1

Introduction to Political Science

Mapping the field: Politics and Political Science QUESTIONS TO CONCIDER:

1. Which is the origin of the word “politics”?

“Polis” was the term defining the model of the ancient Greek “city-state”.

So, politics, are the matters and the decisions that have to do with “polis”, that

have to do with the state.

2. What is politics exactly?

In practice, politics is the study of the allocation of the resources as an outcome

of the allocation of power.

Yale Proffessor Harold Lasswell defines politics as the study of “who gets what”.

Examples: Which areas will get developed, which fields of research are going to

get money, which fields of industry are going to get support, ect.

3. What is politicization and depoliticization?

Politicization is to have advanced interest on politics; being political.

Depoliticization is to deprive of a political nature; render apolitical.

4. Do politics matter?

If you do not take an interest and participate, someone else will, and they will

influence the decisions that will govern your life.

Politics defines who will pull the strings.

The ignorant, are manipulated.

5. Why did Aristotle call politics “the master science”?

Aristotle, the founder of the discipline, called politics “the master science”,

because he meant that almost everything happens in a political context and that

the decisions made in that context (the state) govern most other things.

6. Why politics fall out of favour?

Is it disgust at politicians and their constant empty struggle for partisan

advantage?

Is it because of some prominent features of politics: misuse of power, influence

peddling and outright corruption.

Is it a feeling of helplessness, a sense that individual citizens do not matter?

2

Is the perception that politics is the playground of rich and powerful interest

groups who simply buy whatever they want?

Is it a good sign that in relatively good times people naturally turn to other

concerns?

If the economy is not bad and world problems seem distant, why follow politics?

7. Is it now back in favour?

If yes why?

Which is the reality in the countries of the students?

What happens in international level?

Does the international financial crisis bring people back to politics or does it work

for the opposite direction?

The election of Barack Obama plays some role on politics being in favour by the

people?

8. Is there a difference between politics and political science?

Politics is the practical implementation of political theory, the actual process of

“who gets what, how and when”, by people who are elected or appointed to

exercise politics and are called politicians.

Political science is the theoretical study of practical politics, that provides a calm

and objective analysis of politics which can aid politicians and the state.

9. Which are the subfields of political science?

National politics.

Comparative politics.

International relations.

Political theory.

Constitutional law.

Public administration.

Public policy.

10. How can something as messy as politics be science?

What is a science? Although originally it comes from a French word meaning

“knowledge”, in practice it is connected with the natural sciences that rely on

measurement and calculation, thus being precise and factual, supported by

experiments and data.

This is not the exact case with social sciences.

Quantitative and qualitative.

3

Some areas of research can be quantified and some can not, but usually the first

ones focus on small questions of detail rather than focus on large questions of

meaning.

Political science is an empirical field, and since it can produce generalizations, its

outcomes can be of scientific value.

Scholarly work: Reasoned, balanced, supported with evidence and (to a degree)

theoretical.

11. Where does political science focus exactly?

It focuses on “power”.

Politics is the quest of power in the frames of the state.

12. Why is Machiavelli important in the understanding of politics as a quest of power?

Machiavelli systematized the process through which somebody can gain and

develop political power.

Biological, psychological, cultural, rational and irrational explanations of power

can give answers to the importance and the acceptance of political power.

13. Is politics largely biological, psychological, cultural, rational or irrational?

It is a blend of the above.

Example: The Milgram study: Most of the subjects disliked hurting the victim, but

they rationalized that they were just following orders and that any harm done to

victim was really the professor’s responsibility, as they surrenders their actions

to an authority figure.

14. Is political science an interdisciplinary subject?

Yes it is, as it borrows from and overlaps with all of the other social sciences.

History: One of the chief sources for data and case studies.

Human Geography: Regional political variations and issues that result of the

regional presence of certain groups have to do with political geography.

Economics: Economic stability and prosperity is closely connected with the

development of democracy, whereas the allocation of recourses is closely linked

with political practice.

Sociology: It provides an understanding of the role of class, gender, religion,

education etc have in political choice and practice.

Anthropology: The raw behaviour of people in nonliterate societies has an

impact on contemporary societies as well.

Psychology: Especially social psychology can be very helpful for political science

as it gives answers to human behaviours.

....and more.

4

15. What does it mean to “never get angry at a fact”?

Hegel: Things happen not because of a caprice or accident, but for good and

sufficient reasons, as whatever is real is rational.

Studying politics is in a “naturalistic” mode, so the political scientist should not

get angry (or have intense feelings of any kind) on what he or she sees, but

should try to analyze and understand how it came to be.

Example: A big company fired 30 employees, 30 families have financial problem.

o Why did this happen?

o Is a company allowed to fire employees?

o Should all the employees have a permanent job position in the private

sector?

o Is there a bigger economic problem in the sector?

o Is there a financial crisis in the country?

o Are there any protective measures for the fired employees?

o How can the state protect the employees?

16. How are legitimacy, sovereignty and authority different but similar?

Legitimacy is the acceptance of the government as a result of an open,

participative (and democratic) process, which sets an outcome that has the

mandate to act politically and govern. The mass feeling that the government’s

rule is rightful and should be obeyed.

Sovereignty is the ability of the government to protect and administrate the

country, against external or internal enemies. A national government’s being

boss on its own turf, the word in law in that country.

Authority is the actual utilization of legitimacy and sovereignty by the

government, in order to govern the state. Moreover, the government needs to

provide certain characteristics (fair, intentions etc) that render it capable - in the

eyes of the citizens - to govern. The political leaders ability to command respect

and exercise power.

The three are connected because all three need to exist in a certain degree for a

government to be able to continue being a government and for a state to

continue being a state.

5

Nation and state QUESTIONS TO CONCIDER:

1. What is a nation?

The word “nation” comes from the Latin word “nation” which derives from

“natus” “(of) birth”.

The idea of nation implies a common blood relationship. In fact, this

relationship is rarely actual, more often it derives from a postulated common

ancestor. This common ancestor may be an actual historical figure, but most

of the time, he or she is a mythical being.

As civilised society grows ever more complex, it is often the case that

nationality is a function of more complex factors - a shared heritage or blood

relationship being only one of them.

A nation is a large group of people with strong bonds of identity, an

“imagined community”, a tribe on a grand scale.

The nation may have a claim to statehood or self-rule, but it does not

necessarily enjoy a state of its own.

Although the nation and the state are clearly related, yet they must with

equal clarity be seen to be separate.

2. Which are the most important attributes of nationhood?

National identity is typically based on shared culture, religion, history,

language or ethnicity, though disputes arise as to who is truly a member of

the national community or even whether the “nation” exists at all. Moreover:

A common postulated interrelationship - a “blood” bond between members.

This blood relationship may be actual, but more often, it derives from myth.

A shared cultural heritage. This heritage, and particularly the cultural

artefacts (and sometimes also, institutional structures) that it has created,

represents the “patrimony” of the nation, and is often invested with

considerable sentimental value, to the extent that attacks on it are

responded to with violent emotion.

Linguistic coherence, in the form of one or more languages identified with

the national identity. Language is a factor, definitely - yet there are nations

that exist quite happily with multiple languages (of course, for every success

story, there is a counterexample of national disintegration along linguistic

lines). Nevertheless, nations with a single dominant language often use this

language to define who they are. This is particularly the case in those

situations where the language is very difficult for outsiders to learn (e.g.

Danish, Finnish, Japanese).

6

A sense of identification by members with the nation. The idea of national

affiliation is a deep-rooted one in the human psyche, and members of a

nation suffer a very visceral response to any threat against it, real or

perceived.

3. Are nations real?

Nations seem so compelling, so “real” and so much a part of the political and

cultural landscape that people think they have lasted forever.

In reality, they come into being and dissolve with changing historical

circumstances - sometimes over a relatively short period of time, like

Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.

Some nations have a longer historical presence than others, but the historical

use of the term was not used to refer to a nation organized in a state. It was

used as one of the many identities of a person, which was not the strongest

one.

Why, does national identity give rise to such extremely strong feelings?

Why would so many be ready to “die for the nation” in time of war?

4. Is there a difference between nationality and citizenship?

Citizenship is the state of being a citizen of a particular social, political, or

national community which is a state.

Citizenship status, under social contract theory, carries with it both rights and

responsibilities.

Citizenship and national identity are shifting in a globalizing world.

An increasing number of people carry two or more passports and affluent

citizens travel, study and work in multiple lands.

Mass migration means that the poor as well as the rich have ties to more

than one nation.

What does citizenship mean when passports for many countries can be

purchased outright and some people even hold elected office in more than

one country simultaneously?

Clearly, citizenship and national identity are changing -- a sign that the nation

state is itself in flux as an "imagined community."

5. What is a state?

Originally, the word state derives from an Italian term, lo stato, coined by

Machiavelli to describe the whole of the social hierarchy that governs and

rules a country. Over the centuries, the term has come to take on a more

sophisticated meaning - yet, in many ways, it is as vague a term as nation.

7

Some see a “state” as an ancient institution, going back to Rome, Greece and

before, and theorized by Plato, Aristotle and other classical philosophers.

Others insist on the unique features of the modern state, with its extensive

rule of law, citizenship rights, and broad economic and social responsibilities.

A state is more than a government; that is clear. Governments change, but

states endure.

States can expand and contract as military and political fortunes change.

Some, like Poland, even disappear and re-appear later. Or they may be

divided up (sometimes peacefully) by communities that prefer to go their

separate ways (Czechoslovakia). Others, such as Iraq, may be occupied or run

as a colony or protectorate.

A state, then, may be defined as an institutional structure charged with

exercising authority within a definable jurisdictional purview (which is often

territorial in nature).

It is comprised of an executive, a bureaucracy, courts and other institutions.

But, above all, a state levies taxes and operates a military and police force.

States distribute and re-distribute resources and wealth, so lobbyists,

politicians and revolutionaries seek in their own way to influence or even to

get hold of the levers of state power. States exist in a variety of sizes, ranging

from enormous China to tiny Andorra.

Often, political theorists have relied While globalization and regional

integration (like the European Union) challenge the state's powers, the state

is still the dominant arena of domestic politics as well as the primary actor in

international relations.

on the definition offered by Max Weber: “A relation of men dominating men,

a relation supported by means of legitimate (i.e. considered to be legitimate)

violence”

[Max Weber: Politik als Beruf, 1919]

6. Which are the most important characteristics of a state?

Monopoly on exercise of force.

Legitimacy, as perceived by the governed. [LEGITIMACY]

Control over a territory - absolute or partial. [SOVEREIGNITY]

Institutional structures established to handle governmental tasks, including,

but not limited to, the exercise of force. [AUTHORITY]

It is possible that a state may exist and function quite well without

embodying all of these attributes - yet it is certain that the more powerful

and established states can put checkmarks next to every item on the list.

8

7. What is a failed state?

States can also "fail" - their governing institutions collapse due to civil war

and internal strife (as in Somalia) or because the state has little authority

outside the capital city (Afghanistan).

Failed states can no longer perform basic functions such as education,

security, or governance, usually due to fractious violence or extreme poverty.

Within this power vacuum, people fall victim to competing factions and crime,

and sometimes the United Nations or neighbouring states intervene to

prevent a humanitarian disaster. However, states fail not only because of

internal factors.

Foreign governments can also knowingly destabilize a state by fuelling ethnic

warfare or supporting rebel forces, causing it to collapse.

8. Does the nation-state exist?

The term is slightly old fashioned and out of contemporary reality.

THE ORIGINS OF THE NATION-STATE

The proliferation of nationalist movements in the 19th century (the epitome

of which may be said to be the Iron Chancellor, Bismarck, and his

exhortations to the German people to “think with their blood”) led to a

general feeling that states must of necessity be established on the basis of

national identity, of complete correspondence between the territory of the

state and the dwelling-places of a single nation - this despite the fact that

there were plenty of successful examples to the contrary (Switzerland, for

one).

Today, because of migration, most modern states include within their

borders diverse communities that challenge the idea of national

homogeneity and give rise to the community of citizenship, rather than

membership in the nation.

In the age of global transportation and communication, new identities arise

to challenge the “nation” but the pull of nationalism remains a powerful

force to be reckoned with - and a glue that binds states together and helps

many people (for better and for worse) make sense out of a confusing reality.

9. What is nationalism?

Nationalism is an ideology, a sentiment, a form of culture, or a social

movement that focuses on the nation. While there is significant debate over

the historical origins of nations, nearly all specialists accept that nationalism,

at least as an ideology and social movement is a modern phenomenon

originating in Europe.

9

Nationalism is a strong social phenomenon in the world as national flags,

national anthems and national divisions are examples of “banal” nationalism

that is often mentally unconscious.

Moreover, some scholars argue that nationalism as a sentiment or form of

culture, sometimes described as “nationality” to avoid the ideology's

tarnished reputation, is the social foundation of modern society.

Industrialization, democratization, and support for economic redistribution

have all been at least partly attributed to the shared social context and

solidarity that nationalism provides.

10. What does nationalism say about the state?

As an ideology, nationalism holds that “the people” in the doctrine of popular

sovereignty is the nation, and that as a result only nation-states founded on

the principle of national self-determination are legitimate.

Since most states are multinational, or at least home to more than one group

claiming national status, in many cases nationalist pursuit of self-

determination has caused conflict between people and states including war

(both external and domestic), secession, and in extreme cases genocide.

The nationalist ideology would prefer that every nationality have a state of its

own.

Are we then to see the world splitting up into thousands of territorial states?

The answer, most likely, is no. Yet, the ties between citizens and their states

seem to have lessened somewhat.

A personal loyalty to tribal/national/subcultural groups has certainly called

into question some of the authority of the modern state (as evidenced,

indirectly, in the West by mass political movements advocating civil

disobedience, and elsewhere, by tribal insurrections).

10

State government: Origins, forms and purposes QUESTIONS TO CONCIDER:

1. What is a government?

A government is the body within a community, political entity or organization

which has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and regulations.

Typically, the term “government” refers to a civil government or sovereign

state which can be either local, national, or international. The size of

governments can vary by region or purpose.

Commercial, academic, religious, or other formal organizations are also

governed by internal bodies. Such bodies may be called boards of directors,

managers, or governors or they may be known as the administration (as in

schools) or councils of elders (as in churches).

Growth of an organization advances the complexity of its government,

therefore small towns or small-to-medium privately-operated enterprises will

have fewer officials than typically larger organizations such as multinational

corporations which tend to have multiple interlocking, hierarchical layers of

administration and governance. As complexity increases the nature of

governance becomes more complicated, so does the need for formal policies

and procedures.

2. Which are the origins of the state government?

The origins of governments are closely connected with the origins of states.

For many thousands of years when people were hunter-gatherers and small

scale farmers, humans lived in small, non-hierarchical and self-sufficient

communities. The development of agriculture resulted in ever increasing

population densities. Although the exact moment and place that the

phenomenon of human government developed is lost in time, history does

record the formations of very early governments.

States formed as a result of a positive feedback loop where population

growth results in increased information exchange which results in innovation

which results in increased resources which results in further population

growth.

The role of cities in the feedback loop is important. Cities became the primary

conduits for the dramatic increases in information exchange that allowed for

large and densely packed populations to form and because cities

concentrated knowledge, they also ended up concentrating power.

Increasing population density in farming regions provided the demographic

11

and physical raw materials used to construct the first cities and states, and

increasing congestion provided much of the motivation for creating states

and governments.

3. Which are the fundamental purposes of the state government?

Social order: The fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance of

basic security and public order. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes figured that

people were rational animals and thus saw submission to a government as

preferable to anarchy. According to Hobbes, people in a community create

and submit to government for the purpose of establishing for themselves,

safety and public order.

Social security: Throughout most of human history, parents prepared for

their old age by producing enough children to ensure that some of them

would survive long enough to take care of the parents in their old age. In

modern, relatively high-income societies, a mixed approach is taken where

the government shares a substantial responsibility of taking care of the

elderly. This is not the case everywhere since there are still many countries

where social security through having many children is the norm. Although

social security is a relatively recent phenomenon, prevalent mostly in

developed countries, it deserves mention because the existence of social

security substantially changes reproductive behavior in a society and it has an

impact on reducing the cycle of poverty.

Economic security: Social security is closely linked with economic security. By

reducing the cycle of poverty, government creates a self-reinforcing cycle

where people see the government as a “friend”, both because of the financial

support they receive late in their lives, but also because of the overall

reduction in national poverty due to the government's social security

policies—which then adds to public support for social security.

Military defense: Militaries are created to deal with the highly complex task

of confronting large numbers of enemies. Once governments came onto the

scene, they began to form and use armies for conflicts with neighboring

states, and for conquest of new lands. Governments seek to maintain

monopolies on the use of force, and to that end, they usually suppress the

development of private armies within their borders.

4. How does Aristotle describe the three forms of government?

After studying a number of real and theoretical city-state's constitutions,

Aristotle classified them according to various criteria. On one side stand the

true (or good) constitutions, which are considered such because they aim for

12

the common good, and on the other side the perverted (or deviant) ones,

considered such because they aim for the well being of only a part of the city.

The three forms of government according to Aristotle are Tyranny, Oligarchy

and Democracy (see diagram). The constitutions are then sorted according to

the “number” of those who participate to the magistracies: one, a few, or

many.

Aristotle's six-fold classification is slightly different from the one found in The

Republic by Plato.

5. How does Plato describe the four forms of government that cannot sustain

themselves?

Plato spends much of his work “The Republic” narrating conversations about

the Ideal State. The discussion turns to four forms of government that cannot

sustain themselves: timocracy, oligarchy (also called plutocracy), democracy

and tyranny (also called despotism).

Timocracy: Socrates defines a timocracy as a government ruled by people

who love honour and are selected according to the degree of honour they

hold in society. Honour is often equated with wealth and possession so this

kind of gilded government leads to the people valuing materialism above all

things.

Oligarchy: These temptations create confusion between economic status and

honour which is responsible for the emergence of oligarchy. In Plato’s work,

it is noted that wealth will not help a captain to navigate his ship. This

injustice divides the rich and the poor, thus creating an environment for

criminals and beggars to emerge. The rich are constantly plotting against the

poor and vice versa.

Democracy: As this socioeconomic divide grows, so do tensions between

social classes. From the conflicts arising out of such tensions, democracy

replaces the oligarchy preceding it. The poor overthrow the inexperienced

oligarchs and soon grant liberties and freedoms to citizens. A visually

appealing demagogue is soon lifted up to protect the interests of the lower

class. However, with too much freedom, the people become drunk, and

tyranny takes over.

Tyranny: The excessive freedoms granted to the citizens of a democracy

ultimately leads to a tyranny, the furthest regressed type of government.

These freedoms divide the people into three socioeconomic classes: the

dominating class, the capitalists and the commoners. Tensions between the

dominating class and the capitalists cause the commoners to seek out

protection of their democratic liberties. They invest all their power in their

democratic demagogue, who, in turn, becomes corrupted by the power and

13

becomes a tyrant with a small entourage of his supporters for protection and

absolute control of his people.

6. Which are some types of state governance, by today’s standards?

Totalitarianism: Totalitarian governments regulate nearly every aspect of

public and private life.

Authoritarianism: Authoritarian governments are characterized by an

emphasis on the authority of the state in a republic or union. It is a political

system controlled by nonelected rulers who usually permit only limited

individual freedom.

Dictatorship: Rule by an individual who has full power over the country.

Oligarchy: Rule by a small group of people who share similar interests or

family relations.

Plutocracy: A government composed of the wealthy class. Any of the forms

of government listed here can be plutocracy. For instance, if all of the voted

representatives in a republic are wealthy, then it is a republic and a

plutocracy.

Monarchy: Rule by an individual who has inherited the role and expects to

bequeath it to their heir.

Constitutional monarchy: A government that has a monarch, but his or her

power is strictly limited by the elected government.

Constitutional republic: Rule by a government composed of representatives

who are voted into power by the people.

Democracy: Democracy is a political system in which government is either

carried out by the people governed (direct democracy), or the power to

govern is granted by them to elected representatives (representative

democracy).

Anarchism: No arbitrary and non-consensual rule. It is a fallacy to think that

the political philosophy of anarchism opposes government, and is not a form

thereof—it is the belief that governments are harmful and unnecessary.

Rather, it opposes the state and finds that to be immoral and inefficient.

14

Democracy: Forms and characteristics QUESTIONS TO CONCIDER:

1. What is democracy?

The world “democracy” derives from the Greek word “demo-kratia”, which

means “power to the people” (Demos=people and kratia=government,

power).

Democracy is the form of government where political power and public

responsibility are exercised by all the adult citizens directly or through their

freely elected representatives.

2. Which are the core characteristics of democracy?

Constitutional regulation of the government.

Separation of powers.

All citizens have equal access to power.

All citizens are equal before the law.

Majority rule / Minority rights.

Guarantee of basic human rights (political expression, freedom of speech,

freedom of the press).

Free and fair elections.

3. Which are the two basic forms of democracy?

Liberal: During the Cold War, liberal democracies were contrasted with the

Communist People's Republics or “Popular Democracies”, which claimed an

alternative conception of democracy. Today, constitutional democracies are

mostly contrasted with direct democracy and/or participatory democracy.

Liberal democracies may take various constitutional forms: they may be

republics, as the United States or India or France, or constitutional monarchy,

as the United Kingdom or Spain. It may have a presidential system (United

States), a parliamentary system (Westminster system, UK and

Commonwealth countries), or a hybrid, semi-presidential system (France).

Socialist: Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social

democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat

(usually exercised through Soviet democracy) are some examples. Many

democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of participatory

democracy and workplace democracy combined with a representative

democracy. Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly

called "liberal democracy", which they simply refer to as parliamentary

democracy because of its often centralized nature. Because of their desire to

15

eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, Marxists, Leninists and

Trotskyists believe in direct democracy implemented though a system of

communes (which are sometimes called soviets). This system ultimately

manifests itself as council democracy and begins with workplace democracy.

4. What is the “separation of powers”?

The separation of powers, also known as “trias politica”, is a model for the

governance of democratic states. Under this model, the state is divided into

branches or estates, each with separate and independent powers and areas

of responsibility. The normal division of estates is into an executive, a

legislature, and a judiciary.

The opposite of separation of powers is the fusion of powers, often a feature

of parliamentary democracies. In this form, the executive, which often

consists of a prime minister and cabinet ("government"), is drawn from the

legislature (parliament). This is the principle of responsible government.

Although the legislative and executive branches are connected in

parliamentary systems, there is often an independent judiciary. Also, the

government's role in the parliament does not give them unlimited legislative

influence.

5. Which is the difference between presidential and parliamentary democracy?

Parliamentary democracy is where government is appointed by

parliamentary representatives as opposed to a “presidential rule” wherein

the President is both head of state and the head of government and is

elected by the voters. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is

exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing

review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the

people.

6. What is the “majority rule”?

The majority rule is a decision rule that selects one of two alternatives, based

on which has more than half the votes. It is the binary decision rule used

most often in influential decision-making bodies, including the legislatures of

democratic nations.

Though plurality (first-past-the post) is often mistaken for majority rule, they

are not the same. Plurality makes the options with the most votes the winner,

regardless of whether the fifty percent threshold is passed. This is equivalent

to majority rule when there are only two alternatives. However, when there

are more than two alternatives, it is possible for plurality to choose an

alternative that has fewer than fifty percent of the votes cast in its favor.

16

Some scholars have recommended against the use of majority rule, at least

under certain circumstances, due to an ostensible trade-off between the

benefits of majority rule and other values important to a democratic society.

Most famously, it has been argued that majority rule might lead to a “tyranny

of the majority”, and the use of supermajoritarian rules and constitutional

limits on government power have been recommended to mitigate these

effects. Recently some voting theorists have argued that majority rule may

actually be the best rule to protect minorities. From another point of view,

supermajoritarian rules do not guarantee that it is a minority that will be

protected by the supermajority rule; they only establish that one of two

alternatives is the status quo, privileging it against being overturned by a

mere majority.

Another way to safeguard against tyranny of the majority, it is argued, is to

guarantee certain rights. Who gets to vote and a definition of inalienable

rights which cannot be transgressed by a majority.

7. Which are the differences between direct democracy and representative

democracy?

Direct democracy:

Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the

decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or

representatives.The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is

more than merely a procedural issue A direct democracy gives the voting

population the power to:

o Change constitutional laws,

o Put forth initiatives, referenda and suggestions for laws,

o Give binding orders to elective officials, such as revoking them before

the end of their elected term, or initiating a lawsuit for breaking a

campaign promise.

Of the three measures mentioned, most operate in developed democracies

today. This is part of a gradual shift towards direct democracies. Examples of

this include the extensive use of referenda in California with more than 20

million voters, and (i.e. voting). in Switzerland, where five million voters

decide on national referenda and initiatives two to four times a year; direct

democratic instruments are also well established at the cantonal and

communal level.

No direct democracy is in existence outside the framework of a different

overarching form of government. Most direct democracies to date have been

weak forms, relatively small communities, usually city-states. The world is yet

to see a large, fundamental, working example of direct democracy as of yet,

with most examples being small and weak forms.

17

Representative democracy:

Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by

the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically

elected is also called a democratic republic.

The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a

majority or a plurality of the votes. Representatives may be elected or

become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency),

or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with

some using a combination of the two.

Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct

democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative

democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act

in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as

how best to do so.

18

Elections: Electoral systems and vote counting QUESTIONS TO CONCIDER:

1. What is an election?

An election is a formal decision-making process by which a population chooses an

individual to hold public office. Elections have been the usual mechanism of modern

representative democracy since the 17th century.

Elections may fill offices in the legislature, sometimes in the executive and judiciary,

and for regional and local government. This process is also used in many other

private and business organizations, from clubs to voluntary associations and

corporations.

Elections were used as early in history as ancient Greece and ancient Rome, and

throughout the medieval period to select rulers such as the Holy Roman Emperor

and the Pope. The modern “election”, which consists of public elections of

government officials, didn't emerge until the beginning of the 17th century when the

idea of representative government took hold in North America and Europe.

Montesquieu states that in the case of elections in either a republic or a democracy,

voters alternate between being the rulers of the country and being the subjects of

the government. By the act of voting, the people operate in a sovereign capacity,

acting as “masters” to select their government.

2. The right to vote, the right to participate in elections.

The question of “who can vote” is a central issue in elections. The electorate does

not generally include the entire population. For example, many countries prohibit

those judged mentally incompetent from voting, and all jurisdictions require a

minimum age for voting.

Historically, other groups of people have also been excluded from voting. For

instance, the democracy of ancient Athens did not allow women, foreigners, or

slaves to vote, and the original United States Constitution left the topic of suffrage to

the states; usually only white male property owners were able to vote. Much of the

history of elections involves the effort to promote suffrage for excluded groups. The

women's suffrage movement gave women in many countries the right to vote, and

securing the right to vote freely was a major goal of the American civil rights

movement. Extending the right to vote to other groups which remain excluded in

some places (such as convicted felons, members of certain minorities, and the

economically disadvantaged) continues to be a significant goal of voting rights

advocates.

Suffrage is typically only for citizens of the country. Further limits may be imposed:

for example, in Kuwait, only people who have been citizens since 1920 or their

19

descendants are allowed to vote, a condition that the majority of residents do not

fulfill. However, in the European Union, one can vote in municipal elections if one

lives in the municipality and is an EU citizen; the nationality of the country of

residence is not required.

In some countries, voting is required by law; if an eligible voter does not cast a vote,

he or she may be subject to punitive measures such as a small fine.

Horizontal/vertical vote.

3. Which are the most common difficulties with elections?

In many countries with weak rule of law, the most common reason why elections do

not meet international standards of being “free and fair” is interference from the

incumbent government. Dictators may use the powers of the executive (police,

martial law, censorship, physical implementation of the election mechanism, etc.) to

remain in power despite popular opinion in favor of removal. Members of a

particular faction in a legislature may use the power of the majority or supermajority

(passing criminal laws, defining the electoral mechanisms including eligibility and

district boundaries) to prevent the balance of power in the body from shifting to a

rival faction due to an election.

Problems which prevent an election from being “free and fair” can occur at several

different stages:

o Lack of open political debate or an informed electorate. The electorate may

be poorly informed about issues or candidates due to lack of freedom of the

press, lack of objectivity in the press due to state or corporate control, or lack

of access to news and political media. Freedom of speech may be curtailed by

the state, favoring certain viewpoints or state propaganda.

o Unfair rules. Gerrymandering, exclusion of opposition candidates from

eligibility for office, and manipulating thresholds for electoral success are

among some of the ways that the structure of an election can be changed to

favor a specific faction or candidate.

o Interference with campaigns. Arresting or assassinating candidates for office,

suppressing campaign actions (speeches, posters, broadcast advertisements),

closing campaign headquarters, criminalizing campaigning, harassing or

beating campaign workers. Intimidating voters with threats of or actual

violence.

o Tampering with the election mechanism. Confusing or misleading voters

about how to vote, violation of the secret ballot, ballot stuffing, tampering

with voting machines, destruction of legitimately cast ballots, voter

suppression, fraudulent tabulation of results, and use of physical force or

verbal intimation at polling places.

20

4. Which are the most basic electoral systems worldwide?

In general, electoral systems can be divided to proportional representation and

plurality voting.

First Past the Post (FPTP): First Past the Post is the simplest form of

plurality/majority electoral system. The winning candidate is the one who gains

more votes than any other candidate, even if this is not an absolute majority of valid

votes. The system uses single-member districts and the voters vote for candidates

rather than political parties. (i.e. Bangladesh)

Block Vote (BV): Block Vote is a plurality/majority system used in multi-member

districts. Electors have as many votes as there are candidates to be elected. The

candidates with the highest vote totals win the seats. Usually voters vote for

candidates rather than parties and in most systems may use as many, or as few, of

their votes as they wish. (i.e. Syria)

Party Block Vote (PBV): Party Block Vote (PBV) is a plurality/majority system using

multi-member districts in which voters cast a single party-centred vote for a party of

choice, and do not choose between candidates. The party with most votes will win

every seat in the electoral district. (i.e. Singapore)

Alternative Vote (AV): The Alternative Vote is a preferential plurality/majority

system used in single-member districts. Voters use numbers to mark their

preferences on the ballot paper. A candidate who receives an absolute majority (50

per cent plus 1) of valid first preference votes is declared elected. If no candidate

achieves an absolute majority of first preferences, the least successful candidates are

eliminated and their votes reallocated according to their second preferences until

one candidate has an absolute majority. Voters vote for candidates rather than

political parties. (i.e. Australia)

Single Transferable Vote (STV): The Single Transferable Vote is a preferential system

in which the voter has one vote in a multi-member district and the candidates that

surpass a specified quota of first preference votes are immediately elected. In

successive counts, votes are redistributed from least successful candidates, who are

eliminated, and votes surplus to the quota are redistributed from successful

candidates, until sufficient candidates are declared elected. Voters normally vote for

candidates rather than political parties, although a party-list option is possible. (i.e.

Malta, Ireland)

Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV): Under the Single Non-Transferable Vote

system voters cast a single vote in a multi-member district. The candidates with the

highest vote totals are declared elected. Voters vote for candidates rather than

political parties. (i.e. Jordan)

Two-Round System (TRS): The Two-Round System is a plurality/majority system in

which a second election is held if no candidate or party achieves a given level of

votes, most commonly an absolute majority (50 per cent plus one), in the first

election round. A Two-Round System may take a majority-plurality form–more than

21

two candidates contest the second round and the one wins the highest number of

votes in the second round is elected, regardless of whether they have won an

absolute majority–or a majority run-off form–only the top two candidates in the first

round contest the second round. (i.e. France, Egypt)

List Proportional Representation (List PR): Under a List Proportional Representation

(List PR) system each party or grouping presents a list of candidates for a multi-

member electoral district, the voters vote for a party, and parties receive seats in

proportion to their overall share of the vote. In some (closed list) systems the

winning candidates are taken from the lists in order of their position on the lists. If

the lists are ‘open’ or ‘free’ the voters can influence the order of the candidates by

marking individual preferences. (i.e. Cyprus, Sri Lanka)

Mixed Member Proportional System (MMP): Mixed Member Proportional is a

mixed system in which the choices expressed by the voters are used to elect

representatives through two different systems–one List PR system and (usually) one

plurality/majority system–where the List PR system compensates for the

disproportionality in the results from the plurality/majority system. (i.e. Germany)

Parallel Systems: A Parallel System is a mixed system in which the choices expressed

by the voters are used to elect representatives through two different systems–one

List PR system and (usually) one plurality/majority system–but where no account is

taken of the seats allocated under the first system in calculating the results in the

second system. (i.e. Pakistan)

Limited Vote (LV): Limited Vote is a candidate-centred electoral system used in

multi-member districts in which electors have more than one vote, but fewer votes

than there are candidates to be elected. The candidates with the highest vote totals

win the seats. (i.e. Gibraltar)

Borda Count (BC): A candidate-centred preferential system used in either single- or

multimember districts in which voters use numbers to mark their preferences on the

ballot paper and each preference marked is then assigned a value using equal steps.

These are summed and the candidate(s) with the highest total(s) is/are declared

elected. (i.e. Nauru)

5. Which are the fundamental principles of vote counting?

To establish and maintain public confidence in the electoral process, vote counting

systems and procedures should incorporate the fundamental principles of vote

counting in a democratic election. These fundamental principles are:

Transparency: For the counting process to be open and transparent, representatives

of political parties and candidates should be allowed to witness and/or participate in

the process, and be permitted to copy the statement of the results of the counting

process. National and international electoral observers should also be allowed to

witness the process and be permitted to copy the statement of the results of the

22

counting process. In some countries, ordinary citizens are encouraged to watch the

counting process. Manual counting is by its nature more transparent than

computerized counting. If vote counting is computerized, new mechanisms for

ensuring transparency, such as external audits, need to be introduced.

Security: The security of the ballots and the ballot boxes, from the time voting

begins to the completion of the count, is fundamental to the integrity of the

counting process. Voting station and counting officials, representatives of political

parties and candidates, and national and international electoral observers should

carefully watch the ballots and the boxes at all times, and accompany them if they

are moved from one location to another. Individually numbered, tamper-proof seals

or bags should be used to ensure the secure transport of ballots. Transparent ballot

boxes can also be used to counter the susceptibility for fraud. There is a perception

that ballots that are moved from the voting station to a central counting venue are

more vulnerable to tampering and fraud.

Professionalism: Voting station and counting officials are expected to conduct their

duties and responsibilities in a professional manner. They should be thoroughly

trained in the counting process, as distinct from the voting process; thorough in their

procedures; and committed to treating electoral materials with care and respect.

Once a person accepts work as a counting official, he or she must be non-partisan

throughout the entire process. Some jurisdictions require that all counting officials

(as well as voting station officials) sign an oath to this effect, creating awareness that

they can be legally prosecuted if their work or conduct is proved to be partisan.

Accuracy: Accuracy is directly related to the integrity of the count, and of the

elections themselves. Later discovery of errors and correction of mistakes can lead to

accusations of manipulation or fraud. The accuracy of the count will depend on clear

procedures and manuals, adequate staff training, and their commitment to the

process. Clear audit trails of ballots and ballot boxes, as well as checking and

rechecking mechanisms, will contribute to the accuracy of the results. Whilst

mechanical voting or computerization may enhance accuracy, this must be balanced

against the resulting apparent loss of transparency.

Secrecy: Secrecy of the vote is important because it ensures that voters cannot be

victimised for the way they vote, or intimidated into voting a particular way. To

preserve the secrecy of the vote, voters' identification must be protected during the

count. If their identity and choice on the ballot is determined as a result of counting

procedures, it must be kept confidential and never revealed by any of the people

involved in the electoral process. If the secrecy of the vote of individuals or a

community is a concern, measures such as counting at counting centres, rather than

at individual voting stations, or mixing ballots from different voting points, can be

considered. Numbered ballot papers corresponding to matching stubs with the voter

details, while facilitating accountability and clear audit trails, compromise secrecy

and are best avoided.

23

Timelines: Delays in completing the count and in the release of unofficial preliminary

results can negatively affect the level of integrity and confidence in the voting

process. The responsible electoral management body should carefully plan all stages

of the counting process to facilitate the early announcement of results or at least to

realistically assess when results can be announced, taking into consideration the

communications and transport infrastructure. It is best practice to inform the public

if there are time delays in the announcement of the results. If the process is slow

updates should be given regularly to reassure the public that the integrity for the

count is being maintained.

Accountability: Clear responsibility and accountability for each stage of the counting

process are important. At the national level, the electoral management body should

be accountable. At the electoral district level, it may be a senior election officer or

commission official. At voting stations, specified voting station officers may be

responsible for voting and counting. Clearly defined complaints and appeals

processes are also important. There should be structures in place with the authority

and competency to address complaints and appeals. These may include political

party liaison committees, conflict management and resolution bodies and legal

structures. Counting rules, including criteria for rejecting ballots, should be clear,

agreed upon and known in advance, and understood by everyone involved in the

election, including election officials, the general public, political parties, candidates,

non-governmental organizations, and national and international electoral observers.

Clear audit trails are essential in ensuring accountability.

Equity: Equity means that the rules are the same for all participants in the electoral

process, and that they accept these rules. The proper training and non-partisanship

of counting officials and voting station officials, and the presence of political party

representatives and candidate representatives, observers will help to ensure that

counting is conducted in a fair and correct manner.

24

Universal Declaration of Human Rights QUESTIONS TO CONCIDER:

1. What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted

by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948 at the Palais

de Chaillot in Paris, by a vote of 48 in favor, 0 against, with 8 abstentions (all

the Soviet Bloc states, Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, USSR, as

well as Yugoslavia, South Africa and Saudi Arabia).

The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War

and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings

are entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in

subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments,

national constitutions and laws.

When the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany became public knowledge

around the world after World War II, the consensus within the world

community was that the United Nations Charter did not sufficiently define

the rights it referenced. A universal declaration that specified the rights of

individuals was necessary to give effect to the Charter's provisions on human

rights.

2. Describe the structure of the Declaration of Human Rights.

The Declaration compares to the portico of a Greek temple, with a

foundation, steps, four columns and a pediment.

The seven paragraphs of the preamble, setting out the reasons for the

Declaration, are represented by the steps.

Articles 1 and 2 are the foundation blocks, with their principles of dignity,

liberty, equality and brotherhood.

The main body of the Declaration forms the four columns.

o The first column (articles 3–11) constitutes rights of the individual,

such as the right to life and the prohibition of slavery.

o The second column (articles 12–17) constitutes the rights of the

individual in civil and political society.

o The third column (articles 18–21) is concerned with spiritual, public

and political freedoms such as freedom of religion and freedom of

association.

o The fourth column (articles 22–27) sets out social, economic and

cultural rights.

The last three articles of the Declaration provide the pediment which binds

the structure together. These articles are concerned with the duty of the

25

individual to society and the prohibition of use of rights in contravention of

the purposes of the United Nations.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.

26

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

27

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

28

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to

29

security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

30

Aristotle, Politics Written 350 BC, Translated by Benjamin Jowett

BOOK 1, CHAPTER I

Every tate is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to

some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all

communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and

which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest

good.

Some people think that the qualifications of a statesman, king, householder, and master are the

same, and that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the

ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a still larger

number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a

small state. The distinction which is made between the king and the statesman is as follows:

When the government is personal, the ruler is a king; when, according to the rules of the

political science, the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, then he is called a statesman.

But all this is a mistake; for governments differ in kind, as will be evident to any one who

considers the matter according to the method which has hitherto guided us. As in other

departments of science, so in politics, the compound should always be resolved into the simple

elements or least parts of the whole. We must therefore look at the elements of which the state

is composed, in order that we may see in what the different kinds of rule differ from one another,

and whether any scientific result can be attained about each one of them.

BOOK 1, CHAPTER II

When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or

quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and

continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society

are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For what

each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, a

horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-

sufficing is the end and the best.

31

Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political

animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man

or above humanity; he is like the “tribe less, lawless, hearthless one,” whom Homer denounces-

the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war; he may be compared to an isolated piece at

draughts.

Now, that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident.

Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has

endowed with the gift of speech. And whereas mere voice is but an indication of pleasure or

pain, and is therefore found in other animals (for their nature attains to the perception of

pleasure and pain and the intimation of them to one another, and no further), the power of

speech is intended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and therefore likewise the just

and the unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of

just and unjust, and the like, and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a

family and a state.

Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is

of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot

or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed

the hand will be no better than that. But things are defined by their working and power; and we

ought not to say that they are the same when they no longer have their proper quality, but only

that they have the same name. The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the

individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part

in relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he

is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. A social instinct

is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of

benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law

and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is

equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for

the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of

animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, for the

administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in

political society.

32

Does Letter Prove Iran Election Fraud? 18 June 2009, By Tucker Reals Two prominent Iranian film makers have asked European countries not to acknowledge the legitimacy of Iran's

June 12 elections, claiming a letter proves the results were fabricated. Marjane Satrapi, who was behind the

acclaimed animated feature film "Persepolis," and filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf addressed a gathering of

Green Party members of the European Parliament on Tuesday and presented a letter which they claim shows

the real vote count from the disputed election. A video posted on YouTube shows the two addressing the

meeting in Farsi and English. Makhmalbaf is reportedly a known acquaintance of opposition candidate Mir

Hossein Mousavi. The letter they present to the MEPs has been circulated for several days, but its contents

cannot be verified. It is claimed the letter was a confidential note sent by Iran's Interior Minister (the Interior

Ministry is in charge of running elections in the country) to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Below is the

complete text of the letter, dated June 13, translated by CBS News:

Salaam Aleikum.

Following your concerns regarding the results of the presidential election and per your given discretion

to have Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remain as president during this sensitive juncture. Therefore,

everything has been planned in a way that the public announcement will be made in accordance with the

interests of the regime and the revolution. All necessary precautions have been taken to deal with any

unexpected events of election aftermath and the intense monitoring of all the parties' leaders as well as

the election candidates.

However, for your information, the real votes counted are as follows:

Total number of votes: 43,026,078

Mir Hossein Mousavi: 19,075,623

Mehdi Karoubi 13,387,104

Mhmoud Ahmadinejad: 5,698,417

Muhsen Rezai: 3,754,218

Void: 38,716

Minister of Interior

Sadegh Mahsouli

Again, CBS News has no way of verifying the authenticity of the document, which has been widely circulated by

Mousavi's supporters. The official results, as announced by the government just hours after polls closed, showed

a landslide victory for Ahmadinejad ? with more than 60% of the vote tally. Veteran journalist Robert Fisk also

reported on the letter Thursday in The Independent. He asks some very good questions of the purported

evidence, photocopies of which have been widely disseminated among opposition supporters.

33

“Could this letter be a fake? Even if Mr. Mousavi won so many votes, could the colorless Mr. Karroubi have

followed only six million votes behind him? And however incredible Mr. Ahmadinejad's officially declared 63 per

cent of the vote may have been, could he really as a man who has immense support among the poor of Iran

have picked up only five-and-a-half million votes?”

There has been little certainty with regard to any of the “facts” to emerge from Iran during the past week. Mr. Fisk

probably hit the nail on the head with his following paragraph, which highlights the level to which propaganda is

driving this news story:

“The letter may well join the thousands of documents, real and forged, that have shaped Iran's recent history, the

most memorable of which were the Irish passports upon which Messers Robert McFarlane and Oliver North

travelled to Iran on behalf of the US government in 1986 to offer missiles for hostages. The passports were real

and stolen but the identities written onto the document were fake. Mr. Ahmadinejad's loyalists will undoubtedly

blame “foreigners” for the “letter” to Ayatollah Khamenei. But its electrifying effect on the Mousavi camp will only

help to transform suspicion into the absolute conviction that their leader was quite deliberately deprived of the

presidency.”

34

Electoral reform: Change or decay

Editorial 14 November 2009

The government is running out of time. There are, it is estimated, 40 legislating days between the Queen's

speech on Wednesday and the general election next May. The address from the throne could seal its fate, if it

chooses to stick to the draft legislative programme and hunker down to protect its achievements. Instead it

should use this last opportunity to demonstrate that it recognises it is time for a change, and to show that it has

the appetite to make the change happen. There is one good way to do this. A proposal for a bill to enable a

referendum on electoral reform would be both right and popular. And it would give millions of disheartened

Labour – and Liberal Democrat – voters the sense that there was a fight to be had. Downing Street says the idea

is no longer on the agenda. It needs to think again. Gordon Brown's best offer has been the manifesto

commitment to a referendum in the course of the next parliament, slipped into his conference speech at the last

minute. It is not good enough. Voters know what happens to manifesto commitments that are tough to implement.

Mr Brown should remember that last summer, at what now seems to have been the nadir of the expenses crisis,

5,000 Guardian readers contributed their ideas on the shape of a new political settlement. More than four-fifths

put voting reform at the top of their priorities. The message was that never again should MPs be so

overwhelmingly confident of their seat in the Commons that they could abuse public trust.

A government that was prepared to reshape the political world would have a genuine claim to be the party of

change – against a Conservative party whose leader's opposition to voting reform is deep and heartfelt.

Something like this case is being made, as we reported yesterday, by a group of ministers including Alan

Johnson and Tessa Jowell. Backed by the campaigners at Vote for Change they argue there could be a serious

reform dividend from a commitment for a referendum on the same day as the election, shown in a recent

YouGov poll that suggested it could reduce a Conservative majority to single figures. As the culture minister Ben

Bradshaw said last week, they still believe it is not too late to persuade the prime minister to hold it on election

day.

But an election campaign to choose the next government is quite different from an electoral reform campaign to

choose the way the government is elected. To fight the two at the same time not only risks confusion, but could

jeopardise the cross-party support that is indispensable to success. Most damagingly, instead of appearing

genuinely open to a new politics, Labour would risk the charge of opportunism, of an unpopular government

looking for an electoral bounce. Failure would end the chance of reform for a generation. Even the Lib Dems

believe it is an unworkable proposal, and without their support any legislation in the next few months is doomed.

That is why another group of ministers, including Peter Hain and John Denham, believe the best option is to

introduce legislation in the dying days of this parliament that would pave the way for a referendum in the first

year of the next. Its supporters want the legislation to propose the alternative vote. But AV is unlikely to

command majority support. A better solution – pioneered in New Zealand – might be a two-stage process that

allowed a referendum first to establish the principle of reform. Elections are won on the way voters perceive the

contenders. The problems for a government seeking a fourth term against a revived opposition are daunting. But

here is a radical commitment that is widely popular. To reject the opportunity would merely confirm the

widespread impression of a government overwhelmed by caution. To take it would remind voters that Labour still

has a claim to be the real party of change.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

35

June 30, 2009

Leading article:

Guns and democracy

The ousting of the Honduran President Manuel Zelaya by the country's military at the

weekend has been condemned by many members of the international community as an

affront to democracy. But despite a natural distaste for any military coup, it is possible

that the army might have actually done Honduran democracy a service.

President Zelaya was planning a referendum to give him power to alter the constitution.

But the proposed alterations were perilously vague, with opponents accusing Mr Zelaya

of wanting to scrap the four-year presidential term limit. The country's courts and

congress had called the vote illegal.

This is an increasingly familiar turn of events in emerging democracies: an elected

leader, facing the end of his time in office, decides that the country cannot do without

him and resorts to dubious measures to retain power. The Venezuelan President, Hugo

Chavez, won a referendum in February altering his country's constitution and abolishing

term limits. He now talks about ruling beyond 2030.

Elected leaders who refuse to give up power have been the curse of sub-Saharan Africa

for decades. Some have resorted to bribery, intimidation, or simple fraud - whatever it

takes to retain power. That depressing pattern was what prompted the wealthy

Sudanese mobile phone entrepreneur Mo Ibrahim to offer a prize of $5m a year to

African leaders who voluntarily leave office. There are increasing examples of African

states that have managed to combine free elections with transfers of power;

Mozambique, Senegal and Ghana are among those that have shown it is possible, and

are stronger and more attractive for investors as a result. But there are others, such as

Nigeria and Kenya, which have highlighted the fact that voting and democracy do not

amount to the same thing.

Honduras underlines that free votes only count if accompanied by a confident parliament,

an independent judiciary, an unfettered media and impartial electoral monitors. The true

test of a democracy's health is not the holding of elections. It is the possibility of power

peaceably changing hands.