Studying Politics challenges thoughts on existing theories and helps to develop the understanding of political concepts that are often deemed to be effective or ineffective. This essay will refer to some concepts and theories such as Political Corruption, Realism, Liberalism and Liberty. It will explore the kind of things academics generally try to find out through studying politics to explore these topics and what they should possibly be looking for instead when studying politics.
Political Corruption covers a broad spectrum of ideas and holds multiple definitions that exist only within their context, making it only relevant to what has happened within a state or area. We may know that it is wrong, but we are not sure as to what it really is. Mark Warren within his essay, “What does Corruption mean in a Democracy?” takes a normative approach to what this really means. Within his report he states, “most who study corruption now argue that it is a symptom as well as a cause of dysfunctions within democracies” (de Lean 1993; della Porta and Vannuccia 1999; Elster 1989, 236-72; Rose- Ackerman 1999; Thompson 1995). Rather than looking at it as a symptom or cause of dysfunctions within democracies, it can be looked at whether there are good and bad forms of corruption. Therefore should we accept corruption that intends to benefit the majority? Or is it really corruption when it benefits the state. Rose-Ackerman counter argues this and states that corruption is corruption, and
When looking into the ideas of political theorists it is important to the use of political concepts that may play an important role in what the theorists are suggesting and also how they may affect the relationship between to state and the individuals living within a state. The concepts that will be looked at within this essay are: power, authority and also accountability.
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.
The purpose of this paper is intended to summarize my views on what has influenced my understanding of politics and government prior to taking this class, and how my understanding is now since completing this course.
Someone who is abusing the power that is given to him or her defines corruption, however, the word in its self is more than a simple idea; it is an intricate network. Since people’s views about ethical and moral behavior affect the way corruption is examined, the word has a slightly different meaning to each person. Additionally, misconduct across various societies is viewed differently due to social and cultural borders. The criminal justice system has had many instances where corruption had affected the outcome of a case and has inserted itself into the legal process.
Corruption is when the Government is bribed by interest groups or corporations so that the bribers’ interests are put forward before the interest of the people. During the Gilded Age corruption in the senate was rampant. According to the political cartoon “The bosses of Senate”- (Progress and Poverty, 324), the corporations were the real entities behind running the Senate. The Senate, as the cartoon shows, is acting only in the interests of the different monopolies that are bribing the senate. However, this does not neccesarily mean that the Government cannot act in the intersts of its own people.
Realism and Liberalism are two extremely prominent theories of international relations. These doctrines exhibit sagacious perceptions about war, foreign affairs and domestic relations. The fundamental principles of protocol in which we rely upon aren’t always apprehensive (Karle, Warren, 2003). By interpreting the data one could fathom these ideas. The assessment of these faculties wield noteworthy dominance about the concepts of international affairs. In analyzing this data, you will comprehend the variant relationship between Realism and Liberalism.
In general terms, corruption is the act of corrupting or of impairing integrity, virtue, or moral principle. In politics, corruption is the misuse of public power and image.Whether it is realized or not, no country is wholly free of the disease of corruption, and if it is allowed to develop and become significantly strong, it can obstruct the good processes of governing and deteriorate the fabric of society. It can become a barrier to continual development and make it so that essentially no room remains for justice to succeed. In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the destructive force of corruption is clearly exemplified through the abundance of imagery concerning decay, death, disease, sickness, and infection as the play progresses. The first and
150). Democracy is supposed to be about equal opportunity but when bribery is brought into the balance it disrupts the scale to tip the scales into the favor of the politicians which goes against the principle of democracy (“Rise of Democracy”, para. 1). In the majority of Latin American countries there is a system called “compulsory voting” which makes it illegal not to vote. Although it is illegal not to vote, in Brazil’s case, only 78.90% of eligible voters voted for the presidential campaign in 2014 (“Voter Turnout”, para. 3). While there is a huge amount of corruption in Latin America, it can be overcome. In September of 2015, a crowd of Guatemalans chanted at President Otto Perez Molina, “Resign, now.” Their voice was heard as the ex-Guatemalan president stood down from office and is now in prison awaiting trial over an alleged corruption scandal (Watson, p.1, para. 1-3). This is just a glimpse of the power the people can hold. If the voters can get a current president out of office than imagine what can happen if everyone were to vote for who they truly believe is worthy of representing and governing the country.
Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the
Realism, liberalism, and Marxism are all different perspectives that can be used to analyze situations and aid government officials to understandings and agreements in relation to trade. Lawrence Herman 's article focusses on the potential destruction of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) caused by the disturbing and unacceptable proposals by the United States president, Donald Trump. There are many different views on Free trade but three main perspectives are the realist views, which claim that all nation-states have to rely upon their own resources and security and act in pursuit of their struggle for power and self-interest, liberal views, which approve of free trade, and lastly, through Karl Marx’s theory of Marxism.
Compare and contrast Realism and Liberalism as theories used in the study of International Relations
In a world where the drive for power and the will to dominate are held to be fundamental aspects of human nature as the Classical Realists would argue, the necessity for International Organizations cannot be dismissed as some liberalists argue. According to Iriye 2002, IGO’s consists of institutions that come into existence through formal agreements among nations and represent their corresponding governments (Iriye 2002, Pg. 12-14). With that in mind, some liberalists argue that joining international organizations and institutions like the United Nations socializes some leaders so that their motivations are more benign (Dunne 2011, Pg. 103). I am convinced to a certain extent with this idea as I feel that even though classical realists argue that every man has within him the desire to rule or the desire for power (Dunne and Schmidt 2011, Pg. 90). When several leaders come together all from different IR theoretical backgrounds (liberalists, realists, constructivists) each decision they make comes collectively thus not leaving too much room for their individual biases based on their theoretical perspectives to impact important international relations issues "negatively". Although I highly doubt if anything can be done to control the human desire for power accumulation as a classical realist would say, a part of the psyche of man, I do believe the liberalists argument to be of substance.
When discussing whether or not a nation-state should enter a war and when to do so, three beliefs on foreign policy and war exist. The three different diplomatic stances are that of pacifism, just war theory, and political realism. Political realism, or realpolitik as it is often referred to, is the belief war should only occur when it is in the national interest of the particular nation-state. Henry Kissinger, a political realist, in his book Diplomacy argues that realism is the only logical answer. Just war theorists, along with pacifists, on the other hand oppose these arguments and therefore critique of this form of diplomatic action. To construct a valid understanding of the realist perspective the arguments Kissinger puts forth in
To define any perspective in International Relations, one must understand its’ origin and primary authors, including the context in which they were writing in. Liberalism is one of the more loosely defined perspectives as it has had a number of authors throughout history. Primarily, liberalism relies on the positive aspects of human nature. One of the most prominent liberal authors was Kant- who often wrote of the anarchical nature of international relations- referring to it as “the lawless state of savagery.” He also wrote of three primary routes to obtaining peace within this system, namely treating all aspects of human life with humanity, allowing for a federation of states and
Political realism believe that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. These objective laws allow us to differentiate truth from opinion – the difference between objective and rational truth (supported by evidence and reason) and subjective judgement. We must also approach political reality with a rational outline/map in order to understand chosen behaviours. The operation of these laws being impervious to our preferences, men will challenge them only at the risk of failure.