Basis Of Political Authority Research Articles

Identity and War

AbstractThis article makes two arguments. First, sectarian identity (ethnic, tribal or religious) is an outcome of war rather than a cause of war, even though such identities make (selective) use of memory. The implication of this proposition is that war should be interpreted less as an external contest of will between two sides but rather as a one‐sided and/or parallel effort to construct unidimensional political identities as a basis for power. Power derived from identity so constructed is likely to be authoritarian and repressive. Second, different methods of communication provide the basis for different modalities of power and this matters; power diffuses through all forms of communication. But the language of violence is much less amenable to freedom and human emancipation than other nonviolent forms of communication. The arguments are elaborated through a critique of the work of the German legal theorist Carl Schmitt and his notion of the friend–enemy distinction as a basis of political authority. The article concludes by arguing that in a global era, when traditional inter‐state war is declining, there are greater possibilities for multiple identities and a layering of political authority, even though there are also efforts to resurrect the friend–enemy distinction in many ‘new wars’ and, above all, in the war on terror.

Natural Law in Jurisprudence and Politics

The central text of contemporary natural law theory remains John Finnis's Natural Law and Natural Rights. In that respect, it is a field in need of reinvigoration. The comparison with legal positivism, natural law theory's modern counterpoint, is instructive. Although the paradigmatic positivist text is still H. L. A. Hart's The Concept of Law, Hart's theory has largely been superseded in current debates within positivism, most notably by the (arguably more philosophically sophisticated) writings of his erstwhile student, Joseph Raz. The current vibrancy of the positivist tradition owes much to this changing of the guard.Mark Murphy's recent book, Natural Law in Jurisprudence and Politics, provides perhaps the best hope yet for a similar development within natural law theory. Murphy's writing is clear, elegant and precise; in fewer than 200 pages, he covers the central questions confronting the natural law view, including the definition of law, the nature of the common good, the basis of political authority and the legitimacy of legal punishment. On each of these points Murphy clearly frames and contextualizes his position, systematically considers leading alternatives and carefully explains his positive argument. He is honest and clear-headed about shortcomings in and challenges to his theory, acknowledging openly where there is further work to be done.The book is rigorous and sophisticated without being overly technical; it represents the best in philosophical style. There is a great deal of interest here for specialists (for whom the work is primarily intended); however, the text would not be out of place as the basis for an advanced undergraduate course in the area, such is its clarity and breadth of coverage. Murphy's natural law view combines philosophical resourcefulness with a strong adherence to the core elements of the tradition. He draws significantly on key classical (Aristotle, Aquinas) and contemporary (Finnis) theorists; but his argument also exhibits considerable innovation — he departs significantly from all the above figures on key points.An overview of Murphy's natural law theory is provided in the following section 2. As I have indicated, there is much to admire in Murphy's argument; my main aim in this article, however, is to focus on my points of disagreement. These fall into three main areas: Murphy's rejection of Finnis's hermeneutic strategy for defining law (section 3); his views on the claims of law and the foundations of political authority (section 4); and his (qualified) defence of the common good principle against the challenge from the super-political (section 5). By considering these points, I hope to illustrate what Murphy's work has to offer as a focal point for future debates in natural law theory — as well as venturing my own modest contribution.

Who Governs? Who Should Govern?: Political Authority and Legitimacy in Canada in the Twenty-First Century

This article examines the contemporary basis of legitimate governance in Canada by identifying and documenting four different bases of political authority: state-centred, market-based, expert and popular authority. The co-existence of these competing bases of authority, traced to cultural shifts and developments associated with globalization, creates conflicting domestic and international norms of procedural and substantive legitimacy. The article argues that effective and legitimate governing in Canada requires greater incorporation of elements of popular authority, and reform, not abandonment, of state-centred authority.

Environment, Wealth, and Authority: Global Climate Change and Emerging Modes of Legitimation

A central feature of modernity is that state authority has been conceived as resting on the consent of the governed, which in turn depends upon governments' ability to promote economic prosperity. The performance criteria upon which political authority has been judged in large part are positively correlated with the exponential growth in the use of fossil fuels. An international scientific consensus has emerged: the burning of fossil fuels will cause global climate change sometime in this century. This suggests that the authority of science presents a challenge to a key source of the state's political authority: its role as guarantor of wealth production. Moreover, since the real impact of global climate change will not be felt for several decades, the notion of intergenerational responsibility is implicit in contemporary efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Given that the liberal notion of political authority entails consent of currently living self-interested citizens, efforts to promote intergenerational responsibility suggest that the basis of political authority is being revised by efforts to cope with global environmental degradation.

The Basis of Political Authority

Fear and deference, and very little else, are the basis of political authority everywhere, in democracies and despotisms alike. The symbol of the first is the sword, and its actual instrument armed men. The symbol of the second is the clerical gown, and its actual instrument a priestly class or, more common now, a judicial class retaining the trappings of a priesthood. In some states fear is the main pillar, and officially armed persons are constantly in evidence. In others deference constitutes the larger foundation, and in these the police are less conspicuous but always known to be there. In some states both deference and fear are evoked to the maximum by a real and awesome priesthood having immediate control of the police and its firing squads, sometimes with earth-shaking results. How a people actually fares under this or that political authority de pends very much on which of these two foundations is relied upon more, and very little on how, for example, its public officials are chosen. Fear is negative and galling, while deference is positive and sometimes exhilarating. Hence people at least feel more free when they bow than when cowed, and may then even speak of governing themselves. Both fear and deference appear natural to human beings. Fear, produced by threat, is of course universal, and deference, typically elicited by persons presented as awesome, is hardly less so. It is expressed by bowing, saluting and yielding. Thus a Pope or an Ayatollah or a Grand Lama attracts a vast throng, including numbers of the faithless, even though he offers them no more than gestures and nods. People have at all times invented religions, in order to have gods to bow to, and such exalted persons, having the visible trappings of religion, fulfill this same deep and universal need. Fear and deference were originally the foundation for the existence of political states, as well as for their authority. Thus a people's bodies and pos sessions were won by the sword, and their minds conquered by the charisma of some holy man. Today states sometimes arise from more rational foundations?from the promulgation of charters, for instance?and public officials are likewise put in place by more orderly means?by election, for ex ample. But once there, the political authority, to be effective, must rest upon fear and deference.

What is the Basis of Political Authority?

Consent Theory, as A. J. Simmons notes, provides a more intuitively ap pealing answer to this question than any other tradition in modern political theory.1 Yet it is an answer rejected by most contemporary theorists. I believe this is partly so because they have made few attempts to give a clear and ex plicit interpretation of the question entitling this paper (The below). They have, therefore, not appreciated sufficiently that there is an in terpretation of The Question which adequate nonanarchist political theories must ask and to which the most plausible answer, within liberal theory, is consent.

News of the Profession

Throughout the year I96I the Philippine nation celebrated the centenary of the birth of its national hero and patriot, Jose Rizal. In charge of the year long celebration was the Jose Rizal National Centennial Commission, created by the executive order of the late President Ramon Magsaysay. The multifarious functions and duties of the Centennial Commission aimed at focusing the attention of other nations, as well as the Philippines, on the life, accomplishments, ideas and ideals of the national hero who is fondly referred to by Filipinos as the "pride of the Malay race." Among the major objectives of the centennial year were the promotion of commemorative celebrations throughout the Philippines, the construction of a grand monument in honor of Rizal and the improvement of the existing Rizal monument in the Luneta park in Manila, the issuance of centenary commemorative medals to persons who have contributed to the understanding and propagation of the teachings of Rizal, the encouragement of Rizaliana collections in all schools and in public and private libraries, and the holding of an International Congress on Rizal in Manila in December I96I, to which foreigners known for their interest in Rizal and his works were invited as official guests of the Republic of the Philippines. The International Congress, to quote the Centennial Commission, was assembled to "give the definitive measure of Rizal's contribution by his life, his martyrdom and his ideas to the national heritage, and to relate all this to the experience of other peoples in their struggles for political, economic and social freedom."' The most arduous and comprehensive task of the Centennial Commission was the preparation and publication of the complete works of Rizal in three languages-English, the original Spanish, and Tagalog, the Philippine national language. It is hoped that in subsequent years the Commission will be able to undertake the translation and publication of Rizal's complete works in seven additional Filipino dialects, namely Ilocano, Pampango, Hiligaynon, Pangasinan, Bicol, Samar-Leyte, and Cebuano. In fact, Rizal's principal works have already been translated into these dialects. Pending their publication by the Centennial Commission, they have been serialized in such national vernacular weeklies as Bisaya, Hiligaynon, and Bannawag. Rizal well merits the attention of students of Asian history and ideas. Sun Yat-sen and Mahatma Gandhi are known throughout the world, not only to scholars but to laymen. But quite a few years before either of them had begun his career of writing and political action, Jose Rizal, through his political novels, essays and letters, was expounding the social and political ideas of Western liberalism-the inviolability of human rights, the essential equality of all men and races, the popular basis of political authority, and the advantages of constitutional government. Thus he prepared the ground ideologically not only for the revolt against the Spanish which followed his death, Dr. )Marguerite J. Fisher, one of the official guests of the Philippine government at the International Congress on Rizal, is associate professor of political science in the Maxwell Graduate School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. Dr. Luis Montilla, former director of the National Library of the Philippines, is chairman of the Philippine Historical Commission and Executive Director of the Rizal National Centennial Commission. 1 Bulletin of Information on the International Congress on Rizal. Manila, Jose Rizal National Centennial Commission, p. 6.

Substantive Social Contracts and the Legitimate Basis of Political Authority

Substantive Social Contracts and the Legitimate Basis of Political Authority

Culture and Political Development: Herder's Suggestive Insights

When in the early thirties Harold Lasswell declared that “political symbols and practices are so intimately intertwined with the larger array of symbols and practices in culture that it is necessary to extend the scope of political investigation to include the fundamental features of the culture setting”, he was very much a voice in the wilderness. Today Lasswell's words have almost become commonplace in the vocabulary of political science. In this, as in many other current concerns, Lasswell's early work has rightly been judged seminal. It substantially contributed towards the prolific expansion of the academic boundaries of political enquiry within the last three decades, in particular to the growth of interest in psychological and sociological approaches. Increasingly students of political behavior in both ‘established’ and ‘emergent’ nations have come to realize that purely formal and legalistic conceptual frameworks are inadequate to provide meaningful answers to such problems as persistence and change, socialization, political cohesion, and the complex bases of political authority and legitimacy. This realization, though it has made political science a more rather than less problematical undertaking, nonetheless has had the result of adding new dimensions or perspectives to its analytical vision. Indeed, in the course of this development the very notion of the political has undergone a profound re-appraisal.

The Ethical Basis of Political Authority.

The Ethical Basis of Political Authority.

The Ethical Basis of Political Authority. W. W. Willoughby

<i>The Ethical Basis of Political Authority</i>. W. W. Willoughby

Book Review:The Ethical Basis of Political Authority. W. W. Willoughby

Book Review:The Ethical Basis of Political Authority. W. W. Willoughby