Introduction to Theories

Introduction to Theories

 

Introduction to Politics Theory

Does Hobbes’ theory of the social contract provide a convincing reason for always obeying the law?

 

            It has been reported that the theory of the social contract is based on the assumption that all men live in a harsh and uncivilized state of nature, and in order to move away from these conditions, men enter into a contract with each other, allowing them to live in peace and unity. This theory can be seen as a justification for the formation of the state, where all members within a society are assumed to agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within the society without violating the contract, where a violation would signify a problematic attempt to man as either “good” or evil” (2006). In relation to this, many philosophers were able to conceptualize theories that will explain realities in the society. One of the famous theorists and philosophers was Thomas Hobbes.

            Thomas Hobbes is the founding father of modern political philosophy, and he has set the terms of debate about the fundamentals of political life right into the present time. His main concern is the problem of social and political order, such as how human beings can live together in peace and avoids the danger and fear of civil conflict ( (1588-1679) 2006). Hobbes has a particular theory of human nature, which gives rise to a particular view of morality and politics, as developed in his philosophical masterpiece, Leviathan, which was published in 1651, and sought to provide a theory of human nature that would parallel the discoveries being made in the sciences of the inanimate universe (2006).

            It has been reported that according to Hobbes’ and canonical theory, “without society, we would live in a state of nature, where we each have unlimited natural freedoms, and the downside of this general autonomy is that it includes the ‘right to all things’ and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten one’s own self-preservation; there are no positive rights, only laws of nature and an endless ‘war of all against all’” (2006). In addition, to avoid this, we jointly agree to an implicit social contract by which we each gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to honor the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so (2006). In relation to this, Thomas Hobbes contended that people in a state of nature surrendered their individual rights to create sovereignty, retained by the state, in return for their protection and a more functional society, so social contract evolves out of pragmatic self-interest (2006), which can be fully understood with the discussion of the whole theory.

 

Political Philosophy of Hobbes

            The psychological theory of Hobbes is influenced by mechanism, where everything in the universe is produced by none other than matter in motion, which also extends to human behavior. Human macro-behavior can be described as the effects of certain kinds of human micro-behavior, which are in turn, caused by the interaction of small particles inside our bodies. Hobbes’s views of mechanistic quality of human psychology implies the subjective nature of normative claims, so moral terms do not describe objective state of affairs, but are rather reflections of individual tastes and preferences (2006). Moreover, he argues that humans are necessarily and exclusively self-interested, wherein all men pursue only what they perceive to be in their own best interest, and respond by being drawn to their desires and repelled by what they despise. Human beings are also reasonable, for they have the rational capacity to follow their desires as efficiently as possible. The rationality of human beings is instrumental, being used as a vehicle to arrive at certain ends, and to formulate the best means for the desired end (2006).

            From this, Hobbes was able to formulate a theory that would explain the behavior of human beings under the influence of political power and rule. According to Thomas Hobbes, the justification for political obligation is given that men are naturally self-interested, yet are rational, and will choose to submit to the authority of a Sovereign in order to be able to live in a civil society that is conducive to their own interests (2006). In man’s State of Nature, he or she is naturally and exclusively self-interested, is equal to one another, with limited resources, and has no power able to force men to cooperate. However, due to man’s rationality, each can see their way out of such a horrid state by recognizing the laws of nature, which shows them the means to escape the State of Nature and create a civil society (2006). Using man’s rationality and ability to reason, he or she can create a united and harmonious society, in accordance to the rules made by the citizens of the society themselves. The most important law of nature commands that each man should be willing to pursue peace, likewise, in constancy to retaining the right to continue in pursuing war. With this, man will be able to construct a Social Contract that will afford the society a life other than that available to them in the State of Nature (2006).  (1994) states that Hobbes’s social contract forms a ‘people’ capable of deciding by a majority vote on a common representative authorized to preserve internal peace and external defense. Its primary aim is not to control, but rather to make a body politic that agrees with the logic of politics (1994). Moreover, this contract is constituted by two distinguishable contracts, where one, they must agree to establish a society by collectively and reciprocally renouncing the rights they had against one another in the State of Nature, and the other, they must instill an individual or a group of individuals with the authority and power to enforce the initial contract. In essence, Hobbes argues that to ensure man’s escape from the State of Nature, they must both agree to live together under common laws, and create an enforcement mechanism for the social contract and the laws that constitute it (2006).

            Furthermore, since the Sovereign is invested with the authority and power to punish whoever violates the contract, man has the good, self-interest, and the reason to adjust themselves to the pretense of morality and justice. This enables society because with a contract, there is an artificially and conventionally superior and more powerful person who can force men to cooperate, in contrast to the State of Nature, wherein there is no power able to subdue the rest.  argues that because men’s passions can be expected to overwhelm their reason, the Sovereign must have absolute authority in order for the contract to be successful, making living under the authority of Sovereignty more manageable than living under the State of Nature (2006).

Obeying the Law

            The concept and theory of Thomas Hobbes on social contract, State of Nature, Sovereign, and politics become useful in response to the question presented. This theory now enables us to decide whether to always obey the laws or not, authorized by the Sovereign.

            Primarily, it is essential that man follow or obey the laws made by the Sovereign for many reasons. The primary reason is in relation to the theory of Thomas Hobbes on man’s State of Nature. Hobbes argues that by nature, man is selfish, ignorant and impulsive. These characteristics or traits of man allow him or her to think only of his or her interests and never on the good of everyone else. The absence of a Sovereign and the laws governing man would permit every man to pursue his or her own wants and desires, without thinking of others, and each would be making decision in accordance to their own benefit only. If this happens then, there would be chaos in the entire universe. Every human being would be in conflict with one another, leading to wars and bloodshed everywhere. If man will not obey the laws governing him, then possibly, chaos will be the result of it. In essence, obeying the laws and rules made and passed by the Sovereign is a way of suppressing, but not entirely, the State of Nature of human beings.

            Another important point to take note of is the fact that obeying the rules and laws made by the Sovereign would maintain social order. Social order refers to a set of linked social structures, social institutions, and social practices, which conserve, maintain and enforce “normal” ways of relating and behaving; a relatively stable system of institutions, pattern of interactions and customs, capable of continually reproducing at least those conditions essential for its own existence; and all those facets of society, which remain relatively constant over time. The conditions in social order include property, exchange, power relations, cultural forms, communication relations, and ideological systems of values (2006). It is a fact that changes is inevitable in a dynamic society, and nowadays, changes happen very quickly. However, it should be remembered that laws governing man must be obeyed and followed for the benefit of man as well. Laws must be followed to maintain social order, in the Sovereign’s intention and desire to prevent crimes and other violations to happen in the society, for these violations and crimes committed in the society are committed against another person or groups of individuals. To prevent this from happening, each individual must be responsible enough to comply with the rules given to him.

            However, there are certain instances wherein one must use his or her ability and capacity to think rationally in assessing the need for disobeying a law or rule authorized by the Sovereign. Most of the time, authorized or proper disobeying the law is caused by the fact that one or a few members of the Sovereign or the Council of Leaders have plans of using and abusing their powers to pursue their selfish interests. One of the rules governing man to maintain social order is following the orders of a superior. Yet, it would not be proper and significant if one would permit the use and abuse of one’s power or decisions for the benefit of one or few individuals only and not the whole society. This would not only violate the rights of men in society, but also allow social chaos and discord to happen. Another relevant situation is disobeying the law in relation to abuse of nature, which must not be tolerated. In some nations or societies, many individuals in power abuse their position to pursue their selfish interests, including the abuse of nature, such as engaging in illegal logging. Most of these individuals use their position and influence to get what they want. However, one must use his or her rationality so as not to allow such abuse to take place. One must be able to realize the negative consequences of this, and be able to justify his or her reason for disobeying the law and the order of his superior.

            Another point in justifying disobedience to the law and to the orders of superiors is the possibility of creating a decision that would lead to chaos or war against another society or nation, and the violation of a rule or rules of the Sovereign. The Sovereign must promote social order and unity, and if ever it will be promoting otherwise, then other individuals in position and power must be able to justify themselves in disobeying orders. Lastly, disobeying the law or rules become second in priority when it comes to life-and-death situations. With these given situations, one must use his or her capacity to think rationally in making essential and wise decisions. One must use his or her rationality to prioritize situations and decisions, to arrive at sound judgments and consequences in relation to any given situations. In addition, man must learn to control his innate State of Nature, and be able to think progressively and make considerations on the needs of other human beings present in the society.

 

 

 

 

Introduction to European Politics

Does Germany treat immigrants as citizens?

 

            Immigration in the modern context refers to the movement of people from one nation-state to another, where they are not citizens, and implies a long-term permanent residence by the immigrants, which excludes tourists and short-term visitors. The modern idea of immigration is related to the development of nation-states with clear citizenship criteria, passports, permanent border controls, and nationality law, where citizenship of a nation-state grants an inalienable right of residence in a specific state, but residency is subject to conditions set by the immigration law. However, the nation-states made immigration a political issue, wherein certain issues are involved, such as social tensions, xenophobia, and conflicts about national identity (2006).

            People settle from one country to another for a variety of reasons, such as the incidence that some are forced to move, due to conflict, to escape persecution, and the desire to voluntarily emigrate (2006). On the other hand, immigration also represents an act of courage, wherein moving to a different country with different culture and norms can be intimidating, suffering loneliness is not easy to overcome, plus the additional pressure to earn enough living to be sent to one’s own family back home. In addition, there are also incidences of economic migrants, an individual searching for work or better opportunities in other countries. Evidently, the Inter Press Service or IPS reports that the European Union has recently acknowledged the concern about immigration that has not been receiving much attention from the media, which states that a large number of people are attempting to leave the devastation of their own country caused by the current form of globalization, and other political and economic policies. This incidence creates a large number of losers, thus, increasing inequality (2006).

            Immigration also presents various effects to the immigrants and to their host countries. Most often than not, immigrants obtain jobs that people in the host country will not or cannot do; they even work longer hours and for lower salaries, being controversial and exploitative; immigrants contribute to the diversity of the society, which can help with tolerance and understanding; and they offer an increased talent pool, for being well educated in their original country. However, aside from the positive effects, immigration also presents disadvantages. Immigrants can be exploited for their cheap labor, developing countries may suffer from “brain drain”; immigration can attract criminal elements from trafficking drugs and people; can become a social or political issue, where racism can be used to exploit feelings or as an excuse; discrimination, and other conflicts (2006). Due to these, this essay will be evaluating and assessing the concept of immigration in Germany, and if the German society treat immigrants as citizens.

           

Immigration and Immigrants in Germany

            It has been reported that since the 1990s, analysts have pointed to Germany’s ongoing need for immigrants to bolster economic development and maintain a dynamic workforce, given the rapid aging of the country’s population (2004). However, with the fast-changing times, Germany was forced to come up with a law or act in response to the increasing number and large volume of immigrants to their country. It has been reported that since 2005, Germany is making a greater attempt to encourage immigration of highly skilled workers to their country, granting them easier permanent residency, and professions needed include natural scientists, such as biologists, chemists, and physicists, engineers, professors, and scientific personnel in high technology areas (2006). In relation to this, a new German Immigration Act was made, which came into force on January 1, 2005, in which it states that highly qualified persons will be granted permanent residence and permission to work in Germany from the beginning, rather than five-year work permits, given that they have a concrete job offer and a permission from the German Employment Agency. This new law also aims to reduce bureaucracy, such that aspiring immigrants will report to the German embassy in their home country to receive work and residency permission (  2006). In addition, family members of the immigrants who enter Germany can also obtain the right to work in the country as well. This also includes education privileges, wherein foreign students will have a year to look for a job if they wish to stay in Germany. Moreover, self-employed immigrants will also feel more welcomed under the new law, if they invest one million euro, which will create ten new German jobs. It must also be taken note of that Germany is a member of the Schengen Agreement, enabling a holder of a Schengen Visa to travel from one Schengen country to another freely. The new German Immigration Act has replaced the former German Green Card Initiative, which made it easier for foreign IT specialists to work in Germany, however, unsuccessful for it did not succeed in bringing about the additional IT workers as was expected and is limited only to IT specialists (2006).

            From the laws mentioned, it is evident that Germany is badly in need of many highly skilled workers to fulfill several functions in their country. However, it is essential to take note of and evaluate the treatments of the German society to their immigrants.  (2005) states that in order to investigate the impact of immigration on employment opportunities in Germany, relevant labor market segments must be first determined. The author reports that the insight that schooling and experience play a role in defining distinct skill groups may provide a good basis for an empirical analysis of how immigrants affect the employment opportunities of natives (2005), for highly skilled immigrants have attained higher education than non-skilled workers. With more highly skilled immigrants entering Germany, then changes also happen to the country’s labor market opportunities over time. This affects the wages of the workers, which is subject to Social Security contributions in Germany ( 2005). In relation to the new Immigration Law, it has been reported that official promises of promoting the integration of immigrants in Germany have proved illusory, such that the law gives greater powers to the authorities and enables them to act far more repressively against immigrants and refugees (2005). A 35-year old Turkish immigrant was deported from Germany after living and working there for 35 years, because he was unemployed and had claimed welfare benefits.  worked as an unskilled laborer for numerous companies in Germany, but when he applied for his unemployment benefits in January 2005, he received notification from the authorities that his residency permit would not be extended, for no longer providing the financial means for his stay, and even threatened with deportation should he disregard the notice. The reason behind this is the law that states that if an immigrant applied for social security benefits for himself, his relatives residing within Germany, or for persons in his household whom he was responsible to maintain, the authorities will be given discretion to report the immigrant, however, rarely used, for it mainly served to intimidate and put foreigners under pressure to accept poorly paid jobs (2005). In essence, Germany has the right to deport someone not anymore capable of providing the country financial contributions, and this reason gives the authorities the right to violate the human rights of immigrants. Consequently, Germany’s restrictive immigration laws, which make it possible to simply deport immigrants who become unemployed and claim welfare, are the most potent weapon of the ruling elite for intimidating and suppressing foreign workers, such that the systemic destruction of all rights concerning immigrants and refugees opens the way for attacks on the social and democratic rights of all working people (2005).

            In line with this economic discrimination is the fact that social and racial discrimination is very evident in the country. It has been reported that due to poverty, one out of four immigrants in Germany is considered as poor, since their household income was less that 60% of the average income (2005). Due to poverty of the immigrants, children and young people from immigrant families are clearly disadvantaged in terms of education, as evidenced that 20% of those from immigrant families left high school without graduating, and the chances of gaining an apprenticeship have considerably worsened for young immigrants (2005). This inequality in accessing education and training is directly associated to the risk of poverty, wherein 60% of immigrants drawing welfare benefits have no formal job training. Moreover, the increasing flexibility and deregulation of the job market strikes immigrants and refugees hard, for many only have temporary employments, which fluctuate between work and unemployment and living at or near the subsistence level (2005).

            Moreover, it has been reported that an essential reason that the German party system has not responded to immigration is that a large number of immigrants do not have or have not gained German citizenship, and as a result, are not entitled to vote ( 2000). In addition, the number of native Germans entitled to vote is decreasing because of a drop in the birth rate ( 2000). This must not be so, because one of the rights and privileges of naturalized immigrants in any country includes the right to vote and participate in elections. This is one form of discrimination, as the government of Germany does not give its immigrants, and in this case “citizens” the right to be heard in terms of voting. Furthermore, in Germany, immigrants and refugees are being subjected to brutality at the hands of right-wing extremists who instigate hate crimes and assaults, and such attacks have increased against in recent months, leading people to accuse and criticize the inability of the German government to stop the violence and protect foreigners (2001). Neo-Nazi violence against immigrants and refugees is not something new in Germany, however, the alarming fact is the fact that neo-Nazi members commit their savage and cruel crimes against the helpless foreigners, but still state authorities remain silent and passive towards these crimes (2001). These incidences just prove to show that immigrants in Germany are not treated well, and not even treated as citizens. The mere fact that they are not entitled to vote and participate in elections is a good basis on the immigrants’ desolate situation in Germany. It is true that discrimination is already integrated in the system and culture of any country, most especially the Germans. It is also a given fact that in relation to discrimination is the incidence of violence and crimes towards the weaker individuals in the society, and in this case, are the immigrants and refugees. However, in the case of the immigrants in Germany, they suffer these injustices in hope for granting them the citizenship, the rights and the privileges of equal and rightful individuals of the German society. It is true that immigration is an essential part of the economic and social phenomena, for even the most developed countries in Europe and the Americas need the contributions, skills and talents of immigrants from various countries. However, these nations, including Germany, must be able to provide the immigrants their promises of “greener pastures” and better living, for these are their reasons for leaving their homeland. For justice and righteousness sake, Germany must be able to provide the rights and privileges to immigrants in accordance to their Immigration Law.

Introduction to International Relations

What does Realism exclude from the study of International Relations? Does this render it “unrealistic”?

 

            It has been reported that International Relations or IR is a branch of political science, a study of foreign affairs of and relations among states within the international system, including the roles of states, inter-governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, and multinational corporations, and is both an academic and public policy field, which can either be positive or normative, as it both seeks to analyze as well as formulate foreign policy (2006). Its object of study is variously described as the ‘international system’ and ‘international society’ (1996). An International System is defined as comprising two or more states, which have sufficient contact between them to behave as parts of a whole, and subsequently, states behave ‘strategically’, making their decisions based on what they think other states will do. On the other hand, an International Society is defined as a group of states, which knowingly share common interests and values, and conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another and share in the working of common institutions ( 1996).

            In addition, International Relations theories can be roughly divided into one of two groups, namely, the positivist and post-positivist, where positivist theories intends to replicate the methods of the natural sciences by analyzing the impact of material forces, focusing on state interactions, the size of military forces, and the balance of powers. On the other hand, post-positivist theories reject the idea that the social world can be studied in an objective and value-free way, by rejecting the central ideas of neo-liberalism and liberalism, on the grounds that the scientific method cannot be applied to the social world and that ‘science’ in terms of International Relations is not possible (2006).

 

Concept of Realism

            One of the concepts belonging on the positivist side of the theories of International Relations is the theory of Realism or Political Realism. It has been reported that realism is an approach to the study and practice of international politics, emphasizes the role of the nation-state and makes a broad assumption that national interests motivate all nation-states, or, at best, national interests disguised as moral concerns (2006). National interest is the idea that all states seek to preserve their political autonomy and their territorial integrity, and interests may be in securing more resources or land; other states may wish to expand their own political or economic systems into other areas, or some may merely wish to be left alone. National interest must be defined in terms of power, or national power, and in the context of realism, power is relative of the state’s ability to defend itself against the power of another state, or the its ability to coerce another state to change that state’s policies. Power, being relative, is derived from the realist conception of the international system, which is an anarchical environment (2006). In an anarchical environment, states oppose each other and consider it their main objective to survive by protecting their territorial integrity and the physical well-being of their citizens and because of this, security is the absence of physical threats to the territorial and functional integrity of a given state (2006). In an anarchical environment, all states have to rely upon their own resources to secure their interests, enforce whatever agreements they have with other states, and to maintain a desirable domestic and international order ( 2006). Moreover, the political realist fears centralized authority, unless it is derived from the power of his or her own state, for the decentralization of the international system permits greater diversity. A central authority would be more essential in its aim to increase the state’s power ( 2006).

            It has been mentioned that positivist theories, such as realism, offer causal explanations and make distinctions between facts and values ( 2006), and these descriptions will be helpful to assess if realism could be rendered as being “unrealistic”.

            Being a positivist theory, realism uses the idea that science is seen as the way to get at truth, to understand the world well enough so that we might predict and control it ( 2006). This means that science is seen as exact and unchangeable. However, realists believe likewise, and apply them to the concept of politics and society.

            The concept of realism states that there is no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions, states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity, and that sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system (2006). In addition, in pursuit of national security, states must strive to accumulate resources, and relations between states are determined by their comparative level of power from their military, economic and moral capabilities (2006).

            Based on these given assumptions, it can be deduced that the ideas in realism integrates in it a cause-and-effect relationship, and its pure reference on the facts in terms of politics and society. However, although some events and realities can be explained through the concepts of realism, sometimes, it is not applicable to always apply the concept in the reality. It is true that nations make interrelations and trade with one another without the orders or control of a higher group or individual. However, this is not always the case. Most developed and developing countries are a member of international organizations and groups, which somehow help the member nations to make relations and trade with one another. Such international organizations include the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the European Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank among many others, and these organizations are responsible for establishing treaties and providing them with legal recognition ( 2006). In addition, these large organizations handle cases, such as when conflicts exist between or among nations or countries. With the vastness of Earth’s geography, many countries will not be able to make trade relations with one another, and the tendency for these countries to relate consequently is in the event that one country needs the support of the other.

However, in the event that one nation is in conflict with another, it is essential that a governing body, such as the World Trade Organization, European Union and United Nations be responsible for the resolution of the conflict between or among the countries. In this way, conflicts can be resolved properly and peacefully. Moreover, without a governing body, interrelations of nations would not as effective and efficient. More often than not, nations trade with one another in accordance to the treaties and laws governing them under a larger organization, such as the United Nations. The United Nations creates treaties and rules regarding tariffs, taxes, import and export, and many others, which could be helpful for both parties. With these treaties and laws, one nation cannot take advantage of the other, which results to peaceful interrelations with one another. Therefore, in this sense, the fact that realism argues that nations make relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity could also be revoked.

Another argument of the concept of realism is its idea of national interest, wherein it is preserved in the nation’s aim for territorial integrity and in acquiring national land or resources, political and economic systems. Although the intention of the concept of national interest is moral and genuine, at present, it is difficult for nations and nation leaders to state that their acquisition of resources and power is for the benefit of the whole nation, given the decrease of morality in the context of politics. In politics, power poisons the minds of many individuals in authority, which enable the society to experience difficulty in trusting politicians in terms of their expression of national interest. Most politicians who are able to grasp and attain political power tend to use and abuse their power to obtain their selfish interests. They tend to commit violations against the law and the society and even against nature and morality as well. Such violations include graft and corruption, murder, and other crimes. More often than not, corruption is one of the most committed violations against the society, as it undermines democratic institutions, retards economic development, and contributes to government instability by distorting electoral processes, perverting the rule of law, and creating bureaucratic dilemmas whose only reason for existence is the soliciting of bribes (2006). If politicians nowadays will prove to the people of their genuine intentions in their expression of national interest, then it is possible that the concept of realism will still be applicable at present time. However, due to the dynamism of society along with its morality, it could be hard to apply the theory of realism.

In relation to national interest is national power, which is possible if a state is able to exist in an anarchical environment, where threats are absent, and if the state is able to defend itself from the power of another state or force its power to another state. However, at present, a concrete example of its unrealism is the fact that terrorism exists among developed countries such as the United States. If many nations would implement the theory of realism in terms of international relations, then these realities would not even exist. If national power were that “powerful”, then it would be able to control and manipulate the possibility that each nation would be living in an anarchical environment, where physical threats are non-existent. However, due to the presence of threats such as terrorism and forms of warfare, this just means that the concept of national power is not able to defeat the power of outside forces. In addition, this also means that the power of the outside forces and other factors are even more powerful than national power. It is true that the concept of national power help binds the unity and the harmony within the society, and it helps the leaders of the society to assess the extent of their control in terms of politics. However, a nation must not only rely on the extent of its national power, for other more powerful political forces and elements bind its power.

In essence, the concept of realism is both applicable and unrealistic at the same time, for its concept can be used to describe the politics and society in some extent, while it can also contradict the reality of events and incidences happening in the society at present. Theoretically speaking, the concept of realism is such an ideal state, where all forces and concepts in the context of politics and society is existent and pleasant, however, due to its idealism, its application becomes unpractical, for in reality, it is a given fact that all the elements and factors are interrelated and are able to interact with one another. With this, it is essential that nations are able to assess its responsibility and ability to govern its nation, and evaluate what theory or concept is suited for its type of government. The concept of realism excludes a variety of realities and possibilities, particularly the fact that nations and politics are subject to changes that must be cope up with and used in the advantage of the society.

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com