society and play a sufficient role in our lives.

The term political system refers to obtain a recognized set of procedures for the implementation and the goals of a group.

Every society for the allocation of resources evaluated have a political system in order to maintain approved measures. In political scientist Harold Lasswell, the (1936) terms, policy is who gets what, when and how. Just as religion and family, a political system is a cultural universal; it is found a social institution in any society.

We focus on government and politics in the United States and other industrialized nations and preindustrial societies. In their study of politics and political systems sociologists with social interactions between individuals and groups and their impact on the larger political order. studied For example, in the controversy over the appointment of Judge Robert Bork, sociologists might like want to focus a change in the corporate structure of American society-the increasing importance of the black vote for southern Democratic decision of Howell candidates concerned Heflin and other senators ( and ultimately the result of the Bork confirmation battle). From a sociological point of view, therefore, a fundamental question is: how his day-to-day political and governmental life of a nation influence social conditions

Power

is power in the heart of a political system ?. Power can be defined as the ability to exert its will on others. To put it differently, if one party can control the behavior of others in a relationship, that individual or a group to exercise power. Power relations can large organizations include small groups, or even people in an intimate association. Blood and Wolfe (1960) designed to spread the concept of Family Power to describe the way in the decision making within the family.

There are three basic sources of power within a political system-power, influence and authority. force is to impose threatens actual or use of force its will on others. When leaders imprison or even execute political dissidents, they apply force; so are terrorists, if they take a message or assassinate a political leader. influence , on the other hand refers to the exercise of power through a process of persuasion. A citizen may change its position in relation to a Supreme Court nominee for a newspaper office, the opinion of a legal school dean before the Senate Judiciary Committee, or a rousing speech at a rally of a political activist. In any case, sociologists would see such efforts to convince people as examples influence. authority , the third energy source will be discussed later.

made Max Weber an important distinction between legitimate and illegitimate power. In a political sense the term legitimacy means refers to the "belief in a citizenry that a government has the right to decide and that a citizen should the rules and laws of this government to obey ". Of course, the meaning of the term may be extended beyond the sphere of government. Americans typically accept the power of their parents, teachers and religious leaders as legitimate. In contrast, if the right of a leader is by most citizens (as is often the case when a dictator falls a popularly elected government), the regime is illegitimate not accepted to govern. If the rulers lack legitimacy, they usually resort to coercive methods to gain control of social institutions.

How is distributed political power among members of society?

The political power is not divided equally among all members of society. How extreme is this inequality? Three theoretical perspectives to answer this question in three different ways. First Marxist theories suggest that power is concentrated in the hands of a few who own the means of production. Powerful capitalists manipulate social and cultural arrangements to further increase their wealth and power, often at the expense of the powerless

Second power elite theories agree that the power is concentrated in the hands of a few people. the elite includes military leaders, government officials and businessmen. This group consists of those who occupy the top positions in our organizational hierarchies; they share similar backgrounds and share the same interests and goals. According to this view, any organization (a nation state) has a built-in tendency to become an oligarchy (rule of the few).

Thirdly suggest pluralistic theories that various groups and interests for political competition power. Unlike the Marxist and power elite theorists pluralists see power as many people and groups spread that. Not necessarily agree on what should be done Lobbyists for environmental groups, for example, is struggling with the coal industry lobbyists over antipollution legislation. In this way, the will of the people is translated into political action. Thurow, however, suggesting that too many different views have made it almost impossible for a public policy to come, which is both effective in solving social problems and satisfactorily to various stakeholders.

SPECIES AUTHORITY

The term authority refers to power that has been institutionalized and is recognized by the people over whom it is exercised. Sociologists often use the term in connection with those who hold elected or publicly acknowledged positions legitimate power. It is important to emphasize that a person's authority is limited by the constraints of a particular social position. Thus, a referee has the authority to decide whether a penalty should be called during a football game, but has no authority over the price of tickets for the match.

Max Weber (1947), the. A classification system in terms of authority, which has become one of the most useful and frequently cited contributions of early sociology He identified three ideal types of authority: traditional, right rational, and charismatic . Weber did not insist that certain companies fit into any of these categories. Rather, all may be present in a society, but their relative importance level varies. Sociologists have Weber's typology as a very valuable legitimate for understanding various manifestations of power in a society.

Traditional Authority

In a political system, the traditional on authority [19459005gefunden] , is legitimate power conferred by custom and accepted practice. The orders of their own superiors perceived to be legitimate, because "that's how things have always been done." For example, a king or a queen assumed solely by heir to the throne as the ruler of a nation. The monarch can be loved or hated, competent or destructive; relating to the legitimacy, does not matter, it does not. For the traditional leaders, rests authority in custom, not in personal qualities, technical expertise or even written law.

Traditional authority is absolute in many cases, because the ruler has the option of laws and policies to determine. Since the authority is legitimized by ancient custom, traditional authority is often associated with pre-industrial societies. But this form of authority is also evident in more developed countries. For example, take a leader has on the image of divine guidance, how true of Japan's Emperor Hirohito was who ruled during World War II. to pass to another level, ownership and leadership in some small businesses, such as grocery stores and restaurants, can directly from parent to child and generation to generation.

Legal-Rational Authority

power legitimized by law as legal rational authority known. Employees of such companies get their authority from the written rules and regulations of the political systems. For example, the authority of the President of the United States and the Congress is legitimized by the US Constitution. in companies In general, based on legal-rational authority, leaders are meant to be servants of the people. They are regarded as having divine inspiration, because the heads of certain companies with traditional forms of authority of the United States, as a society, the rule of law values ​​has limits on the power of government defined by law. Power is assigned to positions, not to individuals. So when Ronald Reagan became president early in 1981, he took over the formal powers and duties of the office as defined in the Constitution. As Reagan presidency ended, these powers were transferred to his successor.

When a president acting in the legitimate powers of the office, but not to our taste, we would like to be able to elect a new president. But we are not normally argue that the power of the president is illegitimate. If, however, clearly an official exceed the power of an office, as Richard Nixon by obstructing justice in the investigation of the Watergate break-in, the power of officials may come to be seen as illegitimate. Moreover, as true of Nixon, the person may be forced out of office.

charismatic authority

Weber also observed that power can be legitimized by the charisma of an individual. The term charismatic authority refers to power legitimized by a leader exceptional personal or emotional appeal to his followers. Charisma allows a person, without having to carry on fixed rules or traditions or to inspire. Interestingly, such an authority is more derived from faith faithful than of the actual characteristics of the leader. As long as people perceive have the person as qualities or set them apart from ordinary citizens put him, the authority of the leader will remain safe and often unasked.

Political scientist Ann Ruth Willner (1984) notes that any charismatic leader draws on the values, beliefs and traditions of a particular society. The conspicuous sexual activity of longtime Indonesian President Achmed Sukarno reminded his followers of the gods in Japanese legends and was therefore considered to be a sign of power and heroism. In contrast, Indian celibacy Mahatma Gandhi saw as a demonstration of superhuman self-discipline. Charismatic leaders associate with widely respected cultural and religious heroes. Willner describes how Ayalollah Khomeini Iran in connection with Husein, a Shiile Muslim martyr; and Fidel Castro of Cuba associated with Jesus Christ.

Unlike traditional rulers, charismatic leaders are often well known by breaking with established institutions and advocate dramatic changes in the social structure. The strong hold that these individuals have over their followers, making it easier to build protest movements that challenge the prevailing norms and values ​​of a society in question. So charismatic leader like Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King all used their power for change accepted to push social behavior. But Adolf Hitler, whose charismatic appeal the people turned against violent and destructive ends.

Because it rests on the appeal of a single individual, charismatic authority is necessarily much shorter than traditional or legal rational authority. As a result, trying to charismatic leaders their positions of power to consolidate mechanisms of looking for other legitimation. For example, Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba in 1959 as leader of a popular revolution. But in the decades that followed the seizure of power, Castro stood for election (unopposed) as a means to further his authority to legitimize as leader of Cuba.

If such authority is over the entire life of the charismatic prolong officer may, it has what Weber the called routinization of charismatic authority -the process by which the leadership initially with an individual, which are installed to either a traditional or a legal rational system. So the charismatic authority of Jesus as the leader of the Christian Church was transmitted to the apostle Peter, and then to the various prelates (or popes) of faith. Similarly, the emotional fervor supporting George Washington was routinized in America's constitutional system and the standard of a two-term presidency. Once routinization has taken place, the authority finally evolving into a traditional or legal rational form.

As was noted, Weber used traditional, right rational and charismatic authority as ideal types. In reality, connect special leaders and political systems elements of two or more of these forms. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy swinging power largely through the legal rational basis of authority. At the same time they were unusually charismatic leaders who (lie personal loyalty of the large number of Americans commanded.

categories of State

Every society is a political system with which it is intended. In the modern industrial nations a significant number the critical policy decisions will be made by formal units of government five basic types of government considers : .. monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, totalitarianism and democracy

monarchy

a monarchy is passed a form of government by a member of a royal family, usually a king, a queen or other hereditary rulers. in earlier claimed many monarchs that God had granted them a divine right to rule their country. Typically, they ruled on the basis of traditional forms of authority, even if this sometimes accompanied by the use of force. In the 1980s, monarchs hold genuine governmental power in only a few countries such as Monaco. Most monarchs serve little practical power and particularly for ceremonial purposes.

oligarchy

A oligarchy is a form of government in which rule a few individuals. It is a rather old method of governance that flourished in ancient Greece and Egypt. Today oligarchy often takes the form of military rule. Some of the developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America are ruled by small groups of soldiers who forcibly power either seized by legally elected regimes or other military cliques.

Strictly speaking, the term oligarchy is for governments limited to selective people are executed. But the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China people are classified as oligarchies if we extend the meaning of something. In any case, the power is in the hands of a decision group -the Communist Party. Similarly, relies on conflict theory, it can be argued that many industry "democratic" countries of the West should be considered rightly oligarchies into consideration because only a powerful few dominate actually: leaders of big business, the government and the military. Later, we will examine this "elite model" of the American political system closer.

dictatorship and totalitarianism

A dictatorship a government in which a person has to make almost total power and to enforce laws. Dictators rule primarily through the use of coercion, often including torture and executions. Typically, they take power, rather than (as in a democracy) be chosen freely or to inherit a position of power (how true the monarch). Some dictators are very charismatic and achieve a certain "popularity", although this is almost certainly the support of the population, to be with the fear intertwined. Other dictators are hated by the population via bitterly that govern it with an iron hand.

Often dictatorships develop such overwhelming control over the lives of the people that they are called totalitarian . Monarchies and oligarchies have to achieve the potential of this kind of dominance. Totalitarianism includes an almost complete state control and monitoring of all aspects of social and political life in a society. Bolt Nazi Germany classified as totalitarian states under Hitler and the Soviet Union of the 1980s.

political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski have six bask traits identified, typify the totalitarian states. These include:

1. Large-scale use of ideology . Totalitarian societies offer explanations for every part of life. Social goals, valued behaviors, even enemies are promoted (distorted and usually) in simple terms. For example, the Nazis accused Jews for almost everyone. what is wrong in Germany or other nations. If there was a crop failure due to drought, it was sure to be seen as a Jewish conspiracy.
2. one-party systems. A totalitarian style has only one legal political party that monopolized the offices of government. It penetrates and controls all social institutions and serves as a source of wealth, prestige and power.
3. control of weapons . Totalitarian states also monopolize the use of arms. All military units Art is under the control of the ruling regime.
4. terrorist . Totalitarian states often rely on general intimidation (such as banning unauthorized publications) and individual deterrence (such as torture and execution) to keep under control (Bahry and Silver, 1987). Alexander Solzhenitsyn Gulag Archipelago (1973) describe the Soviet Union detention of political dissidents in psychiatric hospitals, where they are subjected to drug and electroshock treatments.
5. control of the media . There is no "opposition press" in a totalitarian state. The media communicate official interpretations of events and reinforce behavior and by the regime favored policy.
6. The control of the economy . Totalitarian states control key sectors of the economy. You can cancel the private ownership of industry and small businesses. In some cases, the central government production targets for each industrial and agricultural unit. The revolt of the Polish workers' union. Solidarity, in the early 1980s was in part directed against the power over the production quotas of the government, the working conditions and prices.

By such methods, totalitarian governments deny people representation in the political, economic and social decisions that affect their lives. Such governments have pervasive control over human destinies.

democracy

In a literal sense, democracy government is by the people. The word democracy comes from two Greek Roots Demo , "the people" or "the common people" means; and kratia , which means "rule." Of course, in large, populous nations, government by all the people is impractical at the national level. It would be impossible to vote for the more than 246 million Americans on any important issue comes before Congress. Consequently, democracies are bound by a form of participation generally known as representative democracy , in which certain individuals are selected to speak for the people.

The United States is commonly classified as a representative democracy, we elect the members of Congress and state legislatures to handle the task of writing our laws. However, critics have questioned how representative is our democracy. Are truly represents the masses? Is there genuine self-government in the United States, or even competition between the power elites?

Obviously citizens can be represented, not effective if it is not the right be granted to vote. But our nation not enfranchise black men until 1870, and women were not allowed to vote in presidential elections until 1920. Indian citizens were allowed to be only (and thus voting qualification) in 1924 and as late as 1956, some states prevented Indians from in municipal vote if they were living on reservations.

as opposed to monarchies, oligarchies and dictatorships, the democratic form of government implies an opposition which is tolerated or encouraged to exist in fact. In the United States we have two major political parties-the Democrats and Republicans-and several smaller parties. Sociologists use the term political party to an organization whose purpose is to obtain candidate for office to promote an ideology advance as in the positions on political issues resist, win elections and exercise power. Whether a democracy two major political parties (like in the United States) or is connected to a multi-party system (as in France and Israel), they typically emphasize the need for different viewpoints.

Seymour Martin Upset, including sociologists, has attempted to identify the factors that can bring about democratic forms of government help. He argues that a high level of economic development promotes both stability and democracy. Upset come to this conclusion after studying 50 nations and found a high correlation between economic development and certain forms of government.

Why should it be such a link? In a society with a high level of development, the population generally tends urbanized and to be literate and better equipped is to participate in the decision and obtain the views of their members heard. Moreover, as Upset suggests a relatively affluent society, will be relatively free of demands to the government of low-income citizens. Poor people in such nations reasonably mobility strive upwards. Therefore, together with the large middle class typically found in industrial societies, the poorer sections of society have a stake in the economic and political stability.

Upset formulation was attacked by conflict theorists who appear to be critical, tend to the distribution of power within democracies. Because we believe many conflicts theorists later that the United States shall pass through a small economic and political elite. At the same time, they note that the economic stability does not necessarily promote or guarantee political freedoms. Lipset (1972) agree that democracy in practice is far from ideal and that to distinguish between varying degrees of democracy in democratic systems of government. So we can not assume that a high level of economic development or the self-proclaimed label of "democracy" guarantees freedom and adequate political representation.

POLITICAL BEHAVIOR IN THE UNITED STATES

As American citizens, we take for granted many aspects of our political system. We are accustomed to a Bill of Rights, two major political parties, a secret ballot, an elected president, state and local governments differs from the national government, and so on to live in a nation. But, of course, every society has its own rules way of themselves and to make decisions. Just as we democratic and republican candidates competing for public office, the inhabitants of the Soviet Union are accustomed to expect the rule of the Communist Party. In this section we will have a number of important aspects of political behavior within the United States.

Political socialization

examine five functional requirements to be met by a company to have been identified in order to survive. Among these was the need to teach recruits to take the values ​​and customs of the group. In a political sense, this feature is crucial; each successive generation must be encouraged to form a society to accept the basic political values ​​and its particular methods of decision making.

Political socialization is the process acquire political attitudes by the individuals and develop patterns of political behavior. It is not just about the prevailing beliefs of a society to learn, but also the surrounding political system come to accept, despite its limitations and problems. In the United States, people are socialized representative democracy as the best form of government to look at, and such values ​​as freedom, equality, patriotism, and the right to dissent.

The main institutions of political socialization are to appreciate those who socialize us to other cultural norms-including the family, schools and the media. Many observers see the family as a particularly important role in this process. "The family political man broods," said the political scientist Robert Lane. In fact happen parents to their political attitudes and evaluations of their sons and daughters by talking at the table and also by the example of their political involvement or apathy. Early socialization certainly not always a political orientation of a person; there are changes over time and between generations. But research on political socialization continues to show that parents views have an important influence on their children view.

Schools can be influential because they provide young people with information and analysis of the political world in the political socialization. Unlike the family and peer groups, schools are easily susceptible to centralized and unified control; hence totalitarian societies often use educational institutions for the purpose of indoctrination.