Politics

Politics (from Ancient Greek πολιτικά (politiká) 'affairs of t he cit ies') is t he set of act ivit ies
t hat are associat ed wit h making decisions in groups, or ot her forms of power relat ions among
individuals, such as t he dist ribut ion of resources or st at us. The branch of social science t hat
st udies polit ics and government is referred t o as polit ical science.

It may be used posit ively in t he cont ext of a "polit ical solut ion" which is compromising and
nonviolent ,[1] or descript ively as "t he art or science of government ", but also oft en carries a
negat ive connot at ion.[2] The concept has been defined in various ways, and different approaches
have fundament ally differing views on whet her it should be used ext ensively or in a limit ed way,
empirically or normat ively, and on whet her conflict or co-operat ion is more essent ial t o it .

A variet y of met hods are deployed in polit ics, which include promot ing one's own polit ical views
among people, negot iat ion wit h ot her polit ical subject s, making laws, and exercising int ernal and
ext ernal force, including warfare against adversaries.[3][4][5][6][7] Polit ics is exercised on a wide
range of social levels, from clans and t ribes of t radit ional societ ies, t hrough modern local
government s, companies and inst it ut ions up t o sovereign st at es, t o t he int ernat ional level.

In modern nat ion st at es, people oft en form polit ical part ies t o represent t heir ideas. Members of
a part y oft en agree t o t ake t he same posit ion on many issues and agree t o support t he same
changes t o law and t he same leaders. An elect ion is usually a compet it ion bet ween different
part ies.

A polit ical syst em is a framework which defines accept able polit ical met hods wit hin a societ y.
The hist ory of polit ical t hought can be t raced back t o early ant iquit y, wit h seminal works such as
Plat o's Republic, Arist ot le's Politics, Confucius's polit ical manuscript s and Chanakya's
Arthashastra.[8]

Etymology
The English politics has it s root s in t he name of Arist ot le's classic work, Politiká, which
int roduced t he Greek t erm politiká (Πολιτικά, 'affairs of t he cit ies'). In t he mid-15t h cent ury,
Arist ot le's composit ion would be rendered in Early Modern English as Polettiques [sic],[a][9] which
would become Politics in Modern English.

The singular politic first at t est ed in English in 1430, coming from Middle French politique—it self
t aking from politicus,[10] a Lat inizat ion of t he Greek πολιτικός (politikos) from πολίτης (polites,
'cit izen') and πόλις (polis, 'cit y').[11]

Definitions

Harold Lasswell: "who gets what, when,

how"[12]
David Easton: "the authoritative
allocation of values for a society"[13]
Vladimir Lenin: "the most concentrated
expression of economics"[14]
 Otto von Bismarck: "the capacity of
always choosing at each instant, in
constantly changing situations, the least
harmful, the most useful"[15]
Bernard Crick: "a distinctive form of rule
whereby people act together through
institutionalized procedures to resolve
differences"[16]
Adrian Leftwich: "comprises all the
activities of co-operation, negotiation
and conflict within and between
societies"[17]

Approaches
There are several ways in which approaching polit ics has been concept ualized.
Extensive and limited
Adrian Left wich has different iat ed views of polit ics based on how ext ensive or limit ed t heir
percept ion of what account s as 'polit ical' is.[18] The ext ensive view sees polit ics as present
across t he sphere of human social relat ions, while t he limit ed view rest rict s it t o cert ain
cont ext s. For example, in a more rest rict ive way, polit ics may be viewed as primarily about
governance,[19] while a feminist perspect ive could argue t hat sit es which have been viewed
t radit ionally as non-polit ical, should indeed be viewed as polit ical as well.[20] This lat t er posit ion is
encapsulat ed in t he slogan "the personal is political", which disput es t he dist inct ion bet ween
privat e and public issues. Polit ics may also be defined by t he use of power, as has been argued
by Robert A. Dahl.[21]

Moralism and realism

Some perspect ives on polit ics view it empirically as an exercise of power, while ot hers see it as a
social funct ion wit h a normat ive basis.[22] This dist inct ion has been called t he difference
bet ween polit ical moralism and polit ical realism.[23] For moralist s, polit ics is closely linked t o
et hics, and is at it s ext reme in ut opian t hinking.[23] For example, according t o Hannah Arendt , t he
view of Arist ot le was t hat "t o be polit ical…meant t hat everyt hing was decided t hrough words
and persuasion and not t hrough violence;"[24] while according t o Bernard Crick "polit ics is t he way
in which free societ ies are governed. Polit ics is polit ics, and ot her forms of rule are somet hing
else."[25] In cont rast , for realist s, represent ed by t hose such as Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas
Hobbes, and Harold Lasswell, polit ics is based on t he use of power, irrespect ive of t he ends
being pursued.[26][23]
Conflict and co-operation
Agonism argues t hat polit ics essent ially comes down t o conflict bet ween conflict ing int erest s.
Polit ical scient ist Elmer Schat t schneider argued t hat "at t he root of all polit ics is t he universal
language of conflict ,"[27] while for Carl Schmit t t he essence of polit ics is t he dist inct ion of
'friend' from foe'.[28] This is in direct cont rast t o t he more co-operat ive views of polit ics by
Arist ot le and Crick. However, a more mixed view bet ween t hese ext remes is provided by Irish
polit ical scient ist Michael Laver, who not ed t hat :

Politics is about the characteristic blend of conflict and co-operation

that can be found so often in human interactions. Pure conflict is war.
Pure co-operation is true love. Politics is a mixture of both.[29]

History

The Greek philosopher

Aristotle criticized many of
Plato's ideas as impracticable,
but, like Plato, he admires
balance and moderation and
aims at a harmonious city
under the rule of law.[30]
The hist ory of polit ics spans human hist ory and is not limit ed t o modern inst it ut ions of
government .

Prehistoric
Frans de Waal argued t hat chimpanzees engage in polit ics t hrough "social manipulat ion t o secure
and maint ain influent ial posit ions."[31] Early human forms of social organizat ion—bands and t ribes—
lacked cent ralized polit ical st ruct ures.[32] These are somet imes referred t o as st at eless
societ ies.

Early states
In ancient hist ory, civilizat ions did not have definit e boundaries as st at es have t oday, and t heir
borders could be more accurat ely described as front iers. Early dynast ic Sumer, and early dynast ic
Egypt were t he first civilizat ions t o define t heir borders. Moreover, up t o t he 12t h cent ury, many
people lived in non-st at e societ ies. These range from relat ively egalit arian bands and t ribes t o
complex and highly st rat ified chiefdoms.

State formation
There are a number of different t heories and hypot heses regarding early st at e format ion t hat
seek generalizat ions t o explain why the state developed in some places but not ot hers. Ot her
scholars believe t hat generalizat ions are unhelpful and t hat each case of early st at e format ion
should be t reat ed on it s own.[33]

Voluntary theories cont end t hat diverse groups of people came t oget her t o form st at es as a
result of some shared rat ional int erest .[34] The t heories largely focus on t he development of
agricult ure, and t he populat ion and organizat ional pressure t hat followed and result ed in st at e
format ion. One of t he most prominent t heories of early and primary st at e format ion is t he
hydraulic hypothesis, which cont ends t hat t he st at e was a result of t he need t o build and
maint ain large-scale irrigat ion project s.[35]

Conflict theories of st at e format ion regard conflict and dominance of some populat ion over
anot her populat ion as key t o t he format ion of st at es.[34] In cont rast wit h volunt ary t heories,
t hese argument s believe t hat people do not volunt arily agree t o creat e a st at e t o maximize
benefit s, but t hat st at es form due t o some form of oppression by one group over ot hers. Some
t heories in t urn argue t hat warfare was crit ical for st at e format ion.[34]

Ancient history
The first st at es of sort s were t hose of early dynast ic Sumer and early dynast ic Egypt , which
arose from t he Uruk period and Predynast ic Egypt respect ively around approximat ely 3000
BC.[36] Early dynast ic Egypt was based around t he Nile River in t he nort h-east of Africa, t he
kingdom's boundaries being based around t he Nile and st ret ching t o areas where oases
exist ed.[37] Early dynast ic Sumer was locat ed in sout hern Mesopot amia, wit h it s borders
ext ending from t he Persian Gulf t o part s of t he Euphrat es and Tigris rivers.[36]

Egypt ians, Romans, and t he Greeks were t he first people known t o have explicit ly formulat ed a
polit ical philosophy of t he st at e, and t o have rat ionally analyzed polit ical inst it ut ions. Prior t o
t his, st at es were described and just ified in t erms of religious myt hs.[38]

Several import ant polit ical innovat ions of classical ant iquit y came from t he Greek cit y-st at es
(polis) and t he Roman Republic. The Greek cit y-st at es before t he 4t h cent ury grant ed
cit izenship right s t o t heir free populat ion; in At hens t hese right s were combined wit h a direct ly
democrat ic form of government t hat was t o have a long aft erlife in polit ical t hought and
hist ory.[39]
Modern states

Women voter outreach (1935)

The Peace of West phalia (1648) is considered by polit ical scient ist s t o be t he beginning of t he
modern int ernat ional syst em,[40][41][42] in which ext ernal powers should avoid int erfering in anot her
count ry's domest ic affairs.[43] The principle of non-int erference in ot her count ries' domest ic
affairs was laid out in t he mid-18t h cent ury by Swiss jurist Emer de Vat t el.[44] St at es became t he
primary inst it ut ional agent s in an int erst at e syst em of relat ions. The Peace of West phalia is said
t o have ended at t empt s t o impose supranat ional aut horit y on European st at es. The
"West phalian" doct rine of st at es as independent agent s was bolst ered by t he rise in 19t h
cent ury t hought of nat ionalism, under which legit imat e st at es were assumed t o correspond t o
nations—groups of people unit ed by language and cult ure.[45]

In Europe, during t he 18t h cent ury, t he classic non-nat ional st at es were t he mult inat ional
empires: t he Aust rian Empire, Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Hungary,[46] t he Russian Empire, t he
Spanish Empire, t he Ot t oman Empire, and t he Brit ish Empire. Such empires also exist ed in Asia,
Africa, and t he Americas; in t he Muslim world, immediat ely aft er t he deat h of Muhammad in 632,
Caliphat es were est ablished, which developed int o mult i-et hnic t ransnat ional empires.[47] The
mult inat ional empire was an absolut e monarchy ruled by a king, emperor or sult an. The populat ion
belonged t o many et hnic groups, and t hey spoke many languages. The empire was dominat ed by
one et hnic group, and t heir language was usually t he language of public administ rat ion. The ruling
dynast y was usually, but not always, from t hat group. Some of t he smaller European st at es were
not so et hnically diverse, but were also dynast ic st at es, ruled by a royal house. A few of t he
smaller st at es survived, such as t he independent principalit ies of Liecht enst ein, Andorra,
Monaco, and t he republic of San Marino.
Most t heories see t he nat ion st at e as a 19t h-cent ury European phenomenon, facilit at ed by
development s such as st at e-mandat ed educat ion, mass lit eracy, and mass media. However,
hist orians also not e t he early emergence of a relat ively unified st at e and ident it y in Port ugal and
t he Dut ch Republic.[48] Scholars such as St even Weber, David Woodward, Michel Foucault , and
Jeremy Black have advanced t he hypot hesis t hat t he nat ion st at e did not arise out of polit ical
ingenuit y or an unknown undet ermined source, nor was it an accident of hist ory or polit ical
invent ion.[49][34][50] Rat her, t he nat ion st at e is an inadvert ent byproduct of 15t h-cent ury
int ellect ual discoveries in polit ical economy, capit alism, mercant ilism, polit ical geography, and
geography[51][52] combined wit h cart ography[53][54] and advances in map-making t echnologies.[55]

Some nat ion st at es, such as Germany and It aly, came int o exist ence at least part ly as a result of
polit ical campaigns by nat ionalist s, during t he 19t h cent ury. In bot h cases, t he t errit ory was
previously divided among ot her st at es, some of t hem very small. Liberal ideas of free t rade
played a role in German unificat ion, which was preceded by a cust oms union, t he Zollverein.
Nat ional self-det erminat ion was a key aspect of Unit ed St at es President Woodrow Wilson's
Fourt een Point s, leading t o t he dissolut ion of t he Aust ro-Hungarian Empire and t he Ot t oman
Empire aft er t he First World War, while t he Russian Empire became t he Soviet Union aft er t he
Russian Civil War. Decolonizat ion lead t o t he creat ion of new nat ion st at es in place of
mult inat ional empires in t he Third World.

Globalization
Polit ical globalizat ion began in t he 20t h cent ury t hrough int ergovernment al organizat ions and
supranat ional unions. The League of Nat ions was founded aft er World War I, and aft er World War
II it was replaced by t he Unit ed Nat ions. Various int ernat ional t reat ies have been signed t hrough
it . Regional int egrat ion has been pursued by t he African Union, ASEAN, t he European Union, and
Mercosur. Int ernat ional polit ical inst it ut ions on t he int ernat ional level include t he Int ernat ional
Criminal Court , t he Int ernat ional Monet ary Fund, and t he World Trade Organizat ion.
Political science

Plato (left) and Aristotle (right),

from a detail of The School of
Athens, a fresco by Raphael.
Plato's Republic and Aristotle's
Politics secured the two Greek
philosophers as two of the
most influential political
philosophers.

The st udy of polit ics is called political science,[56] It comprises numerous subfields, namely
t hree: Comparat ive polit ics, int ernat ional relat ions and polit ical philosophy.[57] Polit ical science is
relat ed t o, and draws upon, t he fields of economics, law, sociology, hist ory, philosophy, geography,
psychology, psychiat ry, ant hropology, and neurosciences.

Comparat ive polit ics is t he science of comparison and t eaching of different t ypes of
const it ut ions, polit ical act ors, legislat ure and associat ed fields. Int ernat ional relat ions deals wit h
t he int eract ion bet ween nat ion-st at es as well as int ergovernment al and t ransnat ional
organizat ions. Polit ical philosophy is more concerned wit h cont ribut ions of various classical and
cont emporary t hinkers and philosophers.[58]

Polit ical science is met hodologically diverse and appropriat es many met hods originat ing in
psychology, social research, and cognit ive neuroscience. Approaches include posit ivism,
int erpret ivism, rat ional choice t heory, behavioralism, st ruct uralism, post -st ruct uralism, realism,
inst it ut ionalism, and pluralism. Polit ical science, as one of t he social sciences, uses met hods and
t echniques t hat relat e t o t he kinds of inquiries sought : primary sources such as hist orical
document s and official records, secondary sources such as scholarly journal art icles, survey
research, st at ist ical analysis, case st udies, experiment al research, and model building.

Political system

Map of European nations coloured by

percentage of vote governing party
got in last election as of 2022

Systems view of politics

The polit ical syst em defines t he process for making official government decisions. It is usually
compared t o t he legal syst em, economic syst em, cult ural syst em, and ot her social syst ems.
According t o David East on, "A polit ical syst em can be designat ed as t he int eract ions t hrough
which values are aut horit at ively allocat ed for a societ y."[13] Each polit ical syst em is embedded in
a societ y wit h it s own polit ical cult ure, and t hey in t urn shape t heir societ ies t hrough public
policy. The int eract ions bet ween different polit ical syst ems are t he basis for global polit ics.
Forms of government

Legislatures are an important political

institution. Pictured is the Parliament
of Finland.

Forms of government can be classified by several ways. In t erms of t he structure of power,

t here are monarchies (including const it ut ional monarchies) and republics (usually president ial,
semi-president ial, or parliament ary).

The separat ion of powers describes t he degree of horizontal integration bet ween t he
legislat ure, t he execut ive, t he judiciary, and ot her independent inst it ut ions.

Source of power
The source of power det ermines t he difference bet ween democracies, oligarchies, and
aut ocracies.

In a democracy, polit ical legit imacy is based on popular sovereignt y. Forms of democracy include
represent at ive democracy, direct democracy, and demarchy. These are separat ed by t he way
decisions are made, whet her by elect ed represent at ives, referendums, or by cit izen juries.
Democracies can be eit her republics or const it ut ional monarchies.

Oligarchy is a power st ruct ure where a minorit y rules. These may be in t he form of anocracy,
arist ocracy, ergat ocracy, geniocracy, geront ocracy, kakist ocracy, klept ocracy, merit ocracy,
noocracy, part icracy, plut ocracy, st rat ocracy, t echnocracy, t heocracy, or t imocracy.

Aut ocracies are eit her dict at orships (including milit ary dict at orships) or absolut e monarchies.
 The pathway of regional integration
or separation

Vertical integration
In t erms of level of vert ical int egrat ion, polit ical syst ems can be divided int o (from least t o most
int egrat ed) confederat ions, federat ions, and unit ary st at es.

A federat ion (also known as a federal st at e) is a polit ical ent it y charact erized by a union of
part ially self-governing provinces, st at es, or ot her regions under a cent ral federal government
(federalism). In a federat ion, t he self-governing st at us of t he component st at es, as well as t he
division of power bet ween t hem and t he cent ral government , is t ypically const it ut ionally
ent renched and may not be alt ered by a unilat eral decision of eit her part y, t he st at es or t he
federal polit ical body. Federat ions were formed first in Swit zerland, t hen in t he Unit ed St at es in
1776, in Canada in 1867 and in Germany in 1871 and in 1901, Aust ralia. Compared t o a federat ion, a
confederat ion has less cent ralized power.

State

Federal states
Unitary states
No government

All t he above forms of government are variat ions of t he same basic polit y, t he sovereign st at e.
The st at e has been defined by Max Weber as a polit ical ent it y t hat has monopoly on violence
wit hin it s t errit ory, while t he Mont evideo Convent ion holds t hat st at es need t o have a defined
t errit ory; a permanent populat ion; a government ; and a capacit y t o ent er int o int ernat ional
relat ions.

A st at eless societ y is a societ y t hat is not governed by a st at e.[59] In st at eless societ ies, t here
is lit t le concent rat ion of aut horit y; most posit ions of aut horit y t hat do exist are very limit ed in
power and are generally not permanent ly held posit ions; and social bodies t hat resolve disput es
t hrough predefined rules t end t o be small.[60] St at eless societ ies are highly variable in economic
organizat ion and cult ural pract ices.[61]

While st at eless societ ies were t he norm in human prehist ory, few st at eless societ ies exist
t oday; almost t he ent ire global populat ion resides wit hin t he jurisdict ion of a sovereign st at e. In
some regions nominal st at e aut horit ies may be very weak and wield lit t le or no act ual power.
Over t he course of hist ory most st at eless peoples have been int egrat ed int o t he st at e-based
societ ies around t hem.[62]

Some polit ical philosophies consider t he st at e undesirable, and t hus consider t he format ion of a
st at eless societ y a goal t o be achieved. A cent ral t enet of anarchism is t he advocacy of societ y
wit hout st at es.[59][63] The t ype of societ y sought for varies significant ly bet ween anarchist
schools of t hought , ranging from ext reme individualism t o complet e collect ivism.[64] In Marxism,
Marx's t heory of t he st at e considers t hat in a post -capit alist societ y t he st at e, an undesirable
inst it ut ion, would be unnecessary and wit her away.[65] A relat ed concept is t hat of st at eless
communism, a phrase somet imes used t o describe Marx's ant icipat ed post -capit alist societ y.

Constitutions
Const it ut ions are writ t en document s t hat specify and limit t he powers of t he different branches
of government . Alt hough a const it ut ion is a writ t en document , t here is also an unwrit t en
const it ut ion. The unwrit t en const it ut ion is cont inually being writ t en by t he legislat ive and
judiciary branch of government ; t his is just one of t hose cases in which t he nat ure of t he
circumst ances det ermines t he form of government t hat is most appropriat e.[66] England did set
t he fashion of writ t en const it ut ions during t he Civil War but aft er t he Rest orat ion abandoned
t hem t o be t aken up lat er by t he American Colonies aft er t heir emancipat ion and t hen France
aft er t he Revolut ion and t he rest of Europe including t he European colonies.
Const it ut ions oft en set out separat ion of powers, dividing t he government int o t he execut ive,
t he legislat ure, and t he judiciary (t oget her referred t o as t he t rias polit ica), in order t o achieve
checks and balances wit hin t he st at e. Addit ional independent branches may also be creat ed,
including civil service commissions, elect ion commissions, and supreme audit inst it ut ions.

Political culture

Inglehart-Weltzel cultural map of

countries

Polit ical cult ure describes how cult ure impact s polit ics. Every polit ical syst em is embedded in a
part icular polit ical cult ure.[67] Lucian Pye's definit ion is t hat "Polit ical cult ure is t he set of
at t it udes, beliefs, and sent iment s, which give order and meaning t o a polit ical process and which
provide t he underlying assumpt ions and rules t hat govern behavior in t he polit ical syst em".[67]

Trust is a major fact or in polit ical cult ure, as it s level det ermines t he capacit y of t he st at e t o
funct ion.[68] Post mat erialism is t he degree t o which a polit ical cult ure is concerned wit h issues
which are not of immediat e physical or mat erial concern, such as human right s and
environment alism.[67] Religion has also an impact on polit ical cult ure.[68]
Political dysfunction

Political corruption
Polit ical corrupt ion is t he use of powers for illegit imat e privat e gain, conduct ed by government
officials or t heir net work cont act s. Forms of polit ical corrupt ion include bribery, cronyism,
nepot ism, and polit ical pat ronage. Forms of polit ical pat ronage, in t urn, includes client elism,
earmarking, pork barreling, slush funds, and spoils syst ems; as well as polit ical machines, which is
a polit ical syst em t hat operat es for corrupt ends.

When corrupt ion is embedded in polit ical cult ure, t his may be referred t o as pat rimonialism or
neopat rimonialism. A form of government t hat is built on corrupt ion is called a kleptocracy ('rule
of t hieves').

Insincere politics
The words "polit ics" and "polit ical" are somet imes used as pejorat ives t o mean polit ical act ion
t hat is deemed t o be overzealous, performat ive, or insincere.[69]

Levels of politics

Macropolitics
Macropolit ics can eit her describe polit ical issues t hat affect an ent ire polit ical syst em (e.g. t he
nat ion st at e), or refer t o int eract ions bet ween polit ical syst ems (e.g. int ernat ional relat ions).[70]
Global polit ics (or world polit ics) covers all aspect s of polit ics t hat affect mult iple polit ical
syst ems, in pract ice meaning any polit ical phenomenon crossing nat ional borders. This can
include cit ies, nat ion-st at es, mult inat ional corporat ions, non-government al organizat ions, and/or
int ernat ional organizat ions. An import ant element is int ernat ional relat ions: t he relat ions bet ween
nat ion-st at es may be peaceful when t hey are conduct ed t hrough diplomacy, or t hey may be
violent , which is described as war. St at es t hat are able t o exert st rong int ernat ional influence are
referred t o as superpowers, whereas less-powerful ones may be called regional or middle
powers. The int ernat ional syst em of power is called t he world order, which is affect ed by t he
balance of power t hat defines t he degree of polarit y in t he syst em. Emerging powers are
pot ent ially dest abilizing t o it , especially if t hey display revanchism or irredent ism.

Polit ics inside t he limit s of polit ical syst ems, which in cont emporary cont ext correspond t o
nat ional borders, are referred t o as domest ic polit ics. This includes most forms of public policy,
such as social policy, economic policy, or law enforcement , which are execut ed by t he st at e
bureaucracy.

Mesopolitics
Mesopolit ics describes t he polit ics of int ermediary st ruct ures wit hin a polit ical syst em, such as
nat ional polit ical part ies or movement s.[70]

A polit ical part y is a polit ical organizat ion t hat t ypically seeks t o at t ain and maint ain polit ical
power wit hin government , usually by part icipat ing in polit ical campaigns, educat ional out reach, or
prot est act ions. Part ies oft en espouse an expressed ideology or vision, bolst ered by a writ t en
plat form wit h specific goals, forming a coalit ion among disparat e int erest s.[71]

Polit ical part ies wit hin a part icular polit ical syst em t oget her form t he part y syst em, which can
be eit her mult ipart y, t wo-part y, dominant -part y, or one-part y, depending on t he level of pluralism.
This is affect ed by charact erist ics of t he polit ical syst em, including it s elect oral syst em.
According t o Duverger's law, first -past -t he-post syst ems are likely t o lead t o t wo-part y
syst ems, while proport ional represent at ion syst ems are more likely t o creat e a mult ipart y
syst em.
Micropolitics
Micropolit ics describes t he act ions of individual act ors wit hin t he polit ical syst em.[70] This is
oft en described as polit ical part icipat ion.[72] Polit ical part icipat ion may t ake many forms,
including:

Activism
Boycott
Civil disobedience
Demonstration
Petition
Picketing
Strike action
Tax resistance
Voting (or its opposite, abstentionism)
Political values

Democracy
Democracy is a syst em of processing conflict s in which out comes depend on what part icipant s
do, but no single force cont rols what occurs and it s out comes. The uncert aint y of out comes is
inherent in democracy. Democracy makes all forces st ruggle repeat edly t o realize t heir int erest s
and devolves power from groups of people t o set s of rules.[73]

Among modern polit ical t heorist s, t here are t hree cont ending concept ions of democracy:
aggregative, deliberative, and radical.[74]

Aggregative
The t heory of aggregative democracy claims t hat t he aim of t he democrat ic processes is t o
solicit t he preferences of cit izens, and aggregat e t hem t oget her t o det ermine what social
policies t he societ y should adopt . Therefore, proponent s of t his view hold t hat democrat ic
part icipat ion should primarily focus on vot ing, where t he policy wit h t he most vot es get s
implement ed.

Different variant s of aggregat ive democracy exist . Under minimalism, democracy is a syst em of
government in which cit izens have given t eams of polit ical leaders t he right t o rule in periodic
elect ions. According t o t his minimalist concept ion, cit izens cannot and should not "rule" because,
for example, on most issues, most of t he t ime, t hey have no clear views or t heir views are not
well-founded. Joseph Schumpet er art iculat ed t his view most famously in his book Capitalism,
Socialism, and Democracy.[75] Cont emporary proponent s of minimalism include William H. Riker,
Adam Przeworski, Richard Posner.

According t o t he t heory of direct democracy, on t he ot her hand, cit izens should vot e direct ly, not
t hrough t heir represent at ives, on legislat ive proposals. Proponent s of direct democracy offer
varied reasons t o support t his view. Polit ical act ivit y can be valuable in it self, it socializes and
educat es cit izens, and popular part icipat ion can check powerful elit es. Most import ant ly,
cit izens do not rule t hemselves unless t hey direct ly decide laws and policies.

Government s will t end t o produce laws and policies t hat are close t o t he views of t he median
vot er—wit h half t o t heir left and t he ot her half t o t heir right . This is not a desirable out come as it
represent s t he act ion of self-int erest ed and somewhat unaccount able polit ical elit es compet ing
for vot es. Ant hony Downs suggest s t hat ideological polit ical part ies are necessary t o act as a
mediat ing broker bet ween individual and government s. Downs laid out t his view in his 1957 book
An Economic Theory of Democracy.[76]

Robert A. Dahl argues t hat t he fundament al democrat ic principle is t hat , when it comes t o
binding collect ive decisions, each person in a polit ical communit y is ent it led t o have his/her
int erest s be given equal considerat ion (not necessarily t hat all people are equally sat isfied by
t he collect ive decision). He uses t he t erm polyarchy t o refer t o societ ies in which t here exist s a
cert ain set of inst it ut ions and procedures which are perceived as leading t o such democracy.
First and foremost among t hese inst it ut ions is t he regular occurrence of free and open elect ions
which are used t o select represent at ives who t hen manage all or most of t he public policy of
t he societ y. However, t hese polyarchic procedures may not creat e a full democracy if, for
example, povert y prevent s polit ical part icipat ion.[77] Similarly, Ronald Dworkin argues t hat
"democracy is a subst ant ive, not a merely procedural, ideal."[78]

Deliberative
Deliberative democracy is based on t he not ion t hat democracy is government by deliberat ion.
Unlike aggregat ive democracy, deliberat ive democracy holds t hat , for a democrat ic decision t o
be legit imat e, it must be preceded by aut hent ic deliberat ion, not merely t he aggregat ion of
preferences t hat occurs in vot ing. Authentic deliberation is deliberat ion among decision-makers
t hat is free from dist ort ions of unequal polit ical power, such as power a decision-maker obt ained
t hrough economic wealt h or t he support of int erest groups.[79][80][81] If t he decision-makers
cannot reach consensus aft er aut hent ically deliberat ing on a proposal, t hen t hey vot e on t he
proposal using a form of majorit y rule.
Radical
Radical democracy is based on t he idea t hat t here are hierarchical and oppressive power relat ions
t hat exist in societ y. Democracy's role is t o make visible and challenge t hose relat ions by
allowing for difference, dissent and ant agonisms in decision-making processes.

Equality

Two-axis political compass chart with

a horizontal socio-economic axis and
a vertical socio-cultural axis and
ideologically representative political
colours, an example for a frequently
used model of the political
spectrum[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89]
 Three axis model of political
ideologies with both moderate and
radical versions and the goals of their
policies

Equalit y is a st at e of affairs in which all people wit hin a specific societ y or isolat ed group have
t he same social st at us, especially socioeconomic st at us, including prot ect ion of human right s
and dignit y, and equal access t o cert ain social goods and social services. Furt hermore, it may
also include healt h equalit y, economic equalit y and ot her social securit ies. Social equalit y
requires t he absence of legally enforced social class or cast e boundaries and t he absence of
discriminat ion mot ivat ed by an inalienable part of a person's ident it y. To t his end t here must be
equal just ice under law, and equal opport unit y regardless of, for example, sex, gender, et hnicit y,
age, sexual orient at ion, origin, cast e or class, income or propert y, language, religion, convict ions,
opinions, healt h or disabilit y.

Left–right spectrum
A common way of underst anding polit ics is t hrough t he left –right polit ical spect rum, which
ranges from left -wing polit ics via cent rism t o right -wing polit ics. This classificat ion is
comparat ively recent and dat es from t he French Revolut ion, when t hose members of t he
Nat ional Assembly who support ed t he republic, t he common people and a secular societ y sat on
t he left and support ers of t he monarchy, arist ocrat ic privilege and t he Church sat on t he right .[90]

Today, t he left is generally progressivist , seeking social progress in societ y. The more ext reme
element s of t he left , named t he far-left , t end t o support revolut ionary means for achieving t his.
This includes ideologies such as Communism and Marxism. The cent er-left , on t he ot her hand,
advocat e for more reformist approaches, for example t hat of social democracy.
In cont rast , t he right is generally mot ivat ed by conservat ism, which seeks t o conserve what it
sees as t he import ant element s of societ y such as law and order, limit ed federal government
and preserving individual freedoms. The far-right goes beyond t his, and oft en represent s a
react ionary t urn against progress, seeking t o undo it . Examples of such ideologies have included
Fascism and Nazism. The cent er-right may be less clear-cut and more mixed in t his regard, wit h
neoconservat ives support ing t he spread of free market s and capit alism, and one-nat ion
conservat ives more open t o social welfare programs.

According t o Norbert o Bobbio, one of t he major exponent s of t his dist inct ion, t he left believes in
at t empt ing t o eradicat e social inequalit y—believing it t o be unet hical or unnat ural,[91] while t he
right regards most social inequalit y as t he result of ineradicable nat ural inequalit ies, and sees
at t empt s t o enforce social equalit y as ut opian or aut horit arian.[92] Some ideologies, not ably
Christ ian Democracy, claim t o combine left and right -wing polit ics; according t o Geoffrey K.
Robert s and Pat ricia Hogwood, "In t erms of ideology, Christ ian Democracy has incorporat ed
many of t he views held by liberals, conservat ives and socialist s wit hin a wider framework of
moral and Christ ian principles."[93] Movement s which claim or formerly claimed t o be above t he
left -right divide include Fascist Terza Posizione economic polit ics in It aly and Peronism in
Argent ina.[94][95]

Freedom
Polit ical freedom (also known as political liberty or autonomy) is a cent ral concept in polit ical
t hought and one of t he most import ant feat ures of democrat ic societ ies. Negat ive libert y has
been described as freedom from oppression or coercion and unreasonable ext ernal const raint s
on act ion, oft en enact ed t hrough civil and polit ical right s, while posit ive libert y is t he absence of
disabling condit ions for an individual and t he fulfillment of enabling condit ions, e.g. economic
compulsion, in a societ y. This capabilit y approach t o freedom requires economic, social and
cult ural right s in order t o be realized.
Authoritarianism and libertarianism
Aut horit arianism and libert arianism disagree t he amount of individual freedom each person
possesses in t hat societ y relat ive t o t he st at e. One aut hor describes aut horit arian polit ical
syst ems as t hose where "individual right s and goals are subjugat ed t o group goals, expect at ions
and conformit ies,"[96] while libert arians generally oppose t he st at e and hold t he individual as
sovereign. In t heir purest form, libert arians are anarchist s,[97] who argue for t he t ot al abolit ion of
t he st at e, of polit ical part ies and of ot her polit ical ent it ies, while t he purest aut horit arians are, by
definit ion, t ot alit arians who support st at e cont rol over all aspect s of societ y.[98]

For inst ance, classical liberalism (also known as laissez-faire liberalism)[99] is a doct rine st ressing
individual freedom and limit ed government . This includes t he import ance of human rat ionalit y,
individual propert y right s, free market s, nat ural right s, t he prot ect ion of civil libert ies,
const it ut ional limit at ion of government , and individual freedom from rest raint as exemplified in
t he writ ings of John Locke, Adam Smit h, David Hume, David Ricardo, Volt aire, Mont esquieu and
ot hers. According t o t he libert arian Inst it ut e for Humane St udies, "t he libert arian, or 'classical
liberal,' perspect ive is t hat individual well-being, prosperit y, and social harmony are fost ered by 'as
much libert y as possible' and 'as lit t le government as necessary.' "[100] For anarchist polit ical
philosopher L. Susan Brown (1993), "liberalism and anarchism are t wo polit ical philosophies t hat
are fundament ally concerned wit h individual freedom yet differ from one anot her in very dist inct
ways. Anarchism shares wit h liberalism a radical commit ment t o individual freedom while reject ing
liberalism's compet it ive propert y relat ions."[101]

See also

Horseshoe theory Politics

portal
Index of politics articles –
alphabetical list of political subjects
 List of politics awards
List of years in politics
Outline of political science – structured
list of political topics, arranged by
subject area
Political lists – lists of political topics
Political polarization

References

Notes

a. "The book of Etiques and of Polettiques

[sic]" (Bhuler 1961/1941:154).

Citations

1 Leftwich 2015 p 68
1. Leftwich 2015, p. 68.
2. Hague & Harrop 2013, p. 1.
3. Hammarlund 1985, p. 8.
4. Brady 2017, p. 47.
5. Hawkesworth & Kogan 2013, p. 299.
6. Taylor 2012, p. 130.
7. Blanton & Kegley 2016, p. 199.
8. Kabashima & White III 1986
9. Buhler, C. F., ed. 1961 [1941]. The Dictes
and Sayings of the Philosophers. London:
Early English Text Society, Original Series
No. 211 (https://books.google.com/books?
id=M7G0AAAAIAAJ) Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20160905030633/http
s://books.google.com/books?id=M7G0AA
AAIAAJ&q=) 5 September 2016 at the
Wayback Machine.
10. Lewis & Short 1879, online.
11. Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert. "A
Greek-English Lexicon" (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20150924203856/http://www.p
erseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseu
s%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dp
olitiko%2Fs) . Perseus Digital Library. Tufts
Library. Archived from the original (https://
www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=P
erseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentr
y%3Dpolitiko%2Fs) on 24 September
2015. Retrieved 19 February 2016.
12. Lasswell 1963.
13. Easton 1981.
14. Lenin 1965.
15. Reichstag speech by Bismarck, January 29,
1886, in: Bismarck, The Collected Works.
Friedrichsruher edition, vol. 13: Speeches.
Edited by Wilhelm Schüßler, Berlin 1930, p.
177.
16. Crick 1972.
17. Leftwich 2004.
18. Leftwich 2004, pp. 14–15.
19. Leftwich 2004, p. 23.
20. Leftwich 2004, p. 119.
21. Dahl 2003, pp. 1–11.
22. Morlino 2017, p. 2.
23. Atkinson 2013, pp. 1–5.
24. Leftwich 2004, p. 73.
25. Leftwich 2004, p. 16.
26. Morlino 2017, p. 3.
27. Schattschneider, Elmer Eric (1960). The
semisovereign people : a realist's view of
democracy in America. Dryden P. p. 2.
ISBN 0-03-013366-1. OCLC 859587564 (htt
ps://www.worldcat.org/oclc/859587564) .
28. Mouffe, Chantal (1999). The Challenge of
Carl Schmitt (https://books.google.com/bo
oks?id=8yIEQ1RPGx8C&q=carl+schmitt+19
99&pg=PR7) . Verso. ISBN 978-1-85984-
244-7. Archived (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20210126155532/https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=8yIEQ1RPGx8C&q=carl+s
chmitt+1999&pg=PR7) from the original
on 26 January 2021. Retrieved 28 October
2020.
29. van der Eijk 2018, pp. 11, 29.
30. "Constitutional Rights Foundation" (https://
www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria
-26-1-plato-and-aristotle-on-tyranny-and-the
-rule-of-law.html#:~:text=Plato%20and%20
Aristotle%20both%20developed,is%20grant
ed%20to%20a%20ruler) . Crf-usa.org.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202
20216184550/https://www.crf-usa.org//bill
-of-rights-in-action/bria-26-1-plato-and-arist
otle-on-tyranny-and-the-rule-of-law.html#:~:
text=Plato%20and%20Aristotle%20both%2
0developed,is%20granted%20to%20a%20ru
ler) from the original on 16 February 2022.
Retrieved 20 February 2022.
31. de Waal, Frans (2007). Chimpanzee politics
power and sex among apes. Johns Hopkins
University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-8656-0.
OCLC 493546705 (https://www.worldcat.or
g/oclc/493546705) .
32. Fukuyama, Francis (2012). The origins of
political order : from prehuman times to the
French Revolution. Farrar, Straus and
Giroux. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-374-53322-9.
OCLC 1082411117 (https://www.worldcat.
org/oclc/1082411117) .
33. Spencer, Charles S.; Redmond, Elsa M. (15
September 2004). "Primary State
Formation in Mesoamerica". Annual Review
of Anthropology. 33 (1): 173–199.
doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143
823 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.an
thro.33.070203.143823) . ISSN 0084-6570
(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0084-657
0) .
34. Carneiro 1970, pp. 733–738.
35. Origins of the state : the anthropology of
political evolution (https://archive.org/detai
ls/originsofstatean0000unse) .
Philadelphia : Institute for the Study of
Human Issues. 1978. p. 30 – via Internet
Archive.
36. Daniel 2003, p. xiii.
37. Daniel 2003, pp. 9–11.
38. Nelson & Nelson 2006, p. 17.
39. Kumar, Sanjay (2021). A Handbook of
Political Geography (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=iGc9EAAAQBAJ&dq=The+Gr
eek+city-states+before+the+4th+century+g
ranted+citizenship+rights+to+their+free+po
pulation%3B+in+Athens+these+rights+wer
e+combined+with+a+directly+democratic+
form+of+government+that+was+to+have+
a+long+afterlife+in+political+thought+and+
history.&pg=PA53) . K.K. Publications.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202
30324145301/https://books.google.com/b
ooks?id=iGc9EAAAQBAJ&dq=The+Greek+c
ity-states+before+the+4th+century+granted
+citizenship+rights+to+their+free+populati
on%3B+in+Athens+these+rights+were+co
mbined+with+a+directly+democratic+form
 +of+government+that+was+to+have+a+lon
g+afterlife+in+political+thought+and+histor
y.&pg=PA53) from the original on 24
March 2023. Retrieved 22 February 2023.
40. Osiander 2001, p. 251.
41. Gross 1948, pp. 20–41.
42. Jackson, R. H. 2005. "The Evolution of
World Society" in The Globalization of
World Politics: An Introduction to
International Relations, edited by P. Owens.
J. Baylis and S. Smith. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. p. 53. ISBN 1-56584-727-
X.
43. Kissinger 2014.
44. Krasner, Stephen D. (2010). "The durability
of organized hypocrisy". In Kalmo, Hent;
Skinner, Quentin (eds.). Sovereignty in
Fragments: The Past, Present and Future of
a Contested Concept. Cambridge University
Press.
45. "From Westphalia, with love – Indian
Express" (http://archive.indianexpress.co
m/news/from-westphalia-with-love/95080
4/) . archive.indianexpress.com. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2020080609
1803/http://archive.indianexpress.com/ne
ws/from-westphalia-with-love/950804/)
from the original on 6 August 2020.
Retrieved 30 July 2020.
46. ^ Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism
since 1780 : programme, myth, reality
(Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990; ISBN 0-521-
43961-2) chapter II "The popular
protonationalism", pp. 80–81 French
edition (Gallimard, 1992). According to
Hobsbawm, the main source for this
subject is Ferdinand Brunot (ed.), Histoire
de la langue française, Paris, 1927–1943,
13 volumes, in particular volume IX. He
also refers to Michel de Certeau,
Dominique Julia, Judith Revel, Une politique
de la langue: la Révolution française et les
patois: l'enquête de l'abbé Grégoire, Paris,
1975. For the problem of the
transformation of a minority official
language into a widespread national
language during and after the French
Revolution, see Renée Balibar, L'Institution
du français: essai sur le co-linguisme des
Carolingiens à la République, Paris, 1985
(also Le co-linguisme, PUF, Que sais-je?,
1994, but out of print) The Institution of the
French language: essay on colinguism from
the Carolingian to the Republic. Finally,
Hobsbawm refers to Renée Balibar and
Dominique Laporte, Le Français national:
politique et pratique de la langue nationale
sous la Révolution, Paris, 1974.
47. Al-Rasheed, Madawi; Kersten, Carool;
Shterin, Marat (2012). Demystifying the
Caliphate: Historical Memory and
Contemporary Contexts (https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=EAMqBgAAQBAJ&pg=P
A3) . Oxford University Press. p. 3.
ISBN 978-0-19-932795-9. Archived (https://
web.archive.org/web/20200710020511/htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id=EAMqBg
AAQBAJ&pg=PA3) from the original on 10
July 2020. Retrieved 5 May 2020.
48. Richards, Howard (2004). Understanding
the Global Economy (https://books.google.
com/books?id=9Kw5vLbYq-4C&q=early+e
mergence+of+a+relatively+unified+state,+a
nd+a+sense+of+common+identity,+in+Port
ugal+and+the+Dutch+Republic.&pg=PA34
4) . Peace Education Books. ISBN 978-0-
9748961-0-6. Archived (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20210521084057/https://book
s.google.com/books?id=9Kw5vLbYq-4C&q
=early+emergence+of+a+relatively+unified
+state,+and+a+sense+of+common+identit
y,+in+Portugal+and+the+Dutch+Republic.&
pg=PA344) from the original on 21 May
2021. Retrieved 28 October 2020.
49. Black, Jeremy.1998. Maps and Politics. pp.
59–98, 100–147.
50. Foucault, Michel. [1977–1978] 2007.
Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at
the Collège de France.
51. Rizaldy, Aldino, and Wildan Firdaus. 2012.
"Direct Georeferencing: A New Standard in
Photogrammetry for High Accuracy
Mapping (https://www.int-arch-photogram
m-remote-sens-spatial-inf-sci.net/XXXIX-B
1/5/2012/isprsarchives-XXXIX-B1-5-2012.p
df) Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20200926121347/https://www.int-arch-p
hotogramm-remote-sens-spatial-inf-sci.net/
XXXIX-B1/5/2012/isprsarchives-XXXIX-B1-
5-2012.pdf) 26 September 2020 at the
Wayback Machine." International Archives
of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing
and Spatial Information Sciences
39(B1):5–9. doi:10.5194/isprsarchives-
XXXIX-B1-5-2012 (https://doi.org/10.519
4%2Fisprsarchives-XXXIX-B1-5-2012)
52. Bellezza, Giuliano. 2013. "On Borders: From
Ancient to Postmodern Times (https://ww
w.int-arch-photogramm-remote-sens-spatia
l-inf-sci.net/XL-4-W3/1/2013/isprsarchives-
XL-4-W3-1-2013.pdf) Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20200926125037/http
s://www.int-arch-photogramm-remote-sens
-spatial-inf-sci.net/XL-4-W3/1/2013/isprsar
chives-XL-4-W3-1-2013.pdf) 26 September
2020 at the Wayback Machine." Int. Arch.
Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci.
40-4(W3):1–7. doi:10.5194/isprsarchives-
XL-4-W3-1-2013 (https://doi.org/10.5194%
2Fisprsarchives-XL-4-W3-1-2013)
53. Mikhailova, E. V. 2013. "Appearance and
Appliance of the Twin-Cities Concept on the
Russian-Chinese Border (https://www.int-ar
ch-photogramm-remote-sens-spatial-inf-sc
i.net/XL-4-W3/105/2013/isprsarchives-XL-
4-W3-105-2013.pdf) Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20200926124128/http
s://www.int-arch-photogramm-remote-sens
-spatial-inf-sci.net/XL-4-W3/105/2013/ispr
sarchives-XL-4-W3-105-2013.pdf) 26
September 2020 at the Wayback Machine."
Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens.
Spatial Inf. Sci. 40-4(W3):105–110.
doi:10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-4-W3-105-
2013 (https://doi.org/10.5194%2Fisprsarch
ives-XL-4-W3-105-2013)
54. Pickering, S. 2013. "Borderlines: Maps and
the spread of the Westphalian state from
Europe to Asia Part One – The European
Context (https://www.int-arch-photogramm
-remote-sens-spatial-inf-sci.net/XL-4-W3/1
11/2013/isprsarchives-XL-4-W3-111-2013.
pdf) Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20200926121100/https://www.int-arch-p
hotogramm-remote-sens-spatial-inf-sci.net/
XL-4-W3/111/2013/isprsarchives-XL-4-W3-
111-2013.pdf) 26 September 2020 at the
Wayback Machine." Int. Arch. Photogramm.
Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. 40-
4(W3):111–116.
doi:10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-4-W3-111-
2013 (https://doi.org/10.5194%2Fisprsarch
ives-XL-4-W3-111-2013)
55. Branch 2011.
56. "What is Political Science?" (https://www.p
olisci.washington.edu/what-political-scienc
e) . www.polisci.washington.edu. Retrieved
11 January 2024.
57. Caramani, ed. (2020). Comparative politics
(https://books.google.com/books?id=VQfc
DwAAQBAJ) (Fifth ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-882060-4.
OCLC 1144813972 (https://www.worldcat.
org/oclc/1144813972) .
58. "What is Comparative Politics?" (https://soc
ialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Political_
Science_and_Civics/Introduction_to_Comp
arative_Government_and_Politics_(Bozonel
os_et_al.)/01%3A_Why_Study_Comparative
_Politics/1.01%3A_What_is_Comparative_P
olitics) . Social Sci LibreTexts. 22 February
2022. Retrieved 11 January 2024.
59. Craig 2005, p. 14.
60. Ellis, Stephen (2001). The Mask of Anarchy:
The Destruction of Liberia and the
Religious Dimension of an African Civil War
(https://books.google.com/books?id=fLAW
MGqKMb4C&pg=PA198) . NYU Press.
p. 198. ISBN 978-0-8147-2219-0. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/2021022421
3821/https://books.google.com/books?id=
fLAWMGqKMb4C&pg=PA198) from the
original on 24 February 2021. Retrieved
4 May 2020 – via Google Books.
61. Béteille 2002, pp. 1042–1043.
62. Faulks, Keith (2000). Political Sociology: A
Critical Introduction (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=_fjCczhvWj0C&pg=PA23) .
NYU Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-8147-2709-6.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202
01116055203/https://books.google.com/b
ooks?id=_fjCczhvWj0C&pg=PA23) from
the original on 16 November 2020.
Retrieved 4 May 2020 – via Google Books.
63. Sheehan, Sean (2004). Anarchism. London:
Reaktion Books. p. 85.
64. Slevin, Carl (2003). "Anarchism". In McLean,
Iain & McMillan, Alistair (eds.). The Concise
Oxford Dictionary of Politics (https://archiv
e.org/details/oxfordconcisedic00iain) .
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
280276-7.
65. Engels, Frederick (1880). "Part III: Historical
Materialism". Socialism: Utopian and
Scientific (https://www.marxists.org/archiv
e/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm) .
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202
10207174438/https://www.marxists.org/ar
chive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.ht
m) from the original on 7 February 2021.
Retrieved 4 May 2020 – via Marx/Engels
Internet Archive (marxists.org). "State
interference in social relations becomes, in
one domain after another, superfluous, and
then dies out of itself; the government of
persons is replaced by the administration
of things, and by the conduct of processes
of production. The State is not "abolished".
It dies out...Socialized production upon a
predetermined plan becomes henceforth
possible. The development of production
makes the existence of different classes of
society thenceforth an anachronism. In
proportion as anarchy in social production
vanishes, the political authority of the State
dies out. Man, at last the master of his own
form of social organization, becomes at the
same time the lord over Nature, his own
master—free."
66. "Britain's unwritten constitution" (https://ww
w.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwri
tten-constitution) . The British Library.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201
90401113644/https://www.bl.uk/magna-ca
rta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitutio
n) from the original on 1 April 2019.
Retrieved 25 February 2019.
67. Morlino, Berg-Schlosser & Badie 2017,
pp. 64–74
68. Hague 2017, pp. 200–214.
69. "Definitions of political" (https://onelook.co
m/?w=political) . onelook.com. Retrieved
26 October 2023. "Motivated, especially
inappropriately, by political (electoral or
other party political) calculation"
70. Morlino, Berg-Schlosser & Badie 2017,
p. 20
71. Pettitt 2014, p. 60.
72. Morlino, Berg-Schlosser & Badie 2017,
p. 161
73. Przeworski, Adam (1991). Democracy and
the Market (https://archive.org/details/dem
ocracymarket00prze) . Cambridge
University Press. pp. 10–14 (https://archiv
e.org/details/democracymarket00prze/pag
e/10) .
74. Springer, Simon (2011). "Public Space as
Emancipation: Meditations on Anarchism,
Radical Democracy, Neoliberalism and
Violence" (https://www.academia.edu/354
048) . Antipode. 43 (2): 525–562.
Bibcode:2011Antip..43..525S (https://ui.ad
sabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Antip..43..525
S) . doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00827.x
(https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-8330.2
010.00827.x) . Archived (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20210818002746/https://www.
academia.edu/354048) from the original
on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 14 June
2020.
75. Joseph Schumpeter, (1950). Capitalism,
Socialism, and Democracy. Harper
Perennial. ISBN 0-06-133008-6.
76. Downs 1957.
77. Dahl 1989.
78. Dworkin, Ronald. 2006. Is Democracy
Possible Here? Princeton: Princeton
University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13872-5.
p. 134.
79. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson.
2002. Why Deliberative Democracy?
Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-
691-12019-5
80. Cohen, Joshua. 1997. "Deliberation and
Democratic Legitimacy." In Essays on
Reason and Politics: Deliberative
Democracy, edited by J. Bohman and W.
Rehg. Cambridge: The MIT Press. pp. 72–
73.
81. Ethan J. 2006. "Can Direct Democracy Be
Made Deliberative?" Buffalo Law Review
54.
82. Heywood 2017, pp. 14–17.
83. Love 2006, p. 16.
84. Petrik 2010, p. 4.
85. Sznajd-Weron & Sznajd 2005, pp. 593–604
86. Forman, F. N.; Baldwin, N. D. J. (1999).
Mastering British Politics. London:
Macmillan Education UK. pp. 8 f.
doi:10.1007/978-1-349-15045-8 (https://do
i.org/10.1007%2F978-1-349-15045-8) .
ISBN 978-0-333-76548-7.
87. Fenna, Alan; Robbins, Jane; Summers, John
(2013). Government Politics in Australia.
Robbins, Jane., Summers, John. (10th ed.).
Melbourne: Pearson Higher Education AU.
pp. 126 f. ISBN 978-1-4860-0138-5.
OCLC 1021804010 (https://www.worldcat.
org/oclc/1021804010) .
88. Jones & Kavanagh 2003, p. 259.
89. Körösényi, András (1999). Government and
Politics in Hungary. Budapest, Hungary:
Central European University Press. p. 54.
ISBN 963-9116-76-9. OCLC 51478878 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/oclc/51478878) .
90. Knapp, Andrew; Wright, Vincent (2006). The
Government and Politics of France. London:
Routledge.
91. Gelderloos, Peter (2010). Anarchy Works.
92. Bobbio 1997.
93. Roberts & Hogwood 1997.
94. Tore 2014.
95. "bale p.40" (https://www.miis.edu/media/vi
ew/18971/original/balenouvelleresarticle.p
df) (PDF). Archived (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20170330043520/https://www.mii
s.edu/media/view/18971/original/balenou
velleresarticle.pdf) (PDF) from the original
on 30 March 2017. Retrieved 25 February
2018.
96. Kemmelmeier et al. 2003, pp. 304–322
97. "An Anarchist FAQ: 150 years of Libertarian"
(http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/15
0-years-of-libertarian) . Anarchists Writers.
April 2011. Archived (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20180925141951/http://anarchism.
pageabode.com/afaq/150-years-of-libertar
ian) from the original on 25 September
2018. Retrieved 25 September 2018.
98. "totalitarian" (https://www.dictionary.com/b
rowse/totalitarian) . Dictionary.com
Unabridged (Online). n.d. Retrieved
25 September 2018. Archived (https://web.
archive.org/web/20180925142146/https://
www.dictionary.com/browse/totalitarian?s
=t) from the original on 25 September
2018.
 99. Adams, Ian. 2001. Political Ideology Today.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
p. 20.
100. IHS. 2019. "What Is Libertarian? (http://ww
w.theihs.org/about/id.1084/default.asp) ."
Institute for Humane Studies. George
Mason University. Archived (https://web.arc
hive.org/web/20070324231417/http://ww
w.theihs.org/about/id.1084/default.asp)
24 March 2007 at the Wayback Machine
101. Brown, L. Susan. 1993. The Politics of
Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal
Feminism, and Anarchism. Black Rose
Books.

Bibliography

Atkinson, Sam (2013). The politics book. DK.

pp. 1–5. ISBN 978-1-4093-6445-0.
OCLC 868135821 (https://www.worldcat.org/
oclc/868135821) .
Béteille, André (2002). "Inequality and
Equality" (https://books.google.com/books?id
=hKzSc02tbaMC&pg=PA1042) . In Ingold,
Tim (ed.). Companion Encyclopedia of
Anthropology. Taylor & Francis. pp. 1042–
1043. ISBN 978-0-415-28604-6. Archived (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20200819115018/
https://books.google.com/books?id=hKzSc02
tbaMC&pg=PA1042) from the original on 19
August 2020. Retrieved 4 May 2020 – via
Google Books.
Blanton, Shannon L.; Kegley, Charles W.
(2016). World Politics: Trend and
Transformation, 2016–2017 (https://books.go
ogle.com/books?id=_iVTCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA
199) . Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1-305-
50487-5. Archived (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20190702151756/https://books.google.c
om/books?id=_iVTCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA199)
from the original on 2 July 2019. Retrieved
26 February 2018.
Bobbio, Norberto (1997). Left and Right: The
Significance of a Political Distinction.
Translated by Cameron, A. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-06246-4.
Brady, Linda P. (2017). The Politics of
Negotiation: America's Dealings with Allies,
Adversaries, and Friends (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=iNA3DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT4
7) . University of North Carolina Press. p. 47.
ISBN 978-1-4696-3960-4. Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20190702141049/http
s://books.google.com/books?id=iNA3DwAAQ
BAJ&pg=PT47) from the original on 2 July
2019. Retrieved 25 February 2018.
Branch, Jordan (2011). "Mapping the
Sovereign State: Technology, Authority, and
Systemic Change" (https://doi.org/10.1017%2
FS0020818310000299) . International
Organization. 65 (1): 1–36.
doi:10.1017/S0020818310000299 (https://do
i.org/10.1017%2FS0020818310000299) .
ISSN 0020-8183 (https://www.worldcat.org/is
sn/0020-8183) . JSTOR 23016102 (https://w
ww.jstor.org/stable/23016102) .
S2CID 144712038 (https://api.semanticschol
ar.org/CorpusID:144712038) .
"How Maps Made the World" (https://ww
w.wilsonquarterly.com/quarterly/_/how-
maps-made-the-world) . The Wilson
Quarterly. Summer 2011. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/202207300817
55/https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/qua
rterly/_/how-maps-made-the-world)
from the original on 30 July 2022.
Retrieved 10 March 2022.
Branch, Jordan Nathaniel (2011). Mapping the
Sovereign State: Cartographic Technology,
Political Authority, and Systemic Change (http
s://escholarship.org/uc/item/2tt0p94m)
(PhD thesis). University of California,
Berkeley. Archived (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20180104175945/https://escholarship.or
g/uc/item/2tt0p94m) from the original on 4
January 2018. Retrieved 5 March 2012.
Carneiro, Robert L. (21 August 1970). "A
Theory of the Origin of the State: Traditional
theories of state origins are considered and
rejected in favor of a new ecological
hypothesis" (https://www.science.org/doi/10.
1126/science.169.3947.733) . Science. 169
(3947): 733–738.
doi:10.1126/science.169.3947.733 (https://d
oi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.169.3947.733) .
ISSN 0036-8075 (https://www.worldcat.org/is
sn/0036-8075) . PMID 17820299 (https://pu
bmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17820299) .
S2CID 11536431 (https://api.semanticschola
r.org/CorpusID:11536431) . Archived (https://
web.archive.org/web/20191117104150/http
s://science.sciencemag.org/content/169/394
7/733) from the original on 17 November
2019. Retrieved 30 April 2020.
Craig, Edward, ed. (2005). "Anarchism". The
Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-134-34409-3.
"Anarchism is the view that a society without
the state, or government, is both possible and
desirable."
Crick, Bernard (1972). In defence of politics.
University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-
12064-3. OCLC 575753 (https://www.worldca
t.org/oclc/575753) .
Dahl, Robert A. (1989). Democracy and its
critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
ISBN 0-300-04938-2.
Dahl, Robert A. (2003). Modern political
analysis. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-049702-9.
OCLC 49611149 (https://www.worldcat.org/o
clc/49611149) .
Daniel, Glyn (2003) [1968]. The First
Civilizations: The Archaeology of their Origins
(https://books.google.com/books?id=wx9FAA
AAMAAJ) . New York: Phoenix Press. xiii.
ISBN 1-84212-500-1. Archived (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20140629061346/http://book
s.google.com/books?id=wx9FAAAAMAAJ)
from the original on 29 June 2014. Retrieved
3 May 2020.
Downs, Anthony (1957). An Economic Theory
of Democracy. New York: Harper Collins
College. ISBN 978-0-06-041750-5.
Easton, David (1981). The political system: an
inquiry into the state of political science
(3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
ISBN 978-0-226-18017-5. OCLC 781301164
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/781301164) .
Gross, Leo (January 1948). "The Peace of
Westphalia" (http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/
bbrown/classes/IntlOrgSp07/CourseDocs/IG
ross_PeaceofWestphalia1648_1948.pdf)
(PDF). The American Journal of International
Law. 42 (1): 20–41. doi:10.2307/2193560 (ht
tps://doi.org/10.2307%2F2193560) .
JSTOR 2193560 (https://www.jstor.org/stabl
e/2193560) . S2CID 246010450 (https://api.s
emanticscholar.org/CorpusID:246010450) .
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20200
806111018/http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/
bbrown/classes/IntlOrgSp07/CourseDocs/IG
ross_PeaceofWestphalia1648_1948.pdf)
(PDF) from the original on 6 August 2020.
Retrieved 5 May 2020.
Hague, Rod; Harrop, Martin (2013).
Comparative Government and Politics: An
Introduction (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=IUEdBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1) . Macmillan
International Higher Education. ISBN 978-1-
137-31786-5. Archived (https://web.archive.o
rg/web/20190707194650/https://books.goog
le.com/books?id=IUEdBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1)
from the original on 7 July 2019. Retrieved
25 February 2018.
Hague, Rod (2017). Political Science: A
Comparative Introduction. Macmillan
Education UK. pp. 200–214. ISBN 978-1-137-
60123-0. OCLC 970345358 (https://www.worl
dcat.org/oclc/970345358) .
Hammarlund, Bo (1985). Politik utan partier:
studier i Sveriges politiska liv 1726–1727 (htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id=BnRlAAAAI
AAJ) . Almqvist & Wiksell International.
ISBN 978-91-22-00780-7. Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20190703043410/http
s://books.google.com/books?id=BnRlAAAAIA
AJ) from the original on 3 July 2019.
Retrieved 25 February 2018.
Hawkesworth, Mary; Kogan, Maurice (2013).
Encyclopedia of Government and Politics: 2-
volume Set (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=vXgKAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA299) . London:
Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-91332-7.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190
702181253/https://books.google.com/book
s?id=vXgKAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA299) from the
original on 2 July 2019. Retrieved 25 February
2018.
Heywood, Andrew (2017). Political Ideologies:
An Introduction (6th ed.). Basingstoke:
Macmillan International Higher Education.
ISBN 978-1-137-60604-4. OCLC 988218349
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/988218349) .
Jones, Bill; Kavanagh, Dennis (2003). British
Politics Today. Kavanagh, Dennis. (7th ed.).
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
ISBN 978-0-7190-6509-5. OCLC 52876930 (h
ttps://www.worldcat.org/oclc/52876930) .
Kabashima, Ikuo; White III, Lynn T., eds.
(1986). Political System and Change: A World
Politics Reader. Princeton University Press.
ISBN 978-0-691-61037-5. JSTOR j.ctt7ztn7s
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7ztn7s) .
Kemmelmeier, Markus; et al. (2003).
"Individualism, Collectivism, and
Authoritarianism in Seven Societies". Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 34 (3): 304–
322. doi:10.1177/0022022103034003005 (ht
tps://doi.org/10.1177%2F002202210303400
3005) . S2CID 32361036 (https://api.semanti
cscholar.org/CorpusID:32361036) .
Kissinger, Henry (2014). World Order.
Penguin. ISBN 978-0-698-16572-4.
Lasswell, Harold D. (1963) [1958]. Politics:
who gets what, when how. : With postscript.
World. OCLC 61585455 (https://www.worldca
t.org/oclc/61585455) .
Leftwich, Adrian (2004). What is politics? : the
activity and its study. Polity. ISBN 0-7456-
3055-3. OCLC 1044115261 (https://www.worl
dcat.org/oclc/1044115261) .
Leftwich, Adrian (2015). What is politics? : the
activity and its study. Polity Press. ISBN 978-
0-7456-9852-6. OCLC 911200604 (https://ww
w.worldcat.org/oclc/911200604) .
Lenin, Vladimir I. (1965). Collected works.
September 1903 – December 1904.
OCLC 929381958 (https://www.worldcat.org/
oclc/929381958) .
Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles (1879).
"pŏlītĭcus" (https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ho
pper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.
0059%3Aentry%3Dpoliticus) . A Latin
Dictionary. Clarendon Press. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20150924204836/ht
tp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc
=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry%3Dpoliticu
s) from the original on 24 September 2015.
Retrieved 19 February 2016 – via Perseus
Digital Library.
Love, Nancy Sue (2006). Understanding
Dogmas and Dreams (2nd ed.). Washington,
District of Columbia: CQ Press. ISBN 978-1-
4833-7111-5. OCLC 893684473 (https://ww
w.worldcat.org/oclc/893684473) .
Morlino, Leonardo (2017). Political science.
Sage Publications Inc. ISBN 978-1-4129-
6213-1. OCLC 951226897 (https://www.world
cat.org/oclc/951226897) .
Morlino, Leonardo; Berg-Schlosser, Dirk;
Badie, Bertrand (2017). Political science : a
global perspective. London, England: SAGE.
pp. 64–74. ISBN 978-1-5264-1303-1.
OCLC 1124515503 (https://www.worldcat.or
g/oclc/1124515503) .
Nelson, B.; Nelson, Brian R. (2006). The
Making of the Modern State: A Theoretical
Evolution (https://books.google.com/books?i
d=cvtYZmiOjT8C&pg=PA17) . Palgrave
Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4039-7189-0.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20200
819025903/https://books.google.com/book
s?id=cvtYZmiOjT8C&pg=PA17) from the
original on 19 August 2020. Retrieved 30 April
2020.
Osiander, Andreas (2001). "Sovereignty,
International Relations, and the Westphalian
Myth". International Organization. 55 (2):
251–287. doi:10.1162/00208180151140577
(https://doi.org/10.1162%2F0020818015114
0577) . S2CID 145407931 (https://api.seman
ticscholar.org/CorpusID:145407931) .
Petrik, Andreas (3 December 2010). "Core
Concept 'Political Compass'. How Kitschelt's
Model of Liberal, Socialist, Libertarian and
Conservative Orientations Can Fill the
Ideology Gap in Civic Education" (https://web.
archive.org/web/20190622050457/http://ww
w.jsse.org/index.php/jsse/article/view/541/5
38) . Journal of Social Science Education: 4.
doi:10.4119/jsse-541 (https://doi.org/10.411
9%2Fjsse-541) . Archived from the original (ht
tp://www.jsse.org/index.php/jsse/article/vie
w/541/538) on 22 June 2019.
Pettitt, Robin T. (2014). Contemporary Party
Politics (https://books.google.com/books?id=
YFYdBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA60) . London:
Macmillan International Higher Education.
ISBN 978-1-137-41264-5. Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20190703031727/http
s://books.google.com/books?id=YFYdBQAAQ
BAJ&pg=PA60) from the original on 3 July
2019. Retrieved 28 February 2019 – via
Google Books.
Roberts and Hogwood, European Politics
Today, Manchester University Press, 1997.
Sznajd-Weron, Katarzyna; Sznajd, Józef (June
2005). "Who is left, who is right?". Physica A:
Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications.
351 (2–4): 593–604.
Bibcode:2005PhyA..351..593S (https://ui.ads
abs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhyA..351..593
S) . doi:10.1016/j.physa.2004.12.038 (http
s://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.physa.2004.12.03
8) .
Taylor, Steven L. (2012). 30-Second Politics:
The 50 most thought-provoking ideas in
politics, each explained in half a minute (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=CV281jLqLP
gC&pg=PT130) . Icon Books Limited. p. 130.
ISBN 978-1-84831-427-6. Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20190706214027/http
s://books.google.com/books?id=CV281jLqLP
gC&pg=PT130) from the original on 6 July
2019. Retrieved 25 February 2018.
Tore, Bjorgo (2014). Terror from the Extreme
Right. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
ISBN 978-1-135-20930-8. OCLC 871861016
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/871861016) .
 van der Eijk, Cees (2018). "What Is Politics?".
The Essence of Politics (https://www.jstor.or
g/stable/j.ctvf3w22g) . Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press. pp. 9–24.
doi:10.2307/j.ctvf3w22g.4 (https://doi.org/1
0.2307%2Fj.ctvf3w22g.4) .
JSTOR j.ctvf3w22g (https://www.jstor.org/st
able/j.ctvf3w22g) . S2CID 157611448 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:157611
448) . Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/
20210202211010/https://www.jstor.org/stabl
e/j.ctvf3w22g) from the original on 2
February 2021. Retrieved 5 February 2021.

Further reading

Adcock, Robert. 2014. Liberalism and the

Emergence of American Political Science: A
Transatlantic Tale. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Adcock, Robert, Mark Bevir, and Shannon
Stimson (eds.). 2007. Modern Political
Science: Anglo-American Exchanges Since
1870. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Almond, Gabriel A. 1996. "Political Science:
The History of the Discipline", pp. 50–96, in
Robert E. Goodin and Hans-Dieter
Klingemann (eds.), The New Handbook of
Political Science. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Connolly, William (1981). Appearance and
Reality in Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
James, Raul; Soguk, Nevzat (2014).
Globalization and Politics, Vol. 1: Global
Political and Legal Governance (https://www.
academia.edu/7285675) . London: Sage
Publications. Retrieved 19 February 2016.
Mount, Ferdinand, "Ruthless and Truthless"
(review of Peter Oborne, The Assault on Truth:
Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the
Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism, Simon
and Schuster, 2021, ISBN 978-1-3985-0100-3,
192 pp.; and Colin Kidd and Jacqueline Rose,
eds., Political Advice: Past, Present and
Future, I.B. Tauris, February 2021, ISBN 978-
1-83860-004-4, 240 pp.), London Review of
Books, vol. 43, no. 9 (6 May 2021), pp. 3, 5–8.
 Munck, Gerardo L., and Richard Snyder (eds.).
Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative
Politics. Johns Hopkins University Press,
2007.
Ross, Dorothy. 1991. The Origins of American
Social Science. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Ryan, Alan (2012). On Politics: A History of
Political Thought from Herodotus to the
Present. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0-
7139-9364-6.

Politics at Wikipedia's sister projects: Definitions

from
Wiktionary
Media from
Commons
News from
Wikinews
Quotations
from
Wikiquote
Texts from
Wikisource
Textbooks
from
Wikibooks
Resources
from
Wikiversity
Data from
Wikidata
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Politics&oldid=1211552716"

This page was last edited on 3 March 2024, at

04:15 (UTC). •
Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless
otherwise noted.