Political Theories
5th lecture.
The postmodern theories and the 21st
century
Division of the semester





1st lecture: Introduction and Classical Antiquity.
2nd lecture: Political ideas of the Middle Ages. Church and state
in medieval Europe. The investiture controversy.
3rd lecture: Political ideas of early Modern Age. Separation of
Church and State. The Separation of powers, and the importance
of institutions. Machiavelli, Hobbes, Montesquieu.
4th lecture: Political ideas of 19th century. Birth of modern
streams of political thinking. Liberalism, conservativism and leftwing movements, (Marx and Marxism).
5th lecture: Main trends in political movements (thinkers and
ideas and institutions in the 20th century.)
Assessment process
Obligatory literature: „Civilizations and world-religions” and the „History of political
ideas” ppt-presentations on the web-page: www.marosan.com
Recommended literature: Marosán György. (2006): Hogyan készül a történelem?
Money-Plan kft
The course implies an exam. There are two components of the mark: an essay and a
written exam.
If someone participates at least 3 lectures from the 5, and writes an acceptable essay at
home, then he or she could receive a mark after his or her essay, (that is: no written
exam needed then).
When someone does not participate enough lectures, and/or his or her essay is not
acceptable or is not good enough, then he or she must make a written exam too.
The topic/theme of the essay must be in a connection with the subject matter of the
course, and it should be an analysis of a definite, designed topic, or movie.
The essay must be of 2600 words long, the dead-line is: 17. december, 2012.
Topics and treatments of essays
Everybody should write two essays: one from „Civilizations and
World-religions” and another from „History of Political Ideas”.
The topic of the first essay: one should watch a film, (which is set in
the case of each student individually), then write an essay
concerning the topic or theme of the movie, (perhaps a
recommendation of 20 lines at the end of the essay).
The topic of the second essay: the decisive events of 21st century on
the basis of articles and news downloaded from the internet. The
student must choose 5 news, events or articles, and write an essay
on its ground.
Both essays should be unbiassed, objective, multisided.
Movie-titles.
Possible themes for essay
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
A katedrális (német-kanadai)
Hullám (N)
Ajami (Izraeli film)
Ég velünk (USA)
A vágy forradalma (francia)
Ütközések (USA)
Vittorio de Sica: Csoda Milánóban (Olasz)
Aki szelet vet (USA)
Isten nagy, én kicsi vagyok (francia)
Fellini: Róma (Olasz)
Megfoghatatlan (Il Divó) Andreotti film (O)
Pasolini: Médeia (Olasz)
Rosellini: Róma nyílt város (Olasz)
A háborúnak vége (F) Semprun könyvből film
Berlin fölött az ég, (német)
Kapcsolat (USA, Jodie Fosterrel, 1997)
Tarkovszkij: A tükör
A kelet, az kelet. (A)
Anna és a király (USA)
Pasolini: Máté Evangéliuma (Olasz)
Polanski: Rosemary gyermeke (USA)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Enyedi Ildikó: Simon mágus (magyar)
Ámen (francia-német-német film)
Bergman: Úrvacsora (svéd)
Andrzej Wajda: Szenthét (Lengyel)
A paradicsom meghódítása (Angol-amerikaifrancia-spanyol)
Bergman: Suttogások, sikolyok (svéd)
A Magdolna nővérek (ír)
Luther (N)
Goya kísértetei, (spanyol).
Mennyei királyság, (Amerikai-angol, stb.)
Bergman: A hetedik pecsét
Bresson: Egy falusi plébános naplója (francia)
Bergman: Tükör által homályosan (svéd)
Tarkovszkij: Andrej Rubljov (szovjet-orosz)
Szent Lajos király hídja (spanyol-angol-francia)
Enyedi Ildikó: A bűvös vadász (magyar)
Hét év Tibetben (Amerikai)
Bresson: Jeanne D’Arc pere
Vera Drake
Bresson: A bűn angyalai (francia)
The points of view of the analysis of the film:










What is the movie about?
What is its relationship to the particular, chosen topic (to Religions or History of
Political Ideas)
What is the „message” of the movie?
What is its peculiar importance in relationship to the history of 20th and 21st century?
Does it have a „message” in regard of nowadays Hungary?
Which opposite opinions are expressed in the movie?
Which opposite opinions are present according to the topic in question in the
contemporary Hungarian and/or global society?
You could select the behaviour, story or path of life of one or more characters, and
you could present and analyse them in your essay.
With what other movies and literary works could you compare the actual, chosen
movie?
What is the relationship of this film to the reality: does it alter the latter drastically or
rather mirrors it in a quite acceptable, adequate way?
Topic of the other essay

1.
2.
3.
There were three options:
You should choose and download from the internet 5 events,
news, information in the last two years, which you consider to
be decisive in regard of the history of 21st century.
I will give you one case, about which you could write an essay.
There are some TED case, which also provide option to write
essay.
The points of view of the
analysis concerning the 21st century
You should choose and download from the internet 5 events, news, information in
the last two years, which you consider to be decisive in regard of the history of
21st century.
 You should show and argue for why do you think these events to be decisive
(rather than others).
 You should unfold their connections and internal relationship, and form your
opinion what kind of future they foreshadow together.
 You should determine the possible message of this foreshadowed picture in
regard of Europe, and in particular in regard of East-Europe.
 You should determine the possible message of this foreshadowed picture in
regard of present Hungarian society.
 The essay must be approximately 8 pages, out of which one page should be about
the analysis of these five tendencies.
 Deadline: 17. December, 2012. Room, E II 22.
An example
At least 45 people, including women and children, have been killed in sectarian violence
involving two ethnic groups over land row in Nigeria's northern state of Benue, police and
witnesses said today. Those killed belong to Tiv ethnic group while the attackers were the
Fulani people who are mostly cattle herdsmen, witnesses said.
The Tiv, who are mostly farmers, also had some of their houses burnt down by the
invaders. Ejike Alaribe, the police spokesman, said the number of people killed in Sunday's
violence is 16 but a witness who spoke to PTI on condition of anonymity insisted the
number could not be less than 45, adding that the country's police is known for reducing
casualty figures.
The cause of the violence is related to land row between the two ethnic groups. The Fulanis,
who are mostly Muslims, seek land for their cattle to graze while the Tivs want to preserve it
for farming.
Ethnic conflict over land are widespread in northern Nigeria. Most frequently, these occure
in the country's north-central state of Plateau where Fulani herdsmen engage in clashes with
the Biroms and other ethnic groups.
Suggested TED presentations (www.TED.org)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Paddy Ashdown: The global power shift.
Clay Shiky: Institution vs. collaboration
Clay Shirky: How the internet transform government
Rachel Botsman: The currency of the new economy
Jammy Drummond: Let’s crowsource
Don Tapscott: Four principles for open world
Howard Rheingold: The new power of collaboration
Yochai Benkler: New open-source economics
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions
Schlomo Benartzi: Saving for tomorrow, tomorow
R. Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms
society
Niall Ferguson: A jólét 6 kegyetlenül jó "app"-je
Mark Forsyth: What’s a snowgoster
M. Jakubowski: Nyílt forráskódú tervrajzok a
civilizációhoz
Gladwell: Choice, happiness, spagetti sauce
Lean-Baptist Michel: The mathematics of histoty
J. Diamond: Why societies collapse
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
J. Haidt: Religion, evolution, and the extasy of selftranscence
J. Haidt: The moral roots of liberalism
Hans Rosling: A vallások és a demográfia
Hans Rosling: The best statistics…
Frans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals
Dan Ariely – irracionalitásaink..
D. Ariely: Our buggy moral
Devdutt Pattenaik: Kelet kontra nyugat – elkápráztató
mítoszok
Joseph Pine: What consumer wants
Roy Sutherland: an add man life
Gopnik: What do babies think
Jamie Drummond: Let’t crowsource ..
Marc Googman: A vision of crime int he future
Jean Baptiste Michel: Matehmatics of history
Sherry Turtle: Connected but alona
Berry Schwartz: Paradox of choice
Laurie Santos: Monkey economy
Geoffrey West: A városok és cégek meglepő
matematikája
Main features of a political theory




A political theory treats the principles, guide-lines, norms and values
according to which (in the thinker’s opinion) the society has to
organize its institutions, functions, structures, hierarchy and its general
way of working.
The aim of a political theory is to find the best way of running a
society and a state.
The political thinker in question has to argue for his or her ideas, so
for his or her opinion according to which she/he finds some values to
be the best for a society.
She or he has to fix the most basic values according to which the
society or the state has to organize itself, and its particular way of
functioning. So: she or he has to say what she/he thinks to be the
most important in regard of a society: the preserving the traditional
values of a nation (conservativism), guaranteeing the invulnerability of
sphere of personal, individual freedom (liberalism), social justice and
the defense of the rights of the needy (left-wing movements, Social
democracy).
How to govern a state? Two solutions




For the Greek political thinkers there were generally three possible
ways of governance: kingship, aristocracy and politeia (democracy,
republic).
Kingship or kingdom, which meant monarchy, was the dominance of
one person or family, that „privatized” the community, and its most
important resources, using the latter entirely at his and their will and
pleasure.
The republic (democracy, politeia) was the community of several,
principally equal citizens, who looked for the proper method of how
to decide those question together, which were decided in a kingdom
by only one person or just a few.
Of course there are transitional forms between republic and kingdom,
which were described by the theoreticians of Athenian democracy,
(e.g. oligarchy, aristocracy – the dominance of a few people).
Recurrent problems of republics




How can we achieve that everybody could have a role in the
republic? – Everybody is eligible.
How can we achieve that everbody could have an equal chance to
have an access to the public state? – The elections were done by
means of drawing of lots (sortition).
How could we avoid the tyranny? – By ostracism.
How could we achieve that the people participate in political life in
real? – We should make the participation in politics an obligation,
and we should pay for managing the proper social, political, public
offices.
„Assigned sovereignity” as an achievement of
the history of European civilization
The sovereign and all-powerful monarch assigns certain rights in
certain fields that an organization could determine and controll its
functions and working in an autonomous, sovereign and free way.
Thus emerge in the history of Europe:






Free cities,
Free guilds,
Free religious communities,
Free universities,
Free societies (e.g. Academies)
Free enterprises
Evolution of separation of powers, 1.
John of Salisbury, AD1120-1180.
 He wittnesses the assassination of his mentor Thomas Becket by the
men of the king, Henrik II, in 1174.
 His main work is „Policraticus” (1159), in which he determined the
just governance limited and controlled by laws, and acceptance of
separation of powers as the highest task of the monarch.
 On the one hand he wrote about the difference between monarch
and tyrrant, according to which the monarch subjects himself to the
reign of just law, while the tyrrant subjects everything to his own
subjective will and pleasure.
 On the other hand he argues for that the Church is such an
autonomous, sovereign organization, which falls beyond the sphere
of competence of the king; thus the people, dominions, lands,
properties and rights to nominate its own people to ecclesiastic
positions are inviolable, invulnerable by the king.
The activitiy index of the
first European Parlaments
from the 11. to the 17.
century.
There are interesting
differences development of
parlamentarism between
the North and South
Europa
Machiavelli

, "Il Principe," contains a number of maxims concerning politics,
but rather than the more traditional subject of a hereditary
prince, it concentrates on the possibility of a "new prince." To
retain power, the hereditary prince must carefully maintain the
socio-political institutions to which the people are accustomed.

Scholars often note that Machiavelli glorifies instrumentality in
state-building - an approach embodied by the saying that "the
ends justify the means.„.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
Evolution of separation of powers, 2.
The pre-historical period before state organization was not – as it
was generally thought by many – a time of harmony, a „golden
age of young and innocent mankind”, but just the opposite: the
world of permanent and brutal conflicts. It was the time of
„bellum omnium contra omnes”, „the war of all against all”.
But the man possesses not only instinct, but also reason, he is
capable of thinking of the future, of anticipation, and it makes
him able to end this period of „natural state”, following his own
interests.
He founds the social contract, according to which each man
abandon his or her absolute right to self-affirmation, to do
whatever he wants, and assign this right to an absolute sovereign
– if and only every other man does the same.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

„In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is
uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the
commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no
instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no
knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no
society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and
the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.

Hobbes was a champion of absolutism for the sovereign but he also developed
some of the fundamentals of European liberal thought: the right of the individual;
the natural equality of all men; the artificial character of the political order (which
led to the later distinction between civil society and the state); the view that all
legitimate political power must be "representative" and based on the consent of
the people
John Locke (1632-1704). Birth of modern state
Evolution of separation of powers, 3.
The man adds his work to the goods of nature, and he creates value. Thus he
gains the right to have property. The work is the basis for all kind of
property.
This idyllic picture of natural state was collapsed by the emegence of money.
The money made possible the accumulation of wealth, and it resulted great
inequalities.
The inequal distribution of properties brought sharp conflicts, which must be
controlled. „To avoid these inconveniences, which disorder men's
propperties in the state of nature, men unite into societies, that they may
have the united strength of the whole society to secure and defend their
properties, and may have standing rules to bound it, by which every one may
know what is his”, Locke, „Second Treatise on Civil Government”, [1690],
London, 1821: 306.
Locke rejects Hobbes’ solution, according to which the people should
abandon their rights in favour of the monarch. The people would be crazy
to offer all their rights for a monarch with unlimited, absolute power, and
trust their fate to this uncontrolled, unrestricted overlord.
Montesquieu (1689-1755).
The share of powers, „The Spirit of the Laws”
He tooks the principle of separation of powers from Locke, but he elaborates
this idea in great details in his work „The Spirit of the Laws”, („De l’espirit
des lois”, 1748).
„In every government there are three sorts of power: the legislative; the executive
in respect to things dependent on the law of nations; and the executive in
regard to matters that depend on the civil law.
By virtue of the first, the prince or magistrate enacts temporary or perpetual laws,
and amends or abrogates those that have been already enacted. By the second,
he makes peace or war, sends or receives embassies, establishes the public
security, and provides against invasions. By the third, he punishes criminals,
or determines the disputes that arise between individuals. The latter we shall
call the judiciary power, and the other simply the executive power of the
state.”, The Spirit of the Laws, 11th book, 6, Of the Constitution of England.
Montesquieu. Continuation.
The evolution of separation of powers, 4.
Montesquieu:
„The political liberty of the subject is a tranquillity of mind, arising from
the opinion each person has of his safety. In order to have this liberty,
it is requisite the government be so constituted as one man need not
be afraid of` another.
When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person,
or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because
apprehensions may anse, lest the same monarch or senate should enact
tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner. ”, The Spirit of
Laws.
In the background of this conception one could find a peculiar insight:
the effective and succesfull governance depends primarily not on the
eminence of politicians, but on the appropriate manner and character
of institutions.
Montesquieu (1689-1755)


Montesquieu saw two types of governmental power existing: the
sovereign and the administrative. The administrative powers
were the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. These should
be separate from and dependent upon each other so that the
influence of any one power would not be able to exceed that of
the other two, either singly or in combination.
This was a radical idea because it completely eliminated the three
Estates structure of the French Monarchy: the clergy, the
aristocracy, and the people at large represented by the EstatesGeneral, thereby erasing the last vestige of a feudalistic structure.
J. Locke

Locke's political theory was founded on social contract theory. Unlike Thomas
Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature is characterised by reason and tolerance.
Like Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish. This is
apparent with the introduction of currency. In a natural state all people were equal and
independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his “Life, health, Liberty, or
Possessions".[21] Most scholars trace the phrase, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness," in the American Declaration of Independence to Locke's theory of
rights,[22] though other origins have been suggested.[23]
J. Locke (2)

Like Hobbes, Locke assumed that the sole right to defend in the
state of nature was not enough, so people established a civil
society to resolve conflicts in a civil way with help from
government in a state of society. However, Locke never refers to
Hobbes by name and may instead have been responding to other
writers of the day.[24] Locke also advocated governmental
separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a
right but an obligation in some circumstances. These ideas would
come to have profound influence on the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
Rousseau

„The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This
is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that
man was the true founder of civil society. From how many
crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and
misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling
up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows:
Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once
forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth
itself to nobody.
The lesson of French Revolution



The theoreticians will be more suspicious and careful with the
conception of unlimited, absolute power, no matter whether it is
practiced by a king, a group of nobles, aristocrats or eminent
political people, or the entire people.
They will be more careful with separating the representation and
the final, ultimate executive power.
The claim increases amongst them towards the securing of
private, individual rights, of defending the rights of the minority
against the power of the actual majority of the society in
question.
Separation of powers after the Second World War
The number of voters (freemen) increases by leaps and bounds (the age
limit is brought down, there is no property qualification in voting
anymore, women got a right to vote also).
The new voters are interested in voting and politics in general less –
they have no time, they are disinterested and no experience either. It
is a question of how their own interest could be realized in political
praxis.
A subtly balanced system was formed and consolidated:
 Parliament (with the Opposition), Government,
 Shared and separated powers,
 Constitutional Court, President (King),
 National Bank, National Audit Office,
 Media,
 Civil organizations (civil advocacy groups), local governments/
authorities,
 Central Statistical Office, National Academy.
The problem of separation of powers at the
end of the 20th century
How could such an organization be governed, that has – in case if it is a corporation – more
than one hundred thousand shareholders, and – in case if it is a state – several million
citizens who have the right to vote?
How could it be guaranteed that the interests of such a huge amount of „beneficiaries” shareholders or voters – would be continually represented in real and – as far as it is
possible – realized by those who were trusted to manage and take care the main duties and
affairs of the community in question?
These questions are justified by the same fact in both cases: the „appropriate agents”
(1) do not see through the situation in its entire complexity,
(2) do not take the trouble to receive detailed information in a circumspective and prudent
way,
(3) do not participate the shareholders’/owners assembly or the elections,
(4) do not take care at all of their property/state, do not spend any time and energy concerning
it; the maximum is that they whine or curse when the bankruptsy or the crisis comes in.
The political and business sciences though different way but found the same solution to these
questions : and the answer is the institutional way of sharing or separating of powers.
Factors of good governance
1) Participation
2) Rule of law
3) Transparency
4) Responsiveness
5) Consensus orientation
6) Equity
7) Effectiveness and efficiency
8) Accountability
9) Strategic vision
Dimensions of the rule of law









» Limited government powers
» Absence of corruption
» Order and security
» Fundamental rights
» Open government
» Effective regulatory enforcement
» Access to civil justice
» Effective criminal justice
» Informal justice
The waves of the history
2000
?
1973
Population,
Production, and
Consumption
1929
1875
1815
1650
1300
The question: is there a
change in the trends after
2000?
1000
1500
2000
History of the last 500 years in a few words
Upsurge (the „long 16th century” – from 1492 to 1618)
Change of speed (1650-1750)
„Take-off” –(1750-1850)
Acceleration (1850-1970)
Run-away and overshot (1950-?)
The central question of 21th century: stabilization or
collapse.
The „triple” revolution
of the end of 18th century
Industrial revolution (revolution of technique and
technology)
2. Political revolution (the birth of modern civil
society)
3. Social revolution (birth of new social identities:
nation and class)
The political ideas of 19th and 20th century was
mainly determined and characterized by the ways
in which the political thinkers and ideologues
reacted to these events.
1.
The liberal answer and evaluation
1.
2.
3.
The triple slogan of French Revolution – liberty, equality,
brotherhood – could be regarded in principle as the victory of
liberal thought. The French Revolution gave birth to the unitary
national state, which earlier was made up of separate orders.
The industrial revolution opened the way to a dynamic
development, and the liberal thinking welcomed that. The liberal
thinkers were the pioneers of technical and technological
advancement and development.
They treated the social questions and problems as necessary
implications of social changes and transformations. They
proposed a strict and iron-handed defence of private property
by the state. They considered the miseries and paurerdom as
temporary problems of society, but they advocated the social
reforms.
Conservative respond and evaluation
1.
2.
3.
The revolution is considered as the disruption of social harmony.
For a conservative thinker the revolution is nothing else but
anarchy and general social confusion. It is a conspiracy against
traditional state and traditional institutions organized by some
free-thinkers (especially freemasonry) and libertines, carried out
through the manipulation and deception of masses and the
plebs.
The industrial revolution is considered as the disruption of
earlier „peaceful” and „natural” mode of production, which lead
to new contradictions and antinomies in the society.
They glanced at the masses of social difficulties and antinomies,
at the emergence of a new and apparently uncontrollable class
with fear, and principally with a critical attitude. They reject the
„mechanical and alianated” civilization. They regard the
disappearance of traditional society as disintegration and
disorganization.
The socialist respond and evaluation
1.
2.
3.
The social revolution is the motor of development,
the Jacobin terror – as a necessity and respond to the
counter-revolutionary revolts – is the possiblity of a
radical political way to realize the social equality.
The industrial revolution is the possibility of
enrichment and advancement, but every burden is
placed onto the proletariat.
The social change results the emergence of a new
class, which is deprived of any defence, and which is
exposed to extreme urban pauperdom and neediness,
to cruel conditions of work, and to necessary
unemployment.
What is liberalism?
Its central subjects are individual freedom, intangibility and inviolability
of private property, and in favour of both is the limitation of the
state, (Hobbes, then Locke).
Main features: the affirmation of reason and advancament, religious
tolerance, the common good or public benefit is a result of conflict
and competition of private interests, free competition, pursuit of
welfare through the above-mentioned issues.
Liberalism emphasizes the equality of rights. Its basic claims are the
principal, essential civil rights: the rights of association and assembly,
the freedom of opinion and publication.
With all these also some spiritual or intellectual rights: freedom of
conscience and religion, and also some economic rights: the freedom
of enterprise and (economic) contract.
What is conservativism?
Originally it was a general tendency of traditionalism: it was the
conception of advocation of traditional morals, values, religion,
following of inherited rules and norms, and the maintenance of the
status quo.
The main feature of conservative feeling of life and style of thinking:
concentrating on concrete phenomena, rejection of theoretical
speculations.
The conservative thinker rejects the abstract, egalitarian conception of
freedom (socialism) as well as the negative conception of freedom
given by the liberal thinkers.
„The progressive thinker considers the actual present as the beginning
of the future, while the conservative regards it as the last station of
the past”, (Karl Mannheim, Conservatism. A Contribution to the Sociology
of Knowledge ).
What is socialism?
The expression „socialism” appeared in the 30s years of the 19th
century. Its advocators propagated the war against the
defencelessness of the worker in the name of the man’s dignity.
They supported the advancement and the civil revolution.
They agree with the liberals concerning the central role of reason
and rationality, and the importance of industrial revolution, but
they rejected the circumstances which lead to the miserable
conditions of the members of working class.
In accordance with the conservatives they emphasized the
importance of common values, but they rejected the idea of
eternal and necessary inequality.
Their aim was to realize the promises of the French Revolution to
everybody: the principles of liberty, equality and brotherhood.