Comparing Schmitt 's And Arendt 's Theory Of The Political

Government is an essential part of civilization in modern and historic times. This crucial element of society has been observed in different forms. There are three main systems of governments: autocracy, oligarchy, and democracy. Which system a government belongs to is determined by who hold the sovereignty, meaning who has the supreme power and authority (“Sovereignty”). This leads to there being major differences between autocracies, oligarchies, and democracies.

A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both

Power: the political power is the ability to shape and control the political behavior of

Over the length of this course, we have discussed several aspects of politics. We have studied citizenship and obligations to society as a citizen, justice and what it means to us as individuals, and how to go about enacting change within a community and around the world. Some of the most important topics from this class included the characteristics, duties, and obligations of rulers of government. In addition to the concept of rulers, we also studied the notion of authority and the moral and metaphysical implications of authority to individuals ' autonomy. Within each concept of study, we read works from many authors with conflicting ontologies, constructed from their differing views on human nature.

Arendt explains that the ultimate power of a totalitarian government is the acceptance of the ideology being propagated. The laws that are put into place in totalitarian government are not to empower the people and protect their rights. Instead, the laws tell the people what they must do, not what they must not do. Arendt tells how the law of nature is the foundation for Hitler's Nazis, and the law of history for Russia's communist regimes. According to Arendt, both the Nazi and communist regimes maintained that those laws gave them justification for their cruelty. These laws of nature and history are not permanent or stable. They are in motion to keep history and nature moving, so that it progresses without ever stopping. <p>Arendt claims that these laws of motion sustain the terror fueling the totalitarian government. Arendt says that terror is the realization and execution of these laws with nothing standing in its way. Throughout the selection, Arendt speaks of terror. Terror is essential for the state to keep its power, or else it will fall. According to Arendt, in a totalitarian state terror terminates individuality among the people. Individual men become a mass of humankind, in the eyes of the state. "Terror exists neither for nor against men", claims Arendt, "it substitutes for the boundaries and channels of communication between individual men a band of iron which holds them so tightly

Political Power and Natural state: He explains the need for civil government; by detailing life with the absence of civil government. This is the premature state of an entity; through this one can see the need and a role for a government structure. He begins by defining

Order and freedom are both necessary and beneficial towards the citizens and society with the aim to promote harmony, yet they both contradict each other. This contradiction has existed throughout many years and it is still hard to decide which one is ideal for the society. This essay will discuss and analyze if order or freedom is more important for political systems.

By looking at the readings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, there are a few distinctions between how the modern thinkers viewed politics versus the way the ancient thinkers believed politics should be. There are many topics both modern and ancient thinkers discuss in their writings, such as the purpose of politics, the science of politics, human nature, as well as the ideal regime. By doing so, these thinkers’ views on political topics such as these illuminate how they thought politics should work and who should be able to participate in the activity of politics.

To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man (...)

| What form of political state is best?Can a government restrict the liberty of its citizens?

According to Thomas Jefferson, an influential leader, “No government can continue good but under the control of the people.” Jefferson’s quote suggests that the social contract and state are only run sufficiently under the authority of the people. There is a common assumption that a definite agreement among the population of a society, is dictated by the individuals themselves. In the past, various theorists as well as powerful leaders have made conscience endeavors to demystify whether the social contract is imposed by the sovereign or society. This essay makes an argument that the social compact is dictated by individuals because individuals have the power to alter the governments they exist within. The state is what the people define it as. It is bound by territory, and people, states comprise of governments. The Social Contract is developed by Jean Jacques Rousseau about what is believed to be the greatest method to establish a political community.

This definition can be extended to a definition of politics. Indeed, the idea that “human values” and the “search for orienting theories” (lines 4 and 5) are entangled is clearly expressed. The vision of man that is given suggests that society should promote his innate capacities and put them at the chore of political decisions. “Participation in decision-making” (line19) conjures up the idea of a Participatory Democracy, which was a major theme for elements of the American Left in the 1960’s. This implies a more important influence of the people in the decisions of their society.

The framework on which to evaluate the arguments of both authors is that of public versus private interest. Arendt also raises the question of centralized political power, and whether or not its growth is detrimental to society. In the chapter titled: “Foundation I: Constitutio Libertatis,” she begins by establishing the need for restrictions on the powers of national government. Arendt writes that the rights provided in the Constitution are “not powers of themselves, but merely an exemption from the abuses of power; they claim not a share in government, but a safeguard against

Government is an administration defined by the Constitution, but is also a constantly adjusting foundation by the efforts of its citizens. By Litherland (2014), government is defined as policies set in order to lead a body of people (p. 395). Over the span of time, the idea of government has been stretched, changed, and applied to various communities throughout both the nation and the world. Whether it was back in the eighteenth century, current, or in the very near future—government has existed and will continue to exist for its people and the nation it has built its foundation upon. With the use of multiple authors, those of: “Difference between Direct and Representative Democracy” (n.d.), “Federalism - Dividing Power between States and the

For all of history there has existed the struggle between the strong and the weak. The establishment of government gives the power to a particular group to decide the amount of freedom the majority is allowed, however, though not ideal it provides necessary order. The benefits of security that limitations on freedom provides must be balanced with the individual's pursuit of happiness for citizens to be content. To prevent the governed majority from destabilizing the rulers and seeking power, the government will oppress political and personal freedom of thought. In result, the majority will live under the illusion of contentment and not wish to revolt; those enlightened to the idea that the government should be ruled by the governed, would associate happiness only with ignorance and consequently seek freedom.