You are on page 1of 10


CONTENTS: 1 The criteria and types of variation 2 Differences in the perception of those policies 3 Differences in the perception of the role of the state 4 Differences in the interpretation of conflict 5 Alternative ways of defining policies 6 Reasons of differences
The guiding idea of this text is the thesis that characteristic for contemporary times replacement of autocratic and colonialist systems, by promoting democracy with equal rights not only - as in past millennia - for privileged minority, but for all states, classes, races, nations, civilizations, confession, requires support generated by the critical re-evaluation of past epochs of political science theories and their replacement by a consistent line with democratic rules and principles of social life. A necessary condition for such progress is to overcome the dominant implicit paradigm theory of objectivity and uniformity of political science. Replace it explicitly by revealing the limitations of the paradigm of objectivity and bias in political science orientation of various trends in this discipline - not just in the past, but today. Helpful in this guide should be a fundamental anthropological thesis that “the personal, social, cultural and historical factors, determine the point of view every person in the concrete phenomena” [Robbins: XIV]. Thus and objectivity in the social sciences is certainly a desirable asset, but also as difficult attainable, as in physics to overcome the law of gravity. Cognitive ability and willingness of scientists are determined not only by the desire to detect and disseminate the truth, but also by personal relationships with the studied objects. Hence, it is easier to objectivity in the mathematics and natural sciences - not without reason called strict. More difficult in the humanities. Scientific integrity thus requires the award to the nature of social preferences in this type of scientific disciplines. This requirement is particularly necessary in the political science - the discipline dealing with the study of this sphere of human activity, whose purpose is the coordination of behavior interdependent communities with conflicting interests. “The study of politics is necessarily part of a policy” – denying it political scientists “deceiving themselves (and others), judging that an examination of policies could be the same science as science”[Crick:

11-12]. Knowledge that “the policy focuses on the key, the key contradictions between the main actors of social life, antagonisms and conflicts of interest for socio-economic base” - and that it inevitably affect the content of political science observation, we must clearly display, as is the core of political activity is often lost in a thicket of other issues to deal with ordinary as well as politicians and political institutions [Karwat: 34]. And this is usually because to hide the bias of certain politicians and their groups, and targeted its political institutions. Politics impartial - equally beneficial to each and all - is indeed beautiful, but a utopian ideal. Political scientists, therefore, must either disclose the nature of this bias - and self-determining character of his social commitment. And because they do not always reveal this, is needed - as called eminent British political scientist – “critical verification of the standard academic definition of politics” [Tansey: 16]. This is particularly necessary in a periods of deep transformations of societal systems. “In periods of stable political science serve only the description of existing institutions and the defense of their existence. Sciences fulfill the subservient role to the dominant political forces. The flowering of political science, which are both sciences of human existence in history and society, as well as the science of the new order in general, is characteristic in periods of revolution and crisis” [Voegelin: 15]. That was in the past, and should therefore be in the modern era of profound changes associated with the age of globalization, the disintegration of authoritarian regimes and the imperialistic systems and the dissemination of democracy, with equal rights for all individuals and nations, classes, races, confession and civilizations. Clearest evidence of the desirability and usefulness of such selfdetermination is political economy - akin to political science, which has adopted the custom of granting the sound of scientists to one of two distinctly different scientific schools. One in favor of the preference for freemarket methods of interpretation and control business processes - also known as liberal and neoliberal. And the second - which brought together advocates of the market correcting by state intervention. In contrast to political economy, and other social sciences, in political sciences we haven’t today a similar tendency as in the economic sciences to reveal preferences of various theoretical school and it’s interpretation. It leads to paradoxical unproductive and unprogressive “peaceful coexistence” theories born in the days of authoritarianism and domination imperialisms different provenance with adequate for democratic point of view. Overcoming these trends is particularly necessary today - in the face of obvious threats crisis situation in the economy and the threat of worsening

political contradictions and conflicts. Many provide for this, that the positive output from these Repression requires further qualitative progress in the theory and practice of interventionist orientation and support of her politics by political science. I think that helpfully in defining the core of the differences in political science - as in political economy - the nature of the opposing political orientations. Self-determining not according to the individual strands of theoretical and practical as a left-wing or right-wing - it appears misleading because of its status in the era of political changes and the associated ideological and political turmoil. But according to the way of understanding the place and role of politics and political institutions in society. 1. The criteria and types of variation I maintain that a key hallmark of help in the classification of the opposite orientation of the various currents of both policy and political science, can and should be to define what is their social servitude. The experience of past and present know, that the easement has oscillated between the subordination of one of two alternative types of objectives of all human activity:

Natural purpose, which is to provide opportunities for survival and achieving satisfaction with life of all members of a interdependent community, Gnarled purpose by focusing the activity of interdependent communities to optimize the conditions of existence privileged groups according to the criteria of the state, class, race, wealth, on the terms and cost subordinated and exploited majority.

Directing policy for the first or second type of prejudice the purposes, determining of appearing as in practice, as well as in political science theories, the two alternative orientations:

Focused on the problems of society - sociocentric, treating the policy as an equal with the other type of humans activity, aimed at reconciliation of interdependent conduct communities consisting from groups with contradictory interests. Sociocentric stimulates policy orientation is compatible with the equal rights agreement in which the most important is who is with whom and under what conditions harmonizing his cooperation’s. Focused on the problems of power elites - kratocentric [krátos from the Greek = authority], affirming treatment policy as a tool of domination and privileges individual and collective existence of the rulers and the intensification of internal and external conflicts in order to effectively

subordinate loggerheads and threatened society. Kratocentric orientation is appropriate such a policy, in which the most important issue is who prevails over whom. This is model definitions of the nature of social purposes and the nature of the alternative orientation. In contemporary practice, less than in the past appear in the same pure and extreme form - often manifested in the form of preferences to varying degrees in one direction or the other. However, are so important that they appear to be generally more important for social existence, non-political and ideological divisions between left and right. These divisions probably worsen during the global Great Recession - and since then, which proves a stronger orientation, will be depended substantially our future. Identity, and depend on the fate of various nations during the previous Great Depression. Another, where - as in Sweden - won sociocentric orientation in politics and pro-social interventionism in the economy. And radically different in Nazi Germany, dominated by the kratocentric orientation resulted pro-military interventionism and expansionist aggression. And yet another example, in Argentina, where authoritarian governments populist Party of Justice brought ruin on this country opportunities for development and internal peace. This should provide that matters of this statement are not only theoretical, but very practical. For good practice, after all, usually depends on the orientation of her aptly good theory. Many provide for this, that the positive output from these Great Repression, requires further qualitative progress in the theory and practice of interventionist orientation and thus adequate progress in politics and political science. [see knolls: The Crisis of Overconsumption; How to win Great Recession 2007-20??; Who will win – who loses Great Recession 2007-20??] 2. Differences in the perception of policies The main sources of differences both in politics and political science, is a refinement or extension of the perception of those political processes. Kratocentric orientation is characterized, both in practice and in theoretical interpretations, tend to focus only or mainly on interests of the political elite, and in extreme cases, political leaders - and rulers leaders. Sociocentric orientation manifests itself mainly in that it perceives and evaluates the policy through the prism of its place and role in the whole of social life - having regard to its impact on all members interdependent community.

The strength of influence kratocentrycznych interpretation comes very largely from the fact that politics, power and political institutions have been from the very beginning and for most of human history, mainly a tool to maintain unequal divisions favored minority of privileged class and subordinate exploited by them majority of working class. Theories born in those times it served primarily reflect political science justifying such unequal orders. Warning against an uncritical treatment of legacy kratocentric theories is necessary due to the fact that sociocentric orientation - in the modern sense of a consistent preference for the full and universal equality of all members interdependent community - has developed in political practice, and therefore in political science, relatively recently. It is a kind of paradox that attempts to overcome the unequal relations were originally also kratocentric. First, by the bourgeois revolutions, abolition of feudal servitude according to a privileged birth, resulted in substitution of the relevant divisions of capitalism, until recently, according to property and racial criteria. Similarly, proper implementation of the socialist revolutions the idea of “social justice”, resulted not universal equality, but another type of slavery and kratocentric privilege for ruling. Fuller and wider formal and real equality is a fresh dimension of the historical phenomenon, the right to ship in the second half of the twentieth century processes of decolonization and desowietization, resulting in global changes to be defined as “the third wave of democratization”. The paradoxical ambiguity of these processes shows that the contrasting systems in turn give a sort of “hostile assistance” - supporting the decolonization by the socialist countries resulting in a dismantling of the capitalist empires in the 50s and 60s of previous century, compensating by capitalist states in the 80s in supporting processes of desowietization and disintegration of the Soviet empire. Incapability to reform of authoritarian socialism caused that this system ceased to exist with the dissolution of the Soviet empire. Capability to reform capitalism strengthen the attractiveness of this system - gaining more “human face” through the liberation from colonialism and racism, and thus increase the number of countries identifying as a democratic-market. The scale of the changes caused by these processes illustrates the fact that while in 1900 there were only 6 of the democracies of the 48 existing, in 1920 their number increased to 15 from all 51, in 1990 already 65 from 192. In 2008 - the number living in countries with multiparty democracy was estimated at more than half of humanity [Index of democracy 2008, http://www. DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2008].

How fresh are these processes reflected facts, that only half a century ago Ghana was the first African countries won the independence, breaking the bonds of British colonialism. Another manifestation of this process was the abolition until 1994 in South Africa of apartheid after a long, brutal fight against supporters of such progress. Too short, only 44-year period has passed since the abolition in 1965 in the U.S. practice restrictive de facto electoral rights of African-Americans - generating changes, which probably most manifestation is the choice in 2008 Barack H. Obama for president of U.S.A. And just two decades passed since the Round Table Agreements, inducting full political democracy in Poland and after this in others . Processes of dissemination of full democracy, equalizing formally and in reality all the members of interdependent communities are - as it follows though powerful, but quite fresh and not fully domesticated in most states with such a system. Rather obvious that this refers to a substantial extent also to the state of political views and interpretation of political practice. The experience of the processes promote democracy demonstrates that it appears fully effective and lasting, where carried out mainly by internal forces - without imposing from the outside. It can not be reduced to a vulgar transplantation of foreign models, but is the result of developing its own version of democratic systems. What is typically associated with permanently useful shaped by millennia of indigenous ways of organizing social life - from the properties on an equal footing, sociocentric democracies. More on the image and likeness of vaccination on the old trunk noble variety, than grubbing and planting new trees, transferred from other zones. Condition sine qua non of such progress has been consistently critical reevaluation of all existing political science theory. Shelling and preserve what is in them is permanent worthy “grain” of truth of this sphere of human existence, while sifting and debasement “chaff” interpretation, which should resolve with the imperial and authoritarian systems. It is vital necessary, because kratocentric theories and practices do not pass spontaneously. Many is signs of vitality these kind of habits and tendencies in political practice. And also many kratocentric interpretations in political science theories. Alternative definitions of policies The quintessential differences between sociocentric and kratocentric interpretations can be found in dissimilarities of defining what is politics. Verification political bias in this matter is necessary, because “the divergence of policy definition also extends to the nature of the science of politics” [Heywood: 3]. And, in consequence, the impact of political science theory on political practice.

In accordance with sociocentric orientation are definition, that the essence of politics is agreeing a behaviors of interdependent communities with contradicting interests.

Consistent with this principle are these interpretations, which define: - where the policy is needed - in formulating that where there is interdependence of large social groups with contradicting interests, - why is needed - pointing out that in order to overcome the contradictions and creating agreements in behavior interdependent communities; - what means carries out these tasks - both equally emphasizing competition and cooperation; - and therefore - by default - assuming that the policy is unnecessary there and then, when and where there is no interdependency and contradictions of group interests, or their non antagonistic nature enables the coordination of behavior without political interference.

The conflict nature with the requirements of sociocentric explanation of policies and needs to support the political science definitions of democratic politics, are kratocentric definitions and defective - losing sight of what is at the heart of policy and false - camouflaging the nature of this sphere of human activity.

>> Definitions openly kratocentric, deforming understanding of policy function by focusing on the middle - which is the acquisition and exercise of state power, disregarding the social content - the decisive power easement interests of society. Into this category are interpretations that the struggle for the conquest of power and governance are the basic content of the policy, and thus the fundamental issues that deal with science policy research, and therefore political relations, the relationship is primarily due to the struggle for power and governance. Treating this type of instrumental interpretations of the political process - which is the acquisition and exercise of power - as their core. Assertion contained in them, while being consistent with reality, but incomplete, limited to the institution - which is the state, and tools - which is a public authority, without explaining what the function of the state and state power in social life. “Power is a policy instrument, one of the means of articulation of interests and not the essence of what the political” - defines the nature of this deformation polish politolog. – “Such reducing the problem of government policy leads to

looking at the phenomenon through the prism of political groups, whose livelihood is linked to the existence of broadly defined service authority, yet from the standpoint of other social groups and society as a whole has no authority for its own sake, and in order to solve social problems and meet social needs [Kaczmarek: 57]. >> Definitions idealizing policy - claiming that the policy is to serve the public good. In periods when was formed and dominated such theories, by Aristotle [IV century BC], Saint Augustine [IV - V century AD], and Thomas Aquinas [thirteenth century], the public good was equated with goodness and respect the privileged classes at the expense of subordinated and exploited slaves and peasants. Sense of these views in a brief argument that “the birth distinct some to rule, and others to serve” [Aristotle: 12]. It was recognized as the norm not only in those days, but until quite recently not only in authoritarian regimes, but also in democracies preferring privilege of minority according to the criteria of birth, race or wealth. Present denial of merits the such distinctions, requires to deny justified it’s political theory. The question cui bono [to whom it gives an advantage to], must be therefore a necessary instrument to help in the detection truth, not only in criminal proceedings, but also in the sphere of political action. >> Definitions totally depreciating politics - appear frequently in publications and statements of popular opinions, and only occasionally researchers. This category includes definitions assuming, that the policy is usually a dictatorship, and therefore associated with the oppression and subordination. Also, dealing with abuse, like unfettered violence as an integral characteristic of any political activity. Similarly, erroneous interpretations should be regarded as dealing in the realm of politics, inevitably fraught with baseness, cruelty, entanglement in corruption, nepotism, etc. These types of opinions, quite often encountered in everyday circulation, are sometimes relevant to define specific cases of deformations policy. But generalized such courts, did not mobilize to combat them. Often the contrary - deterring from engaging in the political life of citizens with higher ethical standards, prompts them to withdraw from candidature for political office, and participate in the elections, resulting in the donation box significantly less intellectually and morally worthy politicians. It is a kind of paradox that, although the authors of such reviews often tend to stern critics of the pathological actions of politicians, they prove to be very useful for those responsible for the formation of regimes and deviations in this area. Because this kind of generalization foster the view, that politics is inherently a bad thing. Can therefore be used not only to critique policy deformations, but also to justify autocratic regimes, by

promoting the opinion that oppression is an inherent characteristic of each policy. Hence the view that in politics it is not the ethicality, but affectivity, so the ruling act often amorally, because otherwise that the rule is not effective. It’s why this kind of definitions is often more useful to justify pathologies of kratocentric policy, than in fighting with them. θ Conclusions: overcoming the domination of the autocratic and imperialistic regimes by promoting full democracy - with equal rights for all members of society, requires the promotion of adequate re-evaluation and progress in political science theory. The essence of this progress must be overcome kratocentric views - supporting of the reign of the privileged minorities status / classes / races / nationalities / religions / civilizations at the expense of exploiting majorities, by sociocentric interpretations, openly and consistently preferring equal rights in relationships in any scale - from the states communities to international and Global . Helpfully in this can and should be consistent targeting sociocentric political theory and practice for servitude to natural purpose: increasing the chances of survival and achieving satisfaction with life present and future generations of the whole and all societies. The desirability of not limiting to create and publicize positive sociocentric interpretation, but also unmasking kratocentric theories, is motivated not only by theoretical considerations, but also very practical: mistakes in understanding policy often leads to errors in activity - with negative consequences for practice. Bibliography:
• • • • Arystoteles: Polityka, Wrocław 1953. Crick B.: W obronie polityki, Warszawa 2004. Heywood A.: Politologia, Warszawa 2006. Index of democracy 2008, http://www. DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2008.

• Kaczmarek B.: Polityka jako artykulacja interesów [w:] Kaczmarek B. [red.]: Metafory polityki, Warszawa 2001. • Karwat M.: Polityka jako skoncentrowany wyraz ekonomiki [w:] B. Kaczmarek [red.]: Metafory polityki, Warszawa 2001. • • Robbins R.H.: Globalne problemy a kultura kapitalizmu, Poznań 2008. Tansey S.D.: Nauki polityczne, Poznań 1997.

Voegelin E.: Nowa nauka o polityce, Warszawa 1992.