Political Theories

5th lecture.
The postmodern theories and the 21st
century
 Division of the semester
 1st lecture: Introduction and Classical Antiquity.
 2nd lecture: Political ideas of the Middle Ages. Church and
state in medieval Europe. The investiture controversy.
 3rd lecture: Political ideas of early Modern Age. Separation of
Church and State. The Separation of powers, and the
importance of institutions. Machiavelli, Hobbes, Montesquieu.
 4th lecture: Political ideas of 19th century. Birth of modern
streams of political thinking. Liberalism, conservativism and
left-wing movements, (Marx and Marxism).
 5th lecture: Main trends in political movements (thinkers and
ideas and institutions in the 20th century.)
 Assessment process

Obligatory literature: „Civilizations and world-religions” and the „History of

political ideas” ppt-presentations on the web-page: www.marosan.com
Recommended literature: Marosán György. (2006): Hogyan készül a történelem?
Money-Plan kft
The course implies an exam. There are two components of the mark: an essay and
a written exam.
If someone participates at least 3 lectures from the 5, and writes an acceptable
essay at home, then he or she could receive a mark after his or her essay, (that
is: no written exam needed then).
When someone does not participate enough lectures, and/or his or her essay is not
acceptable or is not good enough, then he or she must make a written exam too.
The topic/theme of the essay must be in a connection with the subject matter of the
course, and it should be an analysis of a definite, designed topic, or movie.
The essay must be of 2600 words long, the dead-line is: 17. december, 2012.
 Topics and treatments of essays

Everybody should write two essays: one from „Civilizations and

World-religions” and another from „History of Political Ideas”.
The topic of the first essay: one should watch a film, (which is set
in the case of each student individually), then write an essay
concerning the topic or theme of the movie, (perhaps a
recommendation of 20 lines at the end of the essay).
The topic of the second essay: the decisive events of 21st century
on the basis of articles and news downloaded from the internet.
The student must choose 5 news, events or articles, and write
an essay on its ground.
Both essays should be unbiassed, objective, multisided.
 Movie-titles.
Possible themes for essay
1. A katedrális (német-kanadai) 1. Enyedi Ildikó: Simon mágus (magyar)
2. Hullám (N) 2. Ámen (francia-német-német film)
3. Ajami (Izraeli film) 3. Bergman: Úrvacsora (svéd)
4. Ég velünk (USA) 4. Andrzej Wajda: Szenthét (Lengyel)
5. A vágy forradalma (francia) 5. A paradicsom meghódítása (Angol-amerikai-
6. Ütközések (USA) francia-spanyol)
7. Vittorio de Sica: Csoda Milánóban (Olasz) 6. Bergman: Suttogások, sikolyok (svéd)
8. Aki szelet vet (USA) 7. A Magdolna nővérek (ír)
9. Isten nagy, én kicsi vagyok (francia) 8. Luther (N)
10. Fellini: Róma (Olasz) 9. Goya kísértetei, (spanyol).
11. Megfoghatatlan (Il Divó) Andreotti film (O) 10. Mennyei királyság, (Amerikai-angol, stb.)
12. Pasolini: Médeia (Olasz) 11. Bergman: A hetedik pecsét
13. Rosellini: Róma nyílt város (Olasz) 12. Bresson: Egy falusi plébános naplója (francia)
14. A háborúnak vége (F) Semprun könyvből film 13. Bergman: Tükör által homályosan (svéd)
15. Berlin fölött az ég, (német) 14. Tarkovszkij: Andrej Rubljov (szovjet-orosz)
16. Kapcsolat (USA, Jodie Fosterrel, 1997) 15. Szent Lajos király hídja (spanyol-angol-francia)
17. Tarkovszkij: A tükör 16. Enyedi Ildikó: A bűvös vadász (magyar)
18. A kelet, az kelet. (A) 17. Hét év Tibetben (Amerikai)
19. Anna és a király (USA) 18. Bresson: Jeanne D’Arc pere
20. Pasolini: Máté Evangéliuma (Olasz)
19. Vera Drake
21. Polanski: Rosemary gyermeke (USA)
20. Bresson: A bűn angyalai (francia)
The points of view of the analysis of the film:

 What is the movie about?

 What is its relationship to the particular, chosen topic (to Religions or History of
Political Ideas)
 What is the „message” of the movie?
 What is its peculiar importance in relationship to the history of 20th and 21st century?
 Does it have a „message” in regard of nowadays Hungary?
 Which opposite opinions are expressed in the movie?
 Which opposite opinions are present according to the topic in question in the
contemporary Hungarian and/or global society?
 You could select the behaviour, story or path of life of one or more characters, and you
could present and analyse them in your essay.
 With what other movies and literary works could you compare the actual, chosen
movie?
 What is the relationship of this film to the reality: does it alter the latter drastically or
rather mirrors it in a quite acceptable, adequate way?
 Topic of the other essay

 There were three options:

1. You should choose and download from the internet 5 events,
news, information in the last two years, which you consider to
be decisive in regard of the history of 21st century.
2. I will give you one case, about which you could write an
essay.
3. There are some TED case, which also provide option to write
essay.
 The points of view of the
analysis concerning the 21st century
You should choose and download from the internet 5 events, news, information
in the last two years, which you consider to be decisive in regard of the history
of 21st century.
 You should show and argue for why do you think these events to be decisive
(rather than others).
 You should unfold their connections and internal relationship, and form your
opinion what kind of future they foreshadow together.
 You should determine the possible message of this foreshadowed picture in
regard of Europe, and in particular in regard of East-Europe.
 You should determine the possible message of this foreshadowed picture in
regard of present Hungarian society.
 The essay must be approximately 8 pages, out of which one page should be
about the analysis of these five tendencies.
 Deadline: 17. December, 2012. Room, E II 22.
 An example
At least 45 people, including women and children, have been killed in sectarian violence
involving two ethnic groups over land row in Nigeria's northern state of Benue, police
and witnesses said today. Those killed belong to Tiv ethnic group while the attackers
were the Fulani people who are mostly cattle herdsmen, witnesses said.

The Tiv, who are mostly farmers, also had some of their houses burnt down by the
invaders. Ejike Alaribe, the police spokesman, said the number of people killed in
Sunday's violence is 16 but a witness who spoke to PTI on condition of anonymity
insisted the number could not be less than 45, adding that the country's police is known
for reducing casualty figures.

The cause of the violence is related to land row between the two ethnic groups. The
Fulanis, who are mostly Muslims, seek land for their cattle to graze while the Tivs want
to preserve it for farming.

Ethnic conflict over land are widespread in northern Nigeria. Most frequently, these
occure in the country's north-central state of Plateau where Fulani herdsmen engage in
clashes with the Biroms and other ethnic groups.
 Suggested TED presentations (www.TED.org)
1. Paddy Ashdown: The global power shift. 1. J. Haidt: Religion, evolution, and the extasy of self-
transcence
2. Clay Shiky: Institution vs. collaboration
2. J. Haidt: The moral roots of liberalism
3. Clay Shirky: How the internet transform
government 3. Hans Rosling: A vallások és a demográfia
4. Rachel Botsman: The currency of the new economy 4. Hans Rosling: The best statistics…
5. Jammy Drummond: Let’s crowsource 5. Frans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals
6. Don Tapscott: Four principles for open world 6. Dan Ariely – irracionalitásaink..
7. Howard Rheingold: The new power of 7. D. Ariely: Our buggy moral
collaboration 8. Devdutt Pattenaik: Kelet kontra nyugat –
8. Yochai Benkler: New open-source economics elkápráztató mítoszok
9. Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions 9. Joseph Pine: What consumer wants
10. Schlomo Benartzi: Saving for tomorrow, tomorow 10. Roy Sutherland: an add man life
11. R. Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms 11. Gopnik: What do babies think
society 12. Jamie Drummond: Let’t crowsource ..
12. Niall Ferguson: A jólét 6 kegyetlenül jó "app"-je 13. Marc Googman: A vision of crime int he future
13. Mark Forsyth: What’s a snowgoster 14. Jean Baptiste Michel: Matehmatics of history
14. M. Jakubowski: Nyílt forráskódú tervrajzok a 15. Sherry Turtle: Connected but alona
civilizációhoz 16. Berry Schwartz: Paradox of choice
15. Gladwell: Choice, happiness, spagetti sauce 17. Laurie Santos: Monkey economy
16. Lean-Baptist Michel: The mathematics of histoty 18. Geoffrey West: A városok és cégek meglepő
17. J. Diamond: Why societies collapse matematikája
 Main features of a political
theory
 A political theory treats the principles, guide-lines, norms and values
according to which (in the thinker’s opinion) the society has to
organize its institutions, functions, structures, hierarchy and its
general way of working.
 The aim of a political theory is to find the best way of running a
society and a state.
 The political thinker in question has to argue for his or her ideas, so
for his or her opinion according to which she/he finds some values to
be the best for a society.
 She or he has to fix the most basic values according to which the
society or the state has to organize itself, and its particular way of
functioning. So: she or he has to say what she/he thinks to be the
most important in regard of a society: the preserving the traditional
values of a nation (conservativism), guaranteeing the invulnerability
of sphere of personal, individual freedom (liberalism), social justice
and the defense of the rights of the needy (left-wing movements,
Social democracy).
 How to govern a state? Two solutions

 For the Greek political thinkers there were generally three possible
ways of governance: kingship, aristocracy and politeia (democracy,
republic).
 Kingship or kingdom, which meant monarchy, was the dominance of
one person or family, that „privatized” the community, and its most
important resources, using the latter entirely at his and their will and
pleasure.
 The republic (democracy, politeia) was the community of several,
principally equal citizens, who looked for the proper method of how
to decide those question together, which were decided in a kingdom
by only one person or just a few.
 Of course there are transitional forms between republic and kingdom,
which were described by the theoreticians of Athenian democracy,
(e.g. oligarchy, aristocracy – the dominance of a few people).
 Recurrent problems of republics

 How can we achieve that everybody could have a role in the

republic? – Everybody is eligible.
 How can we achieve that everbody could have an equal chance to
have an access to the public state? – The elections were done by
means of drawing of lots (sortition).
 How could we avoid the tyranny? – By ostracism.
 How could we achieve that the people participate in political life
in real? – We should make the participation in politics an
obligation, and we should pay for managing the proper social,
political, public offices.
„Assigned sovereignity” as an achievement of
the history of European civilization

The sovereign and all-powerful monarch assigns certain rights in

certain fields that an organization could determine and controll
its functions and working in an autonomous, sovereign and free
way. Thus emerge in the history of Europe:

 Free cities,
 Free guilds,
 Free religious communities,
 Free universities,
 Free societies (e.g. Academies)
 Free enterprises
 Evolution of separation of powers, 1.

John of Salisbury, AD1120-1180.

 He wittnesses the assassination of his mentor Thomas Becket by
the men of the king, Henrik II, in 1174.
 His main work is „Policraticus” (1159), in which he determined the
just governance limited and controlled by laws, and acceptance of
separation of powers as the highest task of the monarch.
 On the one hand he wrote about the difference between monarch
and tyrrant, according to which the monarch subjects himself to the
reign of just law, while the tyrrant subjects everything to his own
subjective will and pleasure.
 On the other hand he argues for that the Church is such an
autonomous, sovereign organization, which falls beyond the sphere
of competence of the king; thus the people, dominions, lands,
properties and rights to nominate its own people to ecclesiastic
positions are inviolable, invulnerable by the king.
The activitiy index of the
first European Parlaments
from the 11. to the 17.
century.

There are interesting

differences development
of parlamentarism
between the North and
South Europa
 Machiavelli
 , "Il Principe," contains a number of maxims concerning
politics, but rather than the more traditional subject of a
hereditary prince, it concentrates on the possibility of a "new
prince." To retain power, the hereditary prince must carefully
maintain the socio-political institutions to which the people
are accustomed.

 Scholars often note that Machiavelli glorifies instrumentality

in state-building - an approach embodied by the saying that "
the ends justify the means.„.
 Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
Evolution of separation of powers, 2.

The pre-historical period before state organization was not – as it

was generally thought by many – a time of harmony, a „golden
age of young and innocent mankind”, but just the opposite: the
world of permanent and brutal conflicts. It was the time of
„bellum omnium contra omnes”, „the war of all against all”.
But the man possesses not only instinct, but also reason, he is
capable of thinking of the future, of anticipation, and it makes
him able to end this period of „natural state”, following his
own interests.
He founds the social contract, according to which each man
abandon his or her absolute right to self-affirmation, to do
whatever he wants, and assign this right to an absolute
sovereign – if and only every other man does the same.
 Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

 „In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is
uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of
the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no
instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no
knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no
society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death;
and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.

 Hobbes was a champion of absolutism for the sovereign but he also developed
some of the fundamentals of European liberal thought: the right of the
individual; the natural equality of all men; the artificial character of the political
order (which led to the later distinction between civil society and the state); the
view that all legitimate political power must be "representative" and based on
the consent of the people
 John Locke (1632-1704). Birth of modern
state
Evolution of separation of powers, 3.
The man adds his work to the goods of nature, and he creates value. Thus
he gains the right to have property. The work is the basis for all kind of
property.
This idyllic picture of natural state was collapsed by the emegence of
money. The money made possible the accumulation of wealth, and it
resulted great inequalities.
The inequal distribution of properties brought sharp conflicts, which must
be controlled. „To avoid these inconveniences, which disorder men's
propperties in the state of nature, men unite into societies, that they may
have the united strength of the whole society to secure and defend their
properties, and may have standing rules to bound it, by which every one
may know what is his”, Locke, „Second Treatise on Civil Government”,
[1690], London, 1821: 306.
Locke rejects Hobbes’ solution, according to which the people should
abandon their rights in favour of the monarch. The people would be
crazy to offer all their rights for a monarch with unlimited, absolute
power, and trust their fate to this uncontrolled, unrestricted overlord.
 Montesquieu (1689-1755).
The share of powers, „The Spirit of the Laws”

He tooks the principle of separation of powers from Locke, but he elaborates this
idea in great details in his work „The Spirit of the Laws”, („De l’espirit des
lois”, 1748).
„In every government there are three sorts of power: the legislative; the executive
in respect to things dependent on the law of nations; and the executive in
regard to matters that depend on the civil law.
By virtue of the first, the prince or magistrate enacts temporary or perpetual laws,
and amends or abrogates those that have been already enacted. By the second,
he makes peace or war, sends or receives embassies, establishes the public
security, and provides against invasions. By the third, he punishes criminals, or
determines the disputes that arise between individuals. The latter we shall call
the judiciary power, and the other simply the executive power of the state.”,
The Spirit of the Laws, 11th book, 6, Of the Constitution of England.
 Montesquieu. Continuation.
The evolution of separation of powers, 4.

Montesquieu:
„The political liberty of the subject is a tranquillity of mind, arising
from the opinion each person has of his safety. In order to have this
liberty, it is requisite the government be so constituted as one man
need not be afraid of` another.
When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same
person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty;
because apprehensions may anse, lest the same monarch or senate
should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical
manner. ”, The Spirit of Laws.
In the background of this conception one could find a peculiar insight:
the effective and succesfull governance depends primarily not on the
eminence of politicians, but on the appropriate manner and character
of institutions.
 Montesquieu (1689-1755)

 Montesquieu saw two types of governmental power existing:

the sovereign and the administrative. The administrative
powers were the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.
These should be separate from and dependent upon each other
so that the influence of any one power would not be able to
exceed that of the other two, either singly or in combination.
 This was a radical idea because it completely eliminated the
three Estates structure of the French Monarchy: the clergy, the
aristocracy, and the people at large represented by the
Estates-General, thereby erasing the last vestige of a
feudalistic structure.
 J. Locke

 Locke's political theory was founded on social contract theory. Unlike Thomas
Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature is characterised by reason and tolerance.
Like Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish. This is
apparent with the introduction of currency. In a natural state all people were equal
and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his “Life, health,
Liberty, or Possessions".[21] Most scholars trace the phrase, "life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness," in the American Declaration of Independence to Locke's
theory of rights,[22] though other origins have been suggested.[23]
 J. Locke (2)
 Like Hobbes, Locke assumed that the sole right to defend in
the state of nature was not enough, so people established a
civil society to resolve conflicts in a civil way with help from
government in a state of society. However, Locke never refers
to Hobbes by name and may instead have been responding to
other writers of the day.[24] Locke also advocated governmental
separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a
right but an obligation in some circumstances. These ideas
would come to have profound influence on the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
 Rousseau
 „The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said
"This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him,
that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many
crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and
misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling
up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows:
Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you
once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the
earth itself to nobody.
 The lesson of French Revolution

 The theoreticians will be more suspicious and careful with the

conception of unlimited, absolute power, no matter whether it
is practiced by a king, a group of nobles, aristocrats or eminent
political people, or the entire people.
 They will be more careful with separating the representation
and the final, ultimate executive power.
 The claim increases amongst them towards the securing of
private, individual rights, of defending the rights of the
minority against the power of the actual majority of the
society in question.
 Separation of powers after the Second World
War
The number of voters (freemen) increases by leaps and bounds (the
age limit is brought down, there is no property qualification in
voting anymore, women got a right to vote also).
The new voters are interested in voting and politics in general less –
they have no time, they are disinterested and no experience either.
It is a question of how their own interest could be realized in
political praxis.
A subtly balanced system was formed and consolidated:
 Parliament (with the Opposition), Government,
 Shared and separated powers,
 Constitutional Court, President (King),
 National Bank, National Audit Office,
 Media,
 Civil organizations (civil advocacy groups), local governments/
authorities,
 Central Statistical Office, National Academy.
 The problem of separation of powers at the
end of the 20th century
How could such an organization be governed, that has – in case if it is a corporation – more
than one hundred thousand shareholders, and – in case if it is a state – several million
citizens who have the right to vote?
How could it be guaranteed that the interests of such a huge amount of „beneficiaries” -
shareholders or voters – would be continually represented in real and – as far as it is
possible – realized by those who were trusted to manage and take care the main duties
and affairs of the community in question?
These questions are justified by the same fact in both cases: the „appropriate agents”
(1) do not see through the situation in its entire complexity,
(2) do not take the trouble to receive detailed information in a circumspective and prudent
way,
(3) do not participate the shareholders’/owners assembly or the elections,
(4) do not take care at all of their property/state, do not spend any time and energy
concerning it; the maximum is that they whine or curse when the bankruptsy or the crisis
comes in.
The political and business sciences though different way but found the same solution to
these questions : and the answer is the institutional way of sharing or separating of
powers.
 Factors of good governance

1) Participation
2) Rule of law
3) Transparency
4) Responsiveness
5) Consensus orientation
6) Equity
7) Effectiveness and efficiency
8) Accountability
9) Strategic vision
 Dimensions of the rule of law

 » Limited government powers

 » Absence of corruption
 » Order and security
 » Fundamental rights
 » Open government
 » Effective regulatory enforcement
 » Access to civil justice
 » Effective criminal justice
 » Informal justice
 The waves of the history
2000 ?
1973
Population, 1929
Production, and
Consumption
1875

1815

1650

1300

The question: is there a

change in the trends after
2000?

1000 1500 2000

History of the last 500 years in a few words

Upsurge (the „long 16th century” – from 1492 to 1618)

Change of speed (1650-1750)
„Take-off” –(1750-1850)
Acceleration (1850-1970)
Run-away and overshot (1950-?)

The central question of 21th century: stabilization or

collapse.
 The „triple” revolution
of the end of 18th century
1. Industrial revolution (revolution of technique
and technology)
2. Political revolution (the birth of modern civil
society)
3. Social revolution (birth of new social identities:
nation and class)
The political ideas of 19th and 20th century was
mainly determined and characterized by the
ways in which the political thinkers and
ideologues reacted to these events.
 The liberal answer and evaluation
1. The triple slogan of French Revolution – liberty, equality,
brotherhood – could be regarded in principle as the victory of
liberal thought. The French Revolution gave birth to the
unitary national state, which earlier was made up of separate
orders.
2. The industrial revolution opened the way to a dynamic
development, and the liberal thinking welcomed that. The
liberal thinkers were the pioneers of technical and
technological advancement and development.
3. They treated the social questions and problems as necessary
implications of social changes and transformations. They
proposed a strict and iron-handed defence of private property
by the state. They considered the miseries and paurerdom as
temporary problems of society, but they advocated the social
reforms.
 Conservative respond and evaluation

1. The revolution is considered as the disruption of social

harmony. For a conservative thinker the revolution is nothing
else but anarchy and general social confusion. It is a
conspiracy against traditional state and traditional institutions
organized by some free-thinkers (especially freemasonry) and
libertines, carried out through the manipulation and deception
of masses and the plebs.
2. The industrial revolution is considered as the disruption of
earlier „peaceful” and „natural” mode of production, which
lead to new contradictions and antinomies in the society.
3. They glanced at the masses of social difficulties and
antinomies, at the emergence of a new and apparently
uncontrollable class with fear, and principally with a critical
attitude. They reject the „mechanical and alianated”
civilization. They regard the disappearance of traditional
society as disintegration and disorganization.
 The socialist respond and evaluation
1. The social revolution is the motor of development,
the Jacobin terror – as a necessity and respond to
the counter-revolutionary revolts – is the possiblity
of a radical political way to realize the social
equality.
2. The industrial revolution is the possibility of
enrichment and advancement, but every burden is
placed onto the proletariat.
3. The social change results the emergence of a new
class, which is deprived of any defence, and which
is exposed to extreme urban pauperdom and
neediness, to cruel conditions of work, and to
necessary unemployment.
 What is liberalism?
Its central subjects are individual freedom, intangibility and
inviolability of private property, and in favour of both is the
limitation of the state, (Hobbes, then Locke).
Main features: the affirmation of reason and advancament, religious
tolerance, the common good or public benefit is a result of conflict
and competition of private interests, free competition, pursuit of
welfare through the above-mentioned issues.
Liberalism emphasizes the equality of rights. Its basic claims are the
principal, essential civil rights: the rights of association and
assembly, the freedom of opinion and publication.
With all these also some spiritual or intellectual rights: freedom of
conscience and religion, and also some economic rights: the
freedom of enterprise and (economic) contract.
 What is conservativism?
Originally it was a general tendency of traditionalism: it was the
conception of advocation of traditional morals, values, religion,
following of inherited rules and norms, and the maintenance of the
status quo.
The main feature of conservative feeling of life and style of thinking:
concentrating on concrete phenomena, rejection of theoretical
speculations.
The conservative thinker rejects the abstract, egalitarian conception of
freedom (socialism) as well as the negative conception of freedom
given by the liberal thinkers.
„The progressive thinker considers the actual present as the beginning
of the future, while the conservative regards it as the last station of
the past”, (Karl Mannheim, Conservatism. A Contribution to the
Sociology of Knowledge ).
 What is socialism?
The expression „socialism” appeared in the 30s years of the 19th
century. Its advocators propagated the war against the
defencelessness of the worker in the name of the man’s
dignity. They supported the advancement and the civil
revolution.
They agree with the liberals concerning the central role of reason
and rationality, and the importance of industrial revolution,
but they rejected the circumstances which lead to the
miserable conditions of the members of working class.
In accordance with the conservatives they emphasized the
importance of common values, but they rejected the idea of
eternal and necessary inequality.
Their aim was to realize the promises of the French Revolution to
everybody: the principles of liberty, equality and brotherhood.