What is Politics?
Politics is used as the science and art of Government. It deals with the issue of public affairs and governance. Two words that are used in correlation with the word and are also instrumental in shaping the meaning of the world are government and public affairs. The two in turn are themselves related, where the government has to deal with the public affairs. This understanding is a very broad notion and does not give a concrete and compartmentalized understanding of the word politics. Politics as a term has been widely discussed and debated upon.
A common understanding of ‘What is Politics’ has not been agreed upon. However, it is a realm that has been understood in some way or the other, by every individual. One cannot be devoid of an opinion on the essence of what is actually politics? There can be diverse opinions and often opinions that are at loggerheads, but by the essence of being a human, one is bound to think about the realm of politics.
Politics has been defined by various scholars. Harold J Laswell defines Politics as the idea of Who gets what, when and how? His idea advocates the rights of citizens and institutional procedure of the state in granting the rights of the people. David Easton describes Politics as the ‘authoritative allocation of values for a society’. His conception of values talks about a set of values that is broadly agreed upon by the state to adhere to. The idea of core values that guide the state is inherent in the idea of politics. The idea of value, Easton talks about can be anything that is valued by the society, ideology, goal, social ranking or any core essence that is deemed as the benchmark for carrying out governance.
Bernard Crick defines politics as a distinctive form of rule where people come together through institutional mechanism to deliberate and resolve differences to articulate public policy for the common good. The proposition of Bernard Crick, lays emphasis on the idea of reconciliation, bargaining and shared understanding.
The Political is not Social
The variable whose absence validates the presence of politics is ‘social’. Before examining the interdependency of the two variables, let us look at what is political? Is it different from Politics? The word politics comes from Aristotle’s classic work ‘Politika’, which means ‘affairs of the cities.’ Political is the nature that politics imparts. It is the characterization that comes from the virtue of politics. Politics can be defined as a static term, but political is dynamic and reinventing because it imparts attributes and characteristics to an individual and institution. The notion of how the society has been perceived and understood over years, has often tried to envelope the social into political. The origin of the word social comes from the Latin word ‘socius’ meaning friend.
Does citizenship confer the identity to the members of state? Does the idea of
membership and citizenship differ in its orientation? The basic rights of an individual by the virtue of a citizen are enshrined in the constitution, whereas the interpersonal approach of an individual emanate from the consciousness of being a social being. The attributes of social membership are distinct from the rights an individual imbibes as a citizen of the state.
Contributing in the well-being of the society through benevolent act of charity, donations, or any other form of physical help. Nurturing a peaceful, habitable and tolerant society by assimilating people from various caste, colour and culture. Maintaining amicable relations in the society by respecting one’s neighbour and pursuing social justice. Spreading a sense of responsibility by spreading environmental awareness and nurturing an eco-friendly and sustainable way of life. These attributes come by the virtue of being a good human and not by the identity of being a law-abiding citizen. A citizen can adhere to the duties enshrined by the state and avail his rights. However, citizenship is not a precondition for being contributing to the social enrichment of a group of people. Not every section of the society was citizen of Aristotle’s State, but everyone did imbibe a sense of belonging to the land they inhabited.
The difference between the social and political, if built upon leads to a larger dialogue in the society culminating into social welfare policies. Public policies that go beyond the administrative concerns, and provide a safety-net to the people by being a benefactor of the marginalized, downtrodden and weaker sections of the society. This idea of reaggregation and convergence of interest of individuals has been brought forth by Bernard Crick, in his famous work ‘In Defense of Politics’. The idea of policy making actualizes the politics of the state. Assimilating of the social context in the political underpinning, resulting in the
formulation of a public policy is the premise on which Crick has built up his idea of politics.
However, the demarcation between the social and political also indicates a line where the distinction between the two is transgressed. The Political and social are distinct in its orientation and approach but are reinstating condition for each other.
The Conception of Moral
Moral rests on the idea of conception of ‘good’. The idea of good is subjective but in the moral paradigm, there is only universal good that forms the base of morality. The acceptance that comes with the good is the idea of morality the state and society practice. If there is no subjective good in morality, can the state and society be good at the same time or do they differ in their orientation of good. Social Conservatives consider it as the prerogative of the
state to go beyond the idea of citizenship to inculcate social virtues to make a good society. The state harbors the potential to regulate the human behavior, and bring out a moderation in the attributes of an individual.
A dilemma that comes across in the conception of good is also prevalent in the idea of a good law-abiding citizen and a good person in general. Social Conservatives view the state as an institution, that imparts the orientation of being good to its subjects. The idea of ‘good state’ does not focus on containing the state to undermine individual liberty. Communitarians perceive society as an agency of promoting moral behavior. The conduct morally good behavior goes beyond the stipulated permissibility of an agency, into the personal realm. The moral attribute of behavior transcends beyond the apparatus of state. It moves beyond the fiduciary relationship of state and its citizens, to a relationship of trust, harmony and
camaraderie between the members of the state. Societal orientation of a just and equitable society, where not the state but the citizens extend their hand to the weak, vulnerable and deprived sections of the society. The good society, reaches the private realm but with only a limited set of core values. It is not as expansive and holistic as in a liberal state or a government centered society. The scope of good is limited and particular in the societal perception of good.
The Political is Moral
Every political action has a moral underpinning. There are no political deliberations devoid of moral pretext. The usage of ‘moral’ is related to a broad range of moral social values that are imbibed in the normative considerations of justice and equality. The idea is not restricted to a
limited and personal understanding of morality. According to the Liberals understanding of political theory, the ambit of morality should not pervade the realm of public and political. The moral deliberations are more confined to the private realm. Liberals fear that the intrusion of morality in the public domain can trigger a cultural war. The public arena falls in the ambit of the State, where the orientation of state and the idea of politics should essentially remain neutral.
Communitarians come from a vantage point that politics should rearticulate shared
values and understanding of morality. Contemporary politics of free and democracy societies rests on the pillar of demand aggregation and articulation. The absence of broad consensus and common ground of values, beliefs and demands leads to turmoil and discontent, as visible between Jewish and Arabic citizen of Israel. The consensus between the communities in a state plays a vital role in maintaining the peace and sanctity of a democracy. The reasons
for conflict arise from difference in opinion and the lack of consensus in the governing the different group of citizens defined by their caste, class, caste, region and language. The law acts as a neutral arbiter and acts as a conscience of the state apparatus by upholding the essence of morality. The law can never be morally neutral but it has to be unbiased and wise in adjudicating the matters of state. The law has to be neutral in terms of its preferences and affiliations. It does not have to impose the will of majority on the populous but uphold the prerogative for a just and equitable society.
The Political is State
The question that arises is that are there two conceptions of morality, one for the society and one for the state. If they are different, do they ever converge? What are the repercussions of the differences? Which notion does the citizen abide by? Are there major differences between the conception of a ‘good society’ and a ‘good state’? A good society harbours a moral voice, where individuals have a sense of morality and behave in pro-social manner. The pro-social
sense can emanate from either an innate or an acquired sense of morality. An innate sense of morality that arises from the virtue of being human. The role of parenting and education thus play a pivotal role in shaping the moral attributes of an individual.
As put forth by John Locke, man is a rational being, who can logically apply a deductive
reasoning and determine the sense of morality, that has been granted by God. Locke’s moral rationalism is based on the empirical understanding of idea. He believes that human mind is a tabula-rasa, it is the sensory understanding that builds up the idea of morality. We, as humans construct complex moral proposition from the simplistic perception of what we imbibe and
perceive from our sensory and reflexive experiences. Locke has knit an interrelation between reason and morality. According to Locke, the state of nature was pre-political but not premoral. There was already a sense of morality that existed; thus, a political state needs to have a basic conception of morality.
The point of intervention in understanding morality is to assess if there is a difference in
what the society considers as morality, what the state considers as morality and what an
individual considers as morality. There are contentions between compliance with moral voice and what an individual truly wants by the virtue of his freedom and entitlement. If an individual deserves to be free from state control, does he not deserve to be free from the social pressure that emanates from the conceptualization of societal morality. This dilemma has been discussed by Jon Stuart Mill, in his work On Liberty. The dealings of the society with the individual can be understood by the way of compulsion and control, either in the form of physical punishment or moral coercion that the state asserts. The morality that the state endorses can differ for various sections. It can be manifested as the popular will, or the dominant public opinion.
The multitude of numbers in a democracy has the power to coerce by the will of majority. Public disapprobation leads to alienation and despair of the people whose demands have not been assimilated (Tocqueville, 1991). However, the distinction lies in the force of
coercion, a state can be morally coercive but a community endorses internal moral voice that is not to be feared but inculcated. The moral choice resonates with individual liberty and the free choice of man. The internal moral choice is not different from the self. It is a part of one’s existence and is borne from the roots of one’s being. It defines and shapes one’s moral character. The external moral choice is community driven and is imbibe from the societal orientation and construct of ‘good’ and ‘bad’. The external moral choice lays the onus on an individual to select or reject the moral construct being advocated. The final call is with the individual acting. Society has the tendency to cajole, persuade and censure but it is up to the individual to adhere to the conception being emphasised up.
The contemporary liberal democratic set up offers the liberty and freedom to manoeuvre
the space an individual holds. An individual has the liberty to choose and reside in a state he aspires to. He has the reasoning and moral voice to succumb to a state authority he feels
entrusted to. Adhering to the societal pressure also emanates from a vantage point of moral understanding an individual has. His actions are socially, culturally and morally placed under an ambit because he is a part of the society, a state and owes allegiance to at least a limited set of people. In case of parents taking care of their children, the decision is not led by moral coercion that the state enforces but by a moral voice that the community propagates. The elderly parents being abandoned by their children is a question of moral voice and personal
choice.
The law is catalyst in achieving societal change. It is a core outcome of political
processes. Moral dialogues take place in the political realm but do not mature and harbour in the same. It is the society that nurtures the dialogue and the law that helps in achieving the outcome. The law of the land leads the social change. However, the nature of morality defines a good society. The law is required to be in accordance with the moral culture. The law if not in accordance can also the nature of state to an authoritarian state, or in the worst form a totalitarian state. The law is the first step for ensuring social change and preserving the order of the state. Law also needs the will and force of moral voice to be enforced. It is not coercion alone that can prohibit an immoral act. It is the inner moral conscience that acts a
guiding star in directing an individual’s action. Prohibition can regulate moral behaviour but not imbibe moral etiquettes in individuals. For instance, corruption in the bureaucratic order
can be prohibited, and thus it can be regulated but it is the inner conscience or the moral voice that will guide an individual’s actions in making the society free of corruption. Fear can command and not demand morality. It is the force of moral voice that is to be reckoned with even in adhering to the law of land.
The political and moral though cardinally different are interlinked in myriad ways. The two cannot be confused to be the same but cannot be compartmentalised too for understanding the two individually. A free democratic liberal order governs by the sanctity of law. The law is reinforced by the State apparatus. The political governs by a shared understanding of morality. The state is a part of the political. The actions of the State have a moral dimension because they also operate on a shared understanding and a broad consensus of values. The
contemporary political understanding is a reinstatement of morality writ large in the form of social consensus. The idea of state vs community is now visualised as a political community instead because of the interdependence of the nations, which has enlarged the ambit of shared understanding to a more holistic, comprehensive and cohesive understanding of governance.
The idea of governance also has a paradigm of social governance. The various actions of the State are to be understood in nexus with each other rather than in isolation. The outcome of the moral dialogues have matured and the idea of shared values has also reinvented itself to be more conclusive in its approach. The sanctity of state emanates from the people because it is the people that authorise the state to govern. The people are themselves guided by a moral voice and thus the power of moral deliberations reflects at the level of Government as well. What is political will never have a compartmentalised understanding because politics in itself
is a sum total of attributes of social, economic and moral virtues that guides the governance of the State.
0 Comments
If you any doubts, Please let me know