Exercise Of Political Power Research Articles

The Pursuit for Cosmic Wisdom and ‘Promethean’ Leadership in the Pythagorean and Al-Fārābīan Political Philosophy

This study reflects on aspects of the Pythagorean political philosophy and compares them to those of Abu Nasr Muhammad al-Fārābī’s thought. Both share a key assumption: excellent rulers must be political scientists who seek divine guidance to ensure the prevalence of reason over passions in public life while reconciling society with the harmony and wisdom of the cosmos. By imitating God’s perfection and incorporating divine wisdom into governance, virtuous rulers promote felicity, prosperity and peace within a city. We highlight al-Fārābī’s emphasis on the role of religion in enabling citizens to internalize the wisdom of the cosmos, thereby minimising the need for coercion in the pursuit of order and social concord. In addition, the populace leverages the superior knowledge of each governor while observing their behaviour. Thus, the people have a share in the exercise of political power. This insistence on the involvement of the populace in politics aligns with the concept of ‘political Prometheism’.

Irresponsibility in the Exercise of Political Power: A Marxist Analysis of Animal Farm

Irresponsibility is the quality of not being trustworthy or dependable. In political arena, it has more to do with the traits of a leader who lacks a sense of responsibility and does not feel accountable for their actions. Indeed, irresponsibility in politics leads mostly to the abuse of power, that is, the misuse of a position of power to take unjust advantage of individuals, organizations, or governments. What is irresponsibility and how is it depicted in Animal Farm? Who are the characters involved in the misuse of political power in Animal Farm? How is this power used abusively and what are the consequences of it? These are the questions that this paper analyses through the lenses of the Marxist criticism and proposes clues of good conduct for the benefit of society.

On the Religious and the Secular in Nineteenth-Century Buganda

Abstract The case of nineteenth-century Buganda opens up a number of assumptions within scholarship about religion, secularity, and politics in African history. Although much scholarship focuses on European colonizers introduced alien categories such as religion and imposed distinctions between religion and politics, this paper foregrounds a different set of historical transformations in what is now Uganda – transformations that ultimately increased rather than diminished connections between the exercise of political power and markedly religious convictions. Along the way, it locates some of the most important pieces of this story in ‘the precolonial’. This allows the paper to trace the emergence of the category of religion, as well as analyze the sense in which it is meaningful to think of precolonial Buganda as secular at a particular moment. In so doing, the paper puts an African story in dialogue with wider conversations on the secular.

Political legitimacy in Rawls’ early and late political liberalism – Two diverging interpretations

This article assesses Frank I. Michelman’s constitution-centered and proceduralist interpretation of Rawls’ conception of political legitimacy and argues that it merits attention because it highlights the institutional aspects of Rawls’ understanding of political legitimacy for constitutional democracies. However, the article also questions Michelman’s interpretation of Rawls’ ‘liberal principle of legitimacy’ (LPL) and the later ‘idea of political legitimacy based on the criterion of reciprocity’ (ILBR). As Michelman rightly points out, for the exercise of political power to be legitimate in a constitutional democracy, it must be in accordance with a constitution that is itself legitimate or reasonably acceptable to free and equal citizens. Yet, the article argues that Rawls’ two legitimacy formulations are attempts to make an additional point: Namely that when democratic citizens exercise political power in ‘the fundamental political issues’, or in issues that shape the basic justice of society or the essentials of the constitution itself, they must respect the ideal of public reason – or ensure themselves and other citizens that their exercise of political power is in accordance with the underlying basic political-moral ideas of persons and society that make the constitution itself acceptable to them. The LPL and the ILBR are conceptions of political legitimacy, not in the sense of setting up a criterion for when a specific law is legitimate, but in the sense of outlining civic or “office-specific” constraints that citizens and public officials must put on their reasoning and exercise of political power in the fundamental political issues for the practice of a constitutional democracy to be legitimate, or well-ordered, reasonably just, and stable for the right reasons – in the long run. The article also discusses why Rawls saw the need to reformulate the LPL, and how the later ILBR assigns a new significance to citizens’ actual use of public reason and their intersubjective deliberation.

Reverberating Silence: The Termination of Bells and Bell Ringing as an Exercise of Political Power

ABSTRACT The personal and community identity of many areas of greater Europe has been interwoven with religious practice, with the ringing of church bells often dictating the quotidian rhythms of life. The symbolism of churches and church bells can be likened to that of monuments, with the erection of bell towers and the installation of bells engendering certain political powers, both in the secular and sacred realm. Just as the creation of an auditory marker can be deemed a political tool, the cessation or absence of this marker can be similarly considered political in nature. This document will examine the termination of bells and bell ringing as an exercise of political power either as symbolic acts of conquest or through purely utilitarian reasons, and consider the restitution of bells as a further symbolic exercise of political power by the victors and an act of contrition by the vanquished. Finally, it will discuss how the historical imposition of the silencing of meaningful sounds may have heritage implications in the modern world.

The Intransparency of Political Legitimacy

Some moral value is transparent just in case an agent with average mental capacities can feasibly come to know whether some entity does, or does not, possess that value. In this paper, I consider whether legitimacy–that is, the property of exercises of political power to be (at least) permissible–is transparent. Implicit in much theorising about legitimacy is the idea that it is. I will offer two counter-arguments. First, injustice can defeat legitimacy, and injustice can be intransparent. Second, legitimacy can play a critical function in our practical thought, which sometimes requires intransparency.

Political Legitimacy and the Indigenous Voice to Parliament

ABSTRACTThis article sets out an argument from legitimacy for the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament in Australia. The article first sets out an understanding of political legitimacy and of legitimacy deficits and argues that the Australian Government faces a legitimacy deficit with respect to its exercise of political power and authority over Indigenous Australians. The deficit arises, it is argued, because Indigenous Australians face significant structural injustice and there is little hope of redressing this injustice within the prevailing governing conventions. The article then argues that the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament ought to be seen as part of a package to address this legitimacy deficit by resetting the governing conventions of Australian society. The argument from legitimacy is then compared favorably with more familiar arguments from sovereignty and the right to self‐determination.

Democracy as an institute of people’s government: national and international experience

The sovereign people exercise political power through their elected representatives. Democracy places the origin of political power in the collective will of citizens and is based on respect for their freedom and equality. It is clear that the exercise of political sovereignty in a democratic society requires that the people really consist of citizens. Democracy, as a political regime, requires that the people concerned consist of educated, autonomous, and free citizens, and that society be organized in a liberal way that allows for political pluralism through the possibility of free and open information and the existence of checks and balances. In a democratic society, citizenship is also a source of social ties.
 This term is used today to refer to any political system in which the people are sovereign. Democracy can also describe a form of society, a way of governing itself adopted by an organization or a system of values.
 Publicity consists in the fulfillment by the individual of his duties to the community in society. It implies devotion to public affairs, due to which everyone, claiming autonomy and freedom, believes that he should integrate into the national community and cooperate in public life. In a democratic society, power should be exercised for the people, that is, in their interests, in the common interests of the entire people, and not in the interests of dynasties, oligarchies or influential groups. On the basis of these foundations, democracy is carried out through the delegation of power to representatives of the people, elected by universal suffrage. Electoral right is a privileged instrument of exercising power by citizens. Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as «the government of the people by the people and for the people.» Thus, the governed are simultaneously rulers. The question is how, having delegated power to their representatives, can the people retain control?

The Importance of State Capacity in the Fight Against Corruption

This study examines the importance of state capacity in the fight against corruption. Corruption is an important problem in the exercise of political power. For this reason, good governance requires the fight against corruption with more transparency in the relationship between the private sector and politicians/administrators, efficient and effective bureaucracy, clear legal frameworks, and strengthening institutions that implement independent power control. In other words, an effective fight against corruption and good governance requires a strong state capacity. State capacity is an important characteristic of statehood. In this context, the execution of the security function of a state -(monopoly) control of the means of violence and effective law enforcement- is a prerequisite for overcoming political and social problems. After all, a state is characterized as a strong state if it can ensure security throughout the country and take and implement political decisions and has capacity to turn public will into action. The argument of the study addresses the meaning and importance of the state capacity in the effective, efficient, and coordinated implementation of public policies and in the fight against administrative and social problems such as corruption.

The Proper Scope of the All-Subjected Principle

This article shows that the democratic borders argument is defensible, albeit not in the way Arash Abizadeh proposes. The democratic borders argument depends on the All-Subjected Principle, according to which the exercise of political power is justified only insofar as everyone who is subjected to that power is guaranteed a right to vote. According to the so-called “scope objection,” the scope of the All-Subjected Principle is too broad, however, and therefore, the argument can be refuted by reductio ad absurdum. Here I argue that Abizadeh’s appeal to the narrow-scope interpretation of jurisdictionally circumscribed legal requirements is not a plausible way of defusing this reductio. Instead, I show that the democratic borders argument is successful if the All-Subjected Principle consists of two individually sufficient conditions corresponding to narrow-scope and qualified wide-scope interpretations.

Political Liberalism and Reasonable Disagreement

On the standard version of political liberalism, the exercise of political power is legitimate only if it is justifiable to all reasonable persons. Correspondingly, reasonable disagreement about the moral doctrines underlying a law makes that law not justifiable to all reasonable persons. In this paper, I argue that political liberals are committed to understanding reasonable disagreement as being rational, rather than praiseworthy disagreement between morally reasonable person because other conceptions of reasonableness commit them to an incoherent triad of claims.

Organising populism: From symbolic power to symbolic violence

This article contributes to developing a management and organisation studies perspective on political organising by focusing on: (a) populism; (b) the exercise of political power; and (c) the organisation of politics. We address two questions: in what ways have English populist politicians in the 20th and 21st centuries utilised language along with other aspects of campaign organising to build and enhance their symbolic power? And: how do populist political organisations convert symbolic power into symbolic violence? Drawing on a range of concepts from Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology, most specifically his work on symbolic power, symbolic violence, political ontology and the performativity of language, we conduct a comparative analysis of texts from four waves of right-wing English populism culminating in Brexit. We develop a three-step framework to explain the organisation of right-wing populism via what we term populist political methodology: (1) establishing the symbolic power of the leader and the message; (2) organising power and the division of labour of domination; and (3) reinforcing symbolic violence in targeted sections of society. Understanding how populist politics is organised can support us in resisting, challenging and disrupting right-wing populism, providing lessons for organisations campaigning against racism and xenophobia.

Freedom, Equality, and Justifiability to All: Reinterpreting Liberal Legitimacy

According to John Rawls’s famous Liberal Principle of Legitimacy, the exercise of political power is legitimate only if it is justifiable to all citizens. The currently dominant interpretation of what is justifiable to persons in this sense is an internalist one. On this view, what is justifiable to persons depends on their beliefs and commitments. In this paper I challenge this reading of Rawls’s principle, and instead suggest that it is most plausibly interpreted in externalist terms. On this alternative view, what is justifiable to persons is not in any way dependent on, or relativized to, their beliefs and commitments. Instead, what is justifiable to all in the relevant sense is what all could accept as free and equal. I defend this reinterpretation of the view by showing how it is supported by Rawls’s account of the freedom and equality of persons. In addition, a considerable advantage of this suggestion is that it allows for an inclusive account of to whom the exercise of political power must be made justifiable.

Governing by protection: Studying the problematization of whistleblower protection in the EU

Despite the proliferation of whistleblower protection legislation across the world, increasingly scholars report that these laws fail to fully protect the whistleblower. In this paper, I direct attention to the politics of whistleblower protection and suggest that the Foucauldian concept of problematization can help to clarify how legal regulation is involved in the exercise of political power. I situate my study in the EU context and the Whistleblower Protection Directive drawing on Carol Bacchi’s WPR approach. The study finds, that by mobilizing the engagement of workers in law enforcement, whistleblower protection works as a technology of power to rectify the problematics of EU government. I conclude by reflecting on the ethico-political implications of governmentalizing whistleblower protection in advanced liberal democracies.

STATE COERCION AND CITIZENS’ RIGHTS

The paper aims to explore which situations the state can exercise political power over its citizens. The art is to find the fine line between citizens’ rights and state coercion. The best way to present an answer to this issue is by examining the principles when state coercion might be justified. Hence, wewill examine eight following principles: Harm Principle, Offense Principle, Legal Moralism, Legal Paternalism, Collective Benefits Principle, Justice Principle, Need Principle, Sufficiency Principle. In addition to defending liberal principles, wewill argue that Legal Paternalism and The Justice Principle can be adopted but only in specific situations. Finally, we suggest that The Need Principle and The Justice Principle cannot be used as justification to limit one’s freedom but they might be translated and expanded into The Sufficiency Principle.

Politics, power, and precarity: how tenant organizations transform local political life

As the coronavirus pandemic exacerbated housing precarity, tenant organizations grew in numbers and salience. But membership-based tenant organizations predated the pandemic and will persist beyond it. There are (at least) hundreds of them in localities across the country. Many aim to advance sweeping change. In doing so, they face formidable tasks: politically organizing in race-class subjugated communities, working in opposition to powerful actors (corporate landlords, property managers, etc.), and navigating complex and sometimes hostile local political institutions (city councils, mayors, rent boards, etc.). How do these organizations build power and effect change in the face of such obstacles? Drawing on a rich body of original qualitative evidence (participant observation and in-depth interviews), this paper explores the politics of local tenant organizations. We assess the origins of such organizations, how they are structured, and how they pursue political change. In doing so, we offer a rich descriptive account of phenomena that have largely escaped the attention of political scientists. We find that tenant organizations can cultivate radically different ways of conceptualizing political economy, carve out a distinctive political focus on race-class subjugated communities, and create critical opportunities for otherwise marginalized actors to develop and exercise political power.

The Doctrine of “Wilayat al-Faqih”: Interpretations, Theoretical Base and Genesis

After the 1979 “Islamic Revolution” which brought to power Ayatollah Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini Iran was indoctrinated by the ideology of “wilayat al-faqih” (guardianship of the Islamic theologist). This brand was not new in Shia Islam: it emerged centuries ago as an idea that all believers should be under the guidance of Islamic theologists until the end of the period of the Major Occultation (al-ghaybah as-sughra). This age started when in 941 the last contactee with the twelfth and the last of the Imams — Muhammad Ibn al-Hassan al-Mahdi, who had disappeared in 874, deceased. The Shias believe that Imam al-Mahdi is still alive and will reappear in the end of times. The term “faqih” in Arabic means a person who deeply knows or understands something. In the context of the Islamic tradition it designates a sage capable of explaining the Quran and other recognized religious texts. The practical exigencies of the life of state, society and individual, as al-Mahdi’s occultation grew longer and longer, raised the status of the faqihs who faced the necessity of resolving contemporary issues. Some of them even made claims to exercise political power which eventually were embodied by the modern ideology of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Even those Shia religious authorities who did not support the ambitions of the absolute guardianship (al-wilaya al-mutlaqa) that included state-ruling, were unable to stay outside politics. The brightest example of this is the figure of the spiritual leader of the Iraqi Shias Ayatollah Ali as-Sistani who is respected and listened to not only by Iraqi politicians, but by foreign state officials as well.

Vanguards of Democracy: Juries as Forerunners of Representative Government

Juries are the most diverse institution of government. Due to the random selection of members, ease of access, and procedural rights to challenge the exclusion of protected classes, juries reflect the diversity of America far better than legislatures, courts, the bar, and virtually every other civic institution. This Article aims to do two things. First, document how juries have become more diverse along the lines of income, gender, and race; and how each of these groups had to surmount the powers that be to take their place in American jury boxes. Second, demonstrate how juries allowed marginalized groups in each of these categories to exercise political power sooner and more solidly than other institutions of government. As a result, current declines in the use of jury trials mean less-representative decision-makers will have a larger role in our jurisprudence.

Global Capitalism, Racism, and Social Triage during COVID-19

The theory of global capitalism offers useful tools for understanding the socio-structural determinations that result in enduring global health inequities. The theory’s conceptual framework highlights the role of transnational corporations, financialization, consumerism, transnational social classes, and the transnational state in affecting the production and distribution of economic resources, spread of cultural ideologies, and exercise of political power. To understand the health consequences and economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the theory of global capitalism offers a holistic approach for understanding the current geopolitical order as well as its inherently contested nature. However, the approach often elides questions of race and gender while privileging class analysis. To understand the intersectionality in the reproduction of capitalist globalization, the concept of social triage offers an organizational level of analysis to interrogate how bureaucratic decision-making leads to racial and gender health inequalities at the global and national levels. The examples of essential workers, immigration detention, and disparate access to medical technologies reveal the necropolitical reality of an anti-Black pandemic, contributing to current debates about racial capitalism.

ANALYZING THE PLATFORM ECONOMY – FEUDALISM, MEDIEVALISM AND COLONIALISM AS USEFUL FRAMEWORKS

The platform economy challenges existing economic systems, social interactions and participation as well as the very foundation of democracy. As data is replacing labor as the central economic good, economy, society, class structures and democracy might change fundamentally. Or we might experience old wine on new bottles. Karl Marx famously said that history tends to repeat itself, first as comedy, later as tragedy. In this panel we ask, whether history is repeating itself? The panel’s speakers employ different historical perspectives but focus mainly in two periods: medieval times and the age of colonialism. Both periods were characterized by a strong correlation between a certain economic system and the exercise of political power. Structured inequalities in systems of labor, trade and distribution of wealth had significant consequences for the distribution and (re)production of political power. Medieval and colonial societies were each based on logics of exploitation and dominance, ideologically legitimized by references to first God, later the nation, what Marx would have referred to as the superstructures of economic logics. In this systems, individual agency and possibilities were limited compared to today. In medieval society it was hard to change the estate in which you were born, in colonial times it was hard to change your role in the international system. And the fixed structures were basically grounded in economic logics.