|
|
Indeed, the world of politics is an arena of natural selection, the faible will be naturally eliminated, and survivor rules. Hence, in portray of my worldview, politics it is only reserved for the most fit person. Why is it so? I do not consider it as somber. Though, I conclude that human nature is rational and good at first; but in contrast with Hobbes' theories, I consider that people were not born equal. State of Nature has created people of variable intelligence spreading mistrust and prejudices from classes toward others. Submitted to struggle and challenge, human living condition has achieved to build up selfishness among individuals. With such terrible situation, and because human are good by nature, they recognized that they are firstly vulnerable and secondly the importance of alliance against "evil", including by giving up most of their nature rights in exchange of a community lifestyle, which efficiently insures safety of them and their off spring. Meanwhile, they also approved and accepted the existence of fittest, leaving them such duties as organization and ruling.
With this achievement, human escaped from States of Nature and entered into a primitive society. Although I agree with Machiavellian theories that men are not socially oriented, I do see the argument of John Lack more realistic. Lock argued that it was through a mutual consent that people entered civil society under condition of social contract. Division of Labor then appeared among those primitive societies, Males occupied heavy and dangerous works such as hunting and females de facto took care of other lighter works. As every one was live together, it opened an era of Pure Democracy. As Karl Marx argued, it was a time of Primitive Communism; only one class could exist. There was no private property, and everyone shared from a common stock. Most decisions were collectively made, except the nomination of the new group leader, a right only reserved for certain elders. The tribe progressively grew, so did the division of labor. It evolved into a split between the intellectual ones, and those who achieved physical work. In order to become a leader, both intelligence and physical strength were required.
Because of the division of labor, private property, slavery and social classes have successively appeared. The tribal chiefs became lords, kings or emperors. During the Ancient Athenians times, society was divided into three classes: Guardians, Warriors and Artisans; yet none of them constituted a majority because slaves were not significant. In China, the emperors were the "sons of the sky" and known as "dragons." At that stage, human civilization entered a period of oppression, where dictatorship and tyranny were the brightest forms of governance.
In modern industrial societies, however, supremacy was seldom described by the concentration of the means of production and by the gap between peoples as social injustice.
In my faith, human beings are, in the context of liberal institutions, all equal before the law; no differentiation could be authorized between either a ruling leader or a common citizen. However, we must recognize the existence of an unequal potential in human inner nature, depending on each individual. On the other word, we should not be differentiated by body size, sex, racial origins or cultural background, but by our inner nature.
Some argue that men are created equal. Yet, it seems that men of impressive achievement are always differentiated and remembered since the beginning of tribal’ oral data. For example, Napoleon, a frail Corsican soldier with a physical appearance less than mediocrity was managed to become emperor of France and to conquer western Europe. On the other hand, Mao was a son of peasantry. President Nelson Mendela who was once a boxer commented that:"The struggle is my life". The impressive achievement of these powerful men proves that their inner potential was made of tremendous courage and prime intelligence. I distinguish them as Superior Men, quoting Nietzche' s accurate statement. If mankind' s differentiation is, at first, to be based on individuals' inner nature, thus every single one has been given an overdeveloped potential over the rest of human beings; yet only few are capable of exploiting it. Therefore, it is justifiable that some people end up wealthier, socially higher. Justice, with a foundation based on social norms has to be enforced by the development of human civilization. Consequently, social progress would correct any overgrowing injustice. Among developed societies, justice is considered to be the major guarantee of social equality, prosperity, life and peace. Thus, I believe when the law is unjust, it is in the interest of the majority to change it. On the other word, the injustice as a matter of fact exists, yet we should prevent to translate it into law.
One of the perpetual social injustices is the unjust wealth distribution. In the old time, injustice occurs through the direct expropriation of wealth and goods from a rural peasantry, under such overwhelming means as taxes, and slavery; wealth was accumulated in the political centers by hereditary aristocracy. In the post industrial revolution period, following Marx’s theory, modern theorists conceive of social classes as social groupings defined by their relation to the mean of production. Thus between those who own and those do not own the mean of production. Workers, therefore, could never receive a fair amount of profit because they have limited possibility to protest against it.
In order to act so, mankind needs a political institution, which have the willingness to challenge injustice, regulate social affairs and prevent social alienation from occurring. For instance, government has the duty of to regulate the relationship between the capitalist class and the working class. Worker opposition to the capitalist exploitation of labor has to be controlled and the property rights of the capitalist class protected. I firmly believe that he highest purpose of a governmental institution is to give, not to receive, in addition of that, to preserve fundamental principals of a true democracy. As President Lincoln explained, by the people for the people.
As far as the edge of my ideal political institution is concerned, I conceive Plato’s ideal republic is not realistic and Machiavellian principles are too utilitarian. I see the future form of government is not quite centralized. The system that we have today, the notion of Nation State is not any more the perfect technical manner of governing. The foundation of Nation States claimed to be the governance over a population group (nation or people) which shares a common identity based on such factors as language, cultural practices and customs, institutions, historical background, and interests (in relation with other nations). However, with modern technology, people have a tremendous potential of migration which permits them to find their ideal living condition based on norm of culture or opportunity. Consequently, as we enter the era of Modern Nomdic Civilizations, the notion of Nation-States will soon disintegrate just as the feudalism did. Confederacy or Confederalism becomes evidently the future ideal government frame. As regards to the power of government, it is absolutely important to allow the later to have a possibility to use an emergency power, as Machiavelli argued of "the end explain the means."
Some may argue that if government has a strong power, citizens' freedom will be jeopardized. Remember that in the state of nature, we give up most of our nature freedom in exchange to stay alive, promote economic goal, in sum we created a moral contract between rational mankind. We embrace social contract for the reason that it is fundamentally against social chaos. In a civil society, our few existing nature rights are justified by the constitution, a contract between the state and populous, dominant and dominated. When citizens who are fully enjoying their freedom, in particular their freedom of political participation and elect their government, revolution caused by social disarrays. Under such circumstance, citizens can highly appreciate the benefits of trade under condition of peace and government could never abuse their power.
It is certain that no state has all the few "liberal" principles in actual social reality, such as individual freedom, political participation, freedom of choice and equality of opportunity. And in my ideal society, I do not emphasize on the importance of the freedom of individual. In my few contrasts with principles of liberalism, I insist upon that the interests of the majority including no-citizens compromise personal interests. Moreover, my ideal society is also the one that people ‘s political participation should not be maximized, the idea of mass line, a political participation of an entire society encouraged by the government, as Mao had argued is not recommended. So, at what degree political participation of people should extend? I assume that people can govern them self directly through various institutionalized electoral systems. For instance, to appoint representatives to the highest governmental apparatus. Or by referendum, as far as it is designed to regulate local questions.
The ideal society is the one that could appear only in our mind so far, when we’ll achieve at this stage? When Columbus saw above the ocean surf, the Caribbean Island of Cuba, he declared that he discovered a province of Cathay. Out of his high expectation, it was not the rich India but a wild land with antagonistic people. Slowly and at great coast, expectations and realities converged. Five hundred years later, we are still exploring. The difference is that at this time we are not seeking a new land but a groundwork which can administer it with virtue.
In the real world, the query that we are facing is considerable. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its empire, with the rise of Japan, European Union, the emergence of China, the collapse of states in Africa, the integration of east Europe, political scientists declared that these changes to be a "New World Order." According to realist school, the "New World Order" that we entering will be a new rendition of classical balance of power, when five nearly equal states, China, European Union, Japan, Russia and the United States, competed in flexible alliances. Because of human evolution and achievement, from a stage of primitive stone age, we are now testing "New World Order" and Global security.
Since the time of Sophocles and Confucius,
we are arguing about what is the ideal state. From the tremendous progress
that we have made since, it is in my conviction that social progress comes
with time. Therefore, if we want to have a society of justice, we must
think positively and be willing to look further.
Please, give me a confirmation if you like my essay
Thanks
|
|
|
|
| This
site is designed by Empereur Lui meme
Wu Wei The Founder and the Webmaster of Empereur.com Copyright © 2000 Empereur.com. Tous droits réservés |