| INTERCONGREGATIONAL INSTITUTE |
| POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY I |
| 2019-2020 ACADEMIC YEAR |
BY
Fr. Jean Marie Munketalingi, MCCJ
| Politics is exciting because people disagree. They disagree about how they should live. Who should get what? How should power and other resources be distributed? Should society be based on cooperation or conflict? …. They also disagree about how such matters should be resolved. (Heywood: 2002 p.3) |
1. Introduction
Politica ilosophy is a composition of two words “politics” and “philosophy”. These two concepts shall be of our major concern in this study. We already know what philosophy is all about. We can just turn to the word “politics”.
- What is politics?
Etymologically the word “politics” comes from the Greek word “polis”.Polisis a classical Greek word to mean “city state”.
For the Greeks any man who did not take an interest in the affairs of his city state was acting extremely foolishly as these affairs were his own affairs, hence, Aristotle’s famous declaration that “Man is a political animal“. What Aristotle meant is that politics is not only inevitable but also essential to human activity.In other words, wherever there are human beings, politics is unavoidable.
1.1.1. Four ways of Defining Politics
a) Politics as the Art of government i.e., that which goes on within the city-state (narrow scope of politics) – excludes a wide range of activities that happen outside of government.
b)Politics as public affairs: focuses on the public sphere of life as opposed to the private sphere (Aristotle).- Men as political animals live in a political arena
c) Politics as compromise and consensus –ie, politics as a means for resolving conflicts, with a focus on the way decisions are made (Crick, 1962):
- “Politics is the activity by which differing interests within a given unit of rule are conciliated by giving them a share of power in proportion to their importance to the welfare and the survival of the whole community”.
Heywood (2002) adopts this approach and defines politics as the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live
d) Politics as power:
- Power in decision making (conscious actions that in some way influence the content of decisions)
- Power in the form of agenda setting (the ability to prevent decision not being made- ie to set or control the political agenda, thereby preventing issues or proposals from being aired)
- Power as thought control (the ability to influence another by shaping what he or she thinks, wants or needs)
The commonly used definition of politics has been provided by Harold Lasswell (1936). He defines politics as being concerned with ‘Who gets what, when, and how?’ There are a number of observations that can be made here. First, it is clear that politics is a social process that exists in any social setting. This is because the question, ‘Who gets what, when and how?’ is the kind of question that cuts across all societal levels: family, community, district, regional and governmental. Second, the issue at the centre of politics is choice. Choice in politics is largely to do with (re)distribution of resources. Resources exist in different forms and at different levels of society. Material resources could be money and development projects. Other resources could be power and authority. Furthermore, the question of who gets what, when and how also presupposes a diversity of interests and values, a phenomenon that is a norm in all human societies. Given this reality, politics is, therefore, not concerned with the elimination of differences and conflicts. Rather, it is the role of politics to reconcile and resolve them through negotiation, bargaining, persuasion and compromise(Augustine Magolowondo: Government and Politics in Malawi Pg 2).
Social political philosophy is a branch of philosophy that generally studies individuals as members of society. It is concerned with ordering human acts to the common good (Odiambo, 95). However, social political philosophy is not exclusively moral in its interests, for in addition it has the task of investigating the nature of social reality, its components, and the relationships that obtain between them. It deals with political society, its nature and its end, which is the highest human common good. The main object of social political philosophy is the human common good, hence the institution of the State is cardinal.
There are competing definitions of political philosophy. Our working definition of Political philosophy is the study of attitudes that people have towards the fundamental questions of the state, government, politics, liberty, property right, justice, freedom, law and enforcement of the cord of authority.
Proper to Political philosophy are questions regarding political obligation, why and when should citizens obey the state? What are the limits of government power over the members of society? And which is the best regime for human prosperity. Is it possible for the government to have a rigid control over the economic affairs of people without curtailing their political freedom?
1.2. History behind Political Philosophy
Traditional view holds that Socrates (469-399 B.C.) was the founder of political philosophy (Strauss and Cropsey: 1987 p 1). The kind of political philosophy which was originated by Socrates is called classical political philosophy. This was the predominant political philosophy until the emergency of modern political philosophy in the 16th and 17th Centuries (P.2).[1]
The history of Western Political philosophy can be divided into three epochs:
a) From antiquity to Machiavelli (5thcent. B.C. to the beginning of the 16th Cent.).
Political philosophy in this period was preoccupied with the question of the best regime which would enable man to live a good life which is impossible outside the political community.
b) From Machiavelli and Hobbes to the thinkers of the Enlightenment.
This period began at the end of the 16th century with a new comprehension, initiated by Machiavelli, of the finality and means of power. It was a question of taking men as they are and not as they ought to be. With this pragmatic change, politics achieved its independence from ethics and from the commandments of the Church. This marked the beginning of the progressive journey towards the sovereignty of the State.
Thinkers sought to lay down the conditions for having a peaceful and harmonious life given the fact that people are egoistic and preoccupied more with their own interests than with the common good. The result of this quest were the theories of the social contract which makes the State and the law the means of integratingthe wills and the antagonistic individual interests, and the theory of the free market (liberalism), which gives to the private economic relations the task of harmonizing the relationships.
The liberal theory, however, promoted individualism in politics and was accompanied historically by industrial capitalism causing terrible sufferings to people. The reaction to these sufferings was the political philosophy of Karl Marx.
c) From Marx to the contemporary period.
From this moment onwards, Political philosophy took the form of “philosophical analysis” studying terms like the state, universal human rights, body politic, sovereignty, nation, etc.
- The Science of Politics
Here the main question is can the study of politics be scientific? It is vital to distinguish politics as an activity and politics as science – the study of the activity of politics. Science promises impartial and reliable means of distinguishing truth from falsehood. The key here is to distinguish facts (empirical evidence) from values (normative or ethical beliefs).
| FACTS | VALUES |
| Objective, and therefore demonstrable consistently. Can be proven or falsified | Subjective, usually a matter of opinion |
Challenges in the scientific study of politics
- Data problems: human beings cannot be subjected to natural experiments. What can be learned about people is therefore limited and sometimes superficial, hence no reliable data for testing our hypothesis.
- Hidden values: facts and values are so closely inter-twined that it is often impossible to separate them.
- The myth of neutrality: arising from the difficulty of being purely objective and impartial, when political scientists are part of society that they study!
- THE ETHICAL THEORY
Just as parental obligations are the moral obligation which a person incurs when one becomes a parent (for example feeding the children), social obligations the moral obligations we have because we are members of a society. Ethical theories stem from political obligation understood as moral obligations that lie upon the people as citizens of a state with laws (Hare: 1989, pg 8)[2]. Under Ethical theory we shall look at Plato, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.
- Plato
The political teaching of Plato is accessible to us chiefly through three works, the Republic, the Statesman and the Laws (Strauss and Cropsey: 1989, 33).In his Republic he postulates that human nature, does not consist in giving sway to force and to the passions. Rather it consists in living a reasonable life in conformity with Justice and with the Good. Only in living thus can man attain happiness.This is why one should know the real nature and the essence of Justice and the Good; and this is the business of the philosopher. The philosopher is the one who has freed himself from the illusions of sensible things and of passions, the one who has access to the science of the authentic realities, the Ideas.
Plato devoted his work The Reublic to the question, “who should rule?” (Odhiambo: 1998, 3). His answer to this was that, the rulers should consist of a specially trained class of intellectuals whom he referred to as philosopher kings. He is proposing aristocracy, the rule of the best (elite). The perfect city of Plato’s Republic will therefore be ruled by philosopher-kings.His system can also be called authoritarian for it grants absolute authority to theelite, toa special group of people for the purpose of ruling the society.
Plato, under the influence of the psychological and biological theories of his time, thought that society was a reflection of the individuals that made it up. There is therefore a close analogy between the individual and his/her society. The society is the individual enlarged. If one wants to understand the individual, one should analyse society and vice-versa. “The State is Just when the citizens are just”, says Plato. Therefore analysing the nature and composition of the individual was synonymous to analysing the society.
Plato took up the dualistic psychology of his time which held that man is composed of two different ingredients: the body and the soul. For him the perfect man is the one who is healthy physically and psychologically. One is physically healthy if one does not suffer from any illness; and he is healthy or perfect psychologically if there is harmony between his rational element, spirited element and the appetitive element. These three are parts of the soul. With the rational element man reasons, argues and deliberates; the spirited element makes man courageous or cowardly and gives him strength of will while the appetitive element is responsible for passions and desires for food, drink, sex etc. The rational element, whose virtue is wisdom, should be in command of the other elements and the spirited element should support the implementation of the dictates of reason so as to ensure that the appetites are kept under control. Plato gives wisdom to reason, courage and strength to the spirited element and obedience to the appetitive element so that it may accept the guidance of reason.The three elements have to function harmoniously if man is to be healthy in mind. A perfect or healthy man is the balanced man.
Since the State is nothing but the individual enlarged, in Plato’s view, it should have the same nature as the individual: the rulers correspond to the rational element of society; the soldiers correspond to the spirited element while the populace corresponds to the appetitive element. In order to have a just or ideal State, these three classes should work in harmony, each class, imbued with the virtue proper to it, should fulfil its functions. The ruling class, with the virtue of wisdom should administer the State; the soldiers, armed with courage, should defend the State from aggression by outsiders and by controlling the common people. As for the populace, it should provide essential commodities such as food and shelter. Its virtue is temperance. This virtue, however, should be common to all classes: the populace and the soldiers should accept the rule of the wise and the wise should accept and exercise their right to rule. This, in fact, is what Plato calls “Justice” in a perfect society.
Plato’s ideal State is thus founded on four cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice, which comes about when each class plays its role according to its merits and aptitudes. It is also founded on the division of labour. Each class should do the work proper to it and no other. For Plato, this is the principle of justice. Only justice can bring about is contentment and happiness for all.
The task of choosing who should belong to which class falls to the rulers. They must formulate the laws by which society functions. Plato believed that poor leadership leads to poor laws; a wrong decision in placing someone in a given class leads to unhappiness, or worse, to rebellion. It is thus essential that proper rulers be chosen if the society is to be ideal.
Ochieng –Odhiambo presents Plato’s educational system as follows: “All children should be raised communally by the State until they are about 18 years old. At this stage of education, the aim is to train both character and moral judgement. Between the age of 18 and 20, education should be exclusively physical. At the age of 20, there would be a general test. Those who pass would devote the next 10 years of their life studying mathematical disciplines. This stage is followed (after further elections) by 5 years of dialectics. This is further followed by 15 years of practical experience in subordinate offices, after which those who have survived all these tests are fully qualified philosopher-kings and divide their time between philosophy and ruling”[3].
Apart from their partly physical, partly moral training, the future rulers would study arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and harmonics to prepare them for the abstraction needed for the study of philosophy or “dialectics”. They would thus acquire the complete knowledge of the good. Knowledge of the good would automatically lead to good actions and to the making good decisions in the interest of the State. For Plato, ruling is a skill and untrained individuals should never rule no more than untrained people should be allowed to practice medicine. Then rulers should have neither family nor private property. They should live under a system of communism that would free them from the common worries and snares of economic and domestic life. In this way, they would perform their duties well and unselfishly.
Plato studied the known regimes of his time and came up with the theory of the logic of decadence. The aristocratic society’s degradation results into a society where the courageous and warlike element (thumos) takes the upper hand over virtue. This results into what Plato called timocracy, a government founded on honour, which comes about when the rulers grab lands and houses. This is usually followed by the oligarchic society, characterised by avarice and lust for richness. Democracy is the third degree of decadence. In it there is too much liberty, and too much liberty leads to licence. There is neither remedy nor law to stop the wanton satisfaction of desires. This state of affairs inevitably leads to tyranny.
Critics to Plato’s political theory
a) The comparison of a ruler to a doctor, however attractive it may be, cannot be justified. The doctor directs the conduct of his patient and the patient must follow it if he/she wants to get well. The ruler, instead, should never direct the interests and activities of the citizenry; he should reflect these interests and make their achievements possible. In society there is a wide variety of interests, aptitudes, desires, attitudes etc.., and the ruler is supposed to make people live together as far as possible in accord with their own standards and not according to the standards of the ruler. Democratic theorists, who raise this point, believe that no one can attain the knowledge of the absolute standards of goodness which give to the wise the right to rule.
b) Even if some individuals prove themselves wise and capable of ruling, there is no reason why they should be given absolute authority. Rulers should be responsible for their actions. Authority should be vested in the people, not in rulers. Absolute power has always resulted into tyranny. Lord Acton said: power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Knowledge of the good does not always lead to virtuous behaviour and intelligent men can always find a way of misusing authority.
c) Plato’s political theory can lead to the stultification of the masses. People who are always guided by others will never achieve the maturity essential for every adult citizen. Moreover, Plato seems to proclaim the wise men infallible, a position which is unacceptable given the fact that no man is infallible. Those who raise this point say it is better for people to make their own mistakes that to have some individuals make mistakes for them.
d) From religious circles, Plato could be accused of proposing a theory of society that could do away with family life and tradition.
- Aristotle(384-322 B.C.)
Aristotle rejected the intellectualistic perspective of his master Plato. This can be seen in his reflection on the political community contained in Politics and The Nicomachian Ethics. He successfully combined an empirical investigation of the facts and a critical inquiry into their ideal possibilities, thus providing a challenging model of political studies. He stuck to what is accessible and practicable instead of looking for the realization of a model of theoretical perfection. Aristotle’s ideal state is Constitutional based on a mixture of democracy and oligarchy. Such a government would rest most securely on a well educated, reasonably virtuous, sufficiently wealthy, moderate middle class.
The middle class, in this sense, would provide what Aristotle describes as a “golden mean”, “the just middle”[4] between poverty and riches. It would be envied by the poor or feared by the rich.Members of this class would be interested in politics and good government but would not be overly ambitious.
In Aristotle’s view, for what concerns man, subject to change and variation, one cannot apply the exactitude or the precision which can only be found in theoretical sciences (Metaphysics, Mathematics, Physics etc.)[5]. Practical science treats man as a conscious being, source of action and endowed with a volition which is by nature mutable. Practical science is not concerned with the knowledge of the essence of virtue, it is concerned with the ways of becoming virtuous. Its proper faculty is the rational part of the soul, which Aristotle calls “prudence” (phronesis).
Aristotle’s method is one of practical wisdom; it starts from the opinion of common men and not from principles which can be deduced immutably as in the domain of theoretical sciences. The practical science which Aristotle exposes in the Nicomachean Ethics (6th Book), is composed of three branches: 1) Ethics or the Science of character, 2) Economics, the science of household management, 3) Political Science, the science of governing the political community (Strauss and Cropsey: 1987, 121).
In his teleological vision, Aristotle sees the good as the finality or end of every human action, of every will. But there are goods which are so only in view of other things, and which, consequently, can only be useful; isn’t there a sovereign good which is self-sufficient—the ultimate end of every desire? For Aristotle it is there and it is happiness. If all agree with this opinion, disagreement comes from the definition they give to “good life”. Their differences can be seen in the opposition between the three ways of living: pleasure, political life and the philosophical life.
Man realises his essence as a rational animal not in the life of pleasure ruled by passions but in the activity of the soul in conformity with virtue. Good life is virtuous life and in it consists happiness. Politics should aim at making citizens men of quality, capable of noble actions. The main goal of political association is not the defence of material interests; it is the happy life of man considered as a free citizen of the State. This is so because man is not simply an isolated individual, man is a social animal and he realises his good life in the community of the State.
Aristotle taught that the State comes from the very nature of man. Man is a political animal. Society is a natural institution which responds to man’s innate desire to satisfy his social needs. Simple needs are satisfied in a family, fuller needs are satisfied in a village and further fuller needs can only be satisfied in a State.
The State, which is not a mere economic association but a moral community, exists for sake of good life and not just life. It is the end of other associations and the nature of a thing is its end. In the State all other associations find their true and final perfection.
The State is a product of reason. It is the culmination of the evolution of man’s nature. Animals unite by sensation but human beings, endowed with the power of speech, unite by reason. Aristotle’s concept of the State is an organic one. The State consists of different parts the way an organism consists of different organs. It has the military, the judiciary, the rulers, etc. All its parts are defined in terms of their purpose, which they can only fulfil when united to the State. An individual cannot fulfil his purpose outside the State.
Like the individual, the State leads a moral life by acknowledging the moral law. Every individual within the state must be helped to attain intellectual, moral and physical excellence. By virtue Aristotle understood the “golden mean”, the mid-point between two vicious extremes as practiced by the prudent man. There are men who accomplish virtuous actions for the sake of the advantages therein; these are called good men, agathoi. Those men, instead, who accomplish virtuous actions for virtue’s sake, are called by Aristotle, noble and good men, kaloi-agathoi and they fit the English title of gentlemen. These are the people who should be involved in politics. They are magnanimous men who act virtually with legitimate pride. Magnanimity is the virtue par excellence of the individual, but for the City, the highest moral virtue is justice.
Aristotle distinguishes two forms of justice: distributive justice and corrective justice.
a) Social justice is usually understood in terms of equitable distribution of goods, charges and honours in a given society. But the criteria of distribution are naturally different depending on birth, richness and merit. Distributive justice will then depend on the type of regime the society has, whether monarchy, oligarchy or democracy. The ideal City that Aristotle described in his Politics tries to propose the just distribution convenient to a community of free and perfectly virtuous citizens. It is not egalitarian but proportional distributive justice. It gives equal parts to people considered equal according to merit. If the people are not equal they will not share equally.
b) Corrective justice concerns broken contracts and crimes committed. Indifferent to the nature of the people concerned, corrective justice, pronounced by a judge, re-establishes the equality broken by crime. The punishment depends on the gravity of the damage done.
What about government? Aristotle classified governments quantitatively, i.e. the number of people who enjoy political power; and qualitatively, i.e. the end and the spirit of the government. There are six kinds of governance: monarchy—concerned with the promotion of supreme virtue; aristocracy—representing a mixture of wealth and virtue; Constitutional government or polity—representing medium virtues, the power resting in the middle class. These three are good forms of government according to Aristotle. Then, there is tyranny, based on deceit and selfishness; oligarchy, representing the greed of wealth; and democracy representing the principles of equality, liberty and majority rule with the power in the hands of the poor. In this classification, good and bad governments are defined in the ethical qualities of the holders of power, not in terms of the form of the constitution involved.
Aristotle’s political philosophy expounds the conditions according to which the then Hellenic State, the polis, could function better. The teaching therein confers to the citizens a very great dignity, but farmers and others, not to speak of slaves, are left out of this citizenship. Thus Aristotle remained Greek. To justify slavery, he speaks of slaves by nature, even though he admits that a slave has the same rationality as his master. Slave trade was a necessary institution in the Greek civilization context, but it was not a natural institution, it was willed by man.
Aristotle, influenced by Greek culture and his organic concept of the State, sacrificed the individual to the State. He took the slave to be a material thing, an instrument animated by man and the worker as a human being unable to lead a free and virtuous life.
Aristotle has the credit of having integrated empirical research with speculative political ideals. Thus the moral ideals, as sovereign laws, freedom, equality of citizens, the constitutional government and the perfection of men in civilised life were, for Aristotle the ends for which a State should exist. He is the founder of the method which is based on observation and history.
[1] We can read more on this from the quoted book.
[2] Hare, R.M. (1989) Essays on Political Morality, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
[3] Ochieng-Odhiambo, F., Handbook on Some Social-Political Philosophers, Consolata Institute of Philosophy Press, Nairobi, 1994, p. 6.
[4] Which for him was the very definition of virtue.
[5] Aristotle’s view is that of the variability of human things and the impossibility of precision in the study of them (Strauss and Cropsey: pg121).