The post What is Absolutism? appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>The history of political systems and governance is a rich tapestry woven with various ideologies, but few have left as indelible a mark as absolutism. This theory of governance, also known as absolute monarchy, emerged during a period of profound social and political change in Europe. Rooted in the belief in the divine right of kings, absolutism represented a concentration of power unparalleled in its scope and influence. In this video, we will delve into the various aspects of absolutism, its origins, characteristics, implications, and its enduring legacy.
Defining Absolutism: A Monarch’s Unrestrained Authority
At its core, absolutism is a political theory that asserts the unchecked and unrestricted authority of a monarch. In absolutist systems, the ruler’s power is not limited by laws, constitutions, or representative bodies. Instead, the monarch wields supreme authority and makes decisions without the need for consultation or approval from other institutions.
Divine Right of Kings: The Theological Underpinning
A cornerstone of absolutism is the concept of the divine right of kings. This belief holds that monarchs derive their authority directly from God, and thus, their rule is not subject to earthly constraints. According to this theory, kings and queens are chosen by divine will, and their commands are to be obeyed as if they were commands from a higher power. This theological justification provided monarchs with a powerful tool to legitimize their rule and quell potential dissent.
Centralization of Power: The Monarch’s Dominance
In absolutist regimes, power is centralized within the monarch’s grasp. All key decisions, whether related to governance, taxation, or foreign policy, are made by the ruler. This centralization is often accompanied by the creation of an elaborate court system, through which the monarch’s will is communicated and executed. Advisors and bureaucrats serve at the pleasure of the ruler, their loyalty essential to maintaining the monarch’s control.
Control over the Military and Economy
One of the defining characteristics of absolutism is the monarch’s control over the military and economy. Monarchs had the authority to raise armies, wage wars, and sign treaties without seeking approval from any legislative body. Additionally, they exercised significant influence over economic matters, including trade policies, tariffs, and the regulation of industries. This control over military and economic resources solidified the ruler’s dominance over both domestic and international affairs.
Challenges to Absolutism: Religious Conflicts and Enlightenment Ideas
While absolutism provided monarchs with immense power, it was not without its challenges. Religious conflicts, such as the Thirty Years’ War, tested the stability of absolutist regimes, as differing religious beliefs often led to internal strife and resistance. Moreover, the Enlightenment era ushered in new ideas about the role of government and individual rights. Thinkers like John Locke and Montesquieu questioned the legitimacy of absolute monarchy, advocating for concepts like the separation of powers and natural rights.
Legacy of Absolutism: Lessons and Impact
The legacy of absolutism is complex and far-reaching. On one hand, it represents an era of strong and centralized leadership that facilitated swift decision-making and unity. On the other hand, it often resulted in the suppression of individual rights and the concentration of wealth and resources in the hands of the ruling elite. The tensions between these aspects led to both moments of stability and periods of upheaval in many absolutist states.
Absolutism’s Influence on Modern Governance
While absolutism as a dominant political theory waned in the face of Enlightenment ideals and the rise of constitutional monarchies, its influence can still be seen in aspects of modern governance. The concept of a strong executive branch, with significant powers vested in a single leader, echoes some of the principles of absolutism. However, modern democracies also emphasize the importance of checks and balances, transparency, and the protection of individual rights, which stand in contrast to the unchecked authority of absolute monarchs.
In Conclusion: Absolutism’s Complex Legacy
Absolutism stands as a testament to the enduring complexity of political theories and systems. It represents a time when the authority of a single ruler was supreme, and decisions were made swiftly and decisively. Yet, the concentration of power also raised questions about the rights of individuals and the role of government in safeguarding those rights. As we examine the history of absolutism, we are reminded of the delicate balance between authority and accountability in the realm of governance, and how the lessons of the past continue to shape our understanding of politics today.
Written By Khushdil Khan Kasi
The post What is Absolutism? appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>The post Theory of Libertarianism appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>Libertarianism is a prominent political philosophy that places individual liberty at its core. Rooted in the principles of limited government intervention and personal autonomy, libertarianism advocates for minimal state interference in both economic and personal matters. With origins dating back to classical liberal thinkers, this philosophy has evolved into various schools of thought, each offering unique perspectives on the role of government, economic systems, and individual rights. In this comprehensive analysis, we delve into the key aspects of the theory of libertarianism, exploring its historical context, fundamental principles, various branches, criticisms, and its enduring influence on political discourse.
Libertarianism traces its origins to the Enlightenment era, where thinkers like John Locke and Adam Smith laid the groundwork for the protection of individual rights and economic freedom. It gained momentum during the 20th century, particularly in response to the expansion of government authority and the growth of welfare states.
At the heart of libertarianism lie several core principles:
Economic libertarianism, often associated with the Austrian School of Economics and thinkers like Friedrich Hayek, focuses on limited government intervention in economic affairs. It opposes central planning and advocates for free-market capitalism, where competition and market forces drive economic decisions.
Civil libertarianism, sometimes referred to as social libertarianism, emphasizes personal freedoms in social and cultural domains. This branch advocates for individual rights in areas like free speech, privacy, and personal relationships.
While classical liberalism and modern libertarianism share common roots, they differ in their emphasis. Classical liberalism emerged during the Enlightenment era and focused on natural rights and constitutionalism. Modern libertarianism extends these ideas, placing a more pronounced emphasis on limited government and free-market capitalism.
Libertarianism faces criticism on several fronts:
Libertarianism has left a lasting impact on political discourse and policy debates. It has influenced discussions on government intervention, economic systems, and individual freedoms. Libertarian ideas have also found resonance in movements advocating for limited government, deregulation, and personal autonomy.
In today’s rapidly evolving world, libertarianism continues to shape discussions on issues such as technological advancements, personal privacy, and the role of government in the digital age. It also influences debates on the balance between individual liberties and collective responsibilities.
Conclusion: Balancing Liberty and Responsibility
The theory of libertarianism offers a distinctive perspective on the relationship between individuals and the state. Rooted in the principles of individual liberty, limited government, and free markets, libertarianism has evolved into a multifaceted philosophy with diverse interpretations. While its principles resonate strongly with those valuing personal autonomy and economic freedom, libertarianism is not without its critics. The ongoing dialogue between proponents and opponents contributes to the ongoing exploration of how societies can strike a balance between individual liberties and collective well-being in an ever-changing world.
By Khushdil Khan Kasi
The post Theory of Libertarianism appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>The post Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>Vladimir Lenin, a prominent Marxist revolutionary and political thinker, introduced a groundbreaking theory of imperialism that sought to explain the intricacies of the global capitalist system during the early 20th century. In his influential work “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” Lenin dissected the phenomenon of imperialism, connecting it to the nature of capitalism, its economic processes, and its implications for international relations. This article delves into the essence of Lenin’s theory of imperialism, exploring its core concepts, historical context, and lasting impact.
Lenin’s theory of imperialism stems from his analysis of the evolving nature of capitalism. He argued that capitalism’s initial competitive phase—marked by free competition and dispersed capital—had given way to a new phase characterized by monopolies, concentration of wealth, and the domination of finance capital. In this stage, powerful capitalist entities sought to maximize profits through the control of markets, resources, and industries.
At the heart of Lenin’s theory is the concept of monopoly capitalism. He observed that as capitalism developed, monopolies emerged, enabling a few large corporations to dominate entire industries. This concentration of economic power led to the rise of finance capital, where banking and industry became intertwined. Finance capital allowed corporations to invest globally, leading to the internationalization of capital.
Lenin’s theory argues that monopoly capitalism necessitates the export of capital to maintain profitability. With limited opportunities for profitable investment at home, capitalists sought new markets and regions to invest their surplus capital. This drive for foreign investment led to the colonization of weaker countries, creating a global division between the imperialist powers and the colonized nations.
Lenin’s analysis also emphasizes the geopolitical aspect of imperialism. He maintained that the world had been divided among the major capitalist powers, each seeking to expand its influence and control over colonies and territories. This division was characterized by tensions, rivalries, and conflicts as imperialist powers vied for dominance.
Lenin’s theory highlights the economic motivations behind imperialism. He argued that the exploitation of colonies and the extraction of resources were essential for the survival of the capitalist system. This economic expansion, however, had political consequences, including inter-imperialist conflicts, militarism, and the threat of war.
Lenin’s theory of imperialism had a profound impact on Marxist thought and international relations. It expanded the understanding of capitalism beyond the national context, emphasizing the global dynamics of the system. Critics of Lenin’s theory argue that it may oversimplify the complex motivations of imperialism and neglect the role of non-economic factors.
Lenin’s theory of imperialism offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the economic, political, and international dimensions of capitalism during its advanced stage. By highlighting the role of monopoly capitalism, finance capital, and the export of capital, Lenin revealed the intricate relationship between economic expansion and global politics. While subject to criticism, his theory remains a foundational perspective for analyzing the complex interactions of capitalism on a global scale.
By Khushdil Khan Kasi
The post Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>The post Machiavelli’s Realism and Pragmatism appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>Niccolò Machiavelli, a prominent figure of the Renaissance, is known for his groundbreaking contributions to political philosophy. Among his influential ideas, Machiavelli’s realism and pragmatism stand out as cornerstones of his thought. In a time when idealism often colored discussions of politics, Machiavelli’s emphasis on practicality and real-world dynamics marked a significant departure. This article delves into the intricacies of Machiavelli’s realism and pragmatism, exploring their origins, characteristics, and enduring relevance.
During Machiavelli’s time, Europe was transitioning from the medieval era to the modern age. The traditional feudal order was giving way to nation-states and centralized power. Against this backdrop, Machiavelli sought to understand the nature of political power and the strategies required to acquire, maintain, and expand it. His observations and analyses culminated in his renowned work, “The Prince.”
Machiavelli’s realism was a response to the prevailing idealism that often-characterized political discussions. He rejected the notion of politics as guided solely by moral principles or religious ethics. Instead, Machiavelli argued that political decisions should be grounded in the reality of power dynamics, human behavior, and the pursuit of self-interest. He famously stated, “It is better to be feared than loved.”
Machiavelli’s pragmatism is rooted in his emphasis on what works in practice, rather than what is theoretically ideal. He believed that leaders should adopt strategies that lead to successful outcomes, even if those strategies deviate from conventional morality. Machiavelli recognized that political circumstances are fluid, and effective leaders must be adaptable and willing to employ different methods to achieve their goals.
One of the most provocative aspects of Machiavelli’s thought is his separation of ethics from politics. He argued that leaders must be prepared to act in ways that might be considered morally reprehensible in order to secure the stability and success of the state. This approach challenges traditional moral frameworks and underscores Machiavelli’s emphasis on the pragmatic pursuit of power.
Machiavelli introduced the concept of “virtù” as a leader’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and make effective decisions. This pragmatic virtue contrasts with “fortuna,” or fortune, representing external factors beyond a leader’s control. Machiavelli believed that virtù could counter the unpredictable whims of fortune.
Machiavelli’s realism and pragmatism have had a lasting impact on political thought. His emphasis on the practicalities of power politics has influenced generations of thinkers and leaders. While often criticized for advocating manipulative and ruthless tactics, Machiavelli’s ideas remain relevant in discussions about the complexities of leadership, strategy, and statecraft.
Machiavelli’s emphasis on realism and pragmatism continues to resonate in modern political discourse. Leaders are often faced with challenging decisions where moral ideals may conflict with strategic imperatives. Machiavelli’s work encourages a nuanced understanding of the pragmatic considerations that must inform political action.
Machiavelli’s realism and pragmatism revolutionized political philosophy by shifting the focus from idealism to practicality. His insights into the nature of power, ethics, and effective leadership have left an indelible mark on discussions about statecraft and political strategy. While his ideas may be controversial, they prompt critical reflections on the intersection of morality and politics in the pursuit of power and stability.
By Khushdil Khan Kasi
The post Machiavelli’s Realism and Pragmatism appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>The post Machiavelli’s Moral Relativism appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>Niccolò Machiavelli, an Italian Renaissance thinker, is often associated with his pragmatic and controversial approach to politics, known as Machiavellianism. Central to his political philosophy is the concept of moral relativism, which challenges traditional ethical norms by emphasizing the practicality of actions rather than their moral rightness or wrongness. In this article, we delve into Machiavelli’s moral relativism, exploring its key aspects, implications, and its enduring influence on political thought.
Moral relativism is a philosophical viewpoint that suggests ethical judgments are not absolute but rather depend on various factors such as cultural context, individual perspectives, and the specific circumstances surrounding an action. Unlike moral absolutism, which holds that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, moral relativism maintains that moral values can vary across different cultures, societies, and historical periods.
Machiavelli’s moral relativism finds its place within his broader theory of political realism. He believed that politics is a realm characterized by power struggles, competition, and the pursuit of self-interest. In “The Prince,” his most famous work, Machiavelli argued that rulers should prioritize the stability and success of their state over adherence to moral principles. He famously stated, “The ends justify the means,” implying that the outcomes achieved through political actions are more important than the ethical considerations that accompany those actions.
One of Machiavelli’s key contentions is that moral virtues and effective leadership do not always align. While traditional moral values emphasize qualities such as compassion, honesty, and integrity, Machiavelli acknowledged that leaders may need to make decisions that seem ruthless or deceitful in order to maintain power and stability. He argued that a leader should be pragmatic and flexible, willing to adapt to changing circumstances and prioritize the state’s well-being over personal ethical concerns.
Machiavelli introduced the concept of “fortuna,” which refers to the unpredictable and uncontrollable factors that shape political outcomes. According to him, rulers should be prepared to respond to the whims of fortune and make decisions that may not align with conventional morality if they serve the greater interest of the state. This idea further emphasizes the need for moral relativism in political decision-making.
Machiavelli’s moral relativism has generated both admiration and criticism over the centuries. Some view it as a pragmatic approach to navigating the complexities of politics, while others see it as an endorsement of amorality. Regardless, his ideas have had a profound impact on the field of political philosophy, influencing subsequent thinkers and shaping discussions on the relationship between ethics and politics.
Machiavelli’s moral relativism challenges the notion of fixed ethical standards in the realm of politics. He posited that rulers should prioritize the success and stability of their state, even if it means departing from conventional moral principles. While controversial, his ideas have contributed to the development of political realism and have prompted ongoing debates about the intersection of ethics and power in the political arena.
By Khushdil Khan Kasi
The post Machiavelli’s Moral Relativism appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>The post Machiavelli’s The Prince appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>Machiavelli’s “The Prince”: Decoding Power, Leadership, and Political Strategy
“The Prince,” written by Niccolò Machiavelli in the early 16th century, stands as a seminal work in political philosophy and strategy. Machiavelli’s treatise, addressed to Lorenzo de’ Medici, offers a pragmatic and often controversial guide to leadership, power dynamics, and the art of governance. Through “The Prince,” Machiavelli presents a candid exploration of the complexities and realities of political leadership, challenging conventional wisdom and providing a timeless perspective on the exercise of power.
At the core of “The Prince” is Machiavelli’s commitment to political realism. He rejected idealistic notions of governance and instead focused on understanding the practicalities of achieving and maintaining power. Machiavelli’s realism acknowledges that leaders must contend with the complexities of human nature, self-interest, and the ever-shifting dynamics of politics.
One of the most controversial aspects of “The Prince” is Machiavelli’s assertion that “the ends justify the means.” This maxim encapsulates his belief that leaders should prioritize achieving their objectives, even if it requires employing morally questionable methods. Machiavelli argues that rulers must be willing to use both virtuous and unvirtuous means to secure their power and the stability of the state.
Machiavelli emphasizes adaptability as a critical quality for successful leaders. He asserts that rulers should be flexible and responsive to changing circumstances. Machiavelli’s advice to rulers includes the need to balance idealism with practicality, particularly when faced with challenges that necessitate deviation from traditional norms.
Machiavelli discusses various strategies for securing and maintaining power, including the importance of military strength, alliances, and the loyalty of the citizenry. He suggests that rulers should cultivate a reputation for strength and decisiveness to deter potential challengers. Machiavelli’s insights into power dynamics provide a pragmatic blueprint for leaders navigating treacherous political waters.
Machiavelli’s famous assertion that it is better to be feared than loved underscores his emphasis on authority and control. He argues that fear is a more reliable means of maintaining power, as it discourages opposition and dissent. However, he also recognizes that leaders should avoid being excessively cruel, which could breed resentment.
Machiavelli examines the interplay between fortune (external circumstances) and virtù (personal qualities and skills). He suggests that while fortune plays a role in a ruler’s success, virtù is crucial for adapting to and influencing changing circumstances. Virtù includes qualities such as intelligence, cunning, decisiveness, and adaptability.
“The Prince” has left an enduring legacy, both in political philosophy and practical leadership. While its emphasis on pragmatism and the separation of ethics from politics has garnered criticism, Machiavelli’s insights into the dynamics of power continue to influence discussions on leadership strategy, diplomacy, and governance. His work encourages leaders to grapple with the complexities of real-world politics and make calculated decisions to secure their positions.
“The Prince” remains a cornerstone of political philosophy, challenging leaders to confront the realities of power dynamics and strategic decision-making. Machiavelli’s treatise is a testament to his commitment to realism, adaptability, and the pursuit of effective governance. By engaging with “The Prince,” readers are confronted with a thought-provoking exploration of leadership that transcends time and remains relevant in an ever-evolving political landscape.
By Khushdil Khan Kasi
The post Machiavelli’s The Prince appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>The post John Locke Philosophy appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>Locke first area of interest was epistemology. He wrote an essay on “Human Understanding” in 1689 which is considered as the first great defense of empiricism. He explained limits of human understanding through wide range of topics. He argues that no man knowledge can go beyond his experience, in order to describe what can an individual legitimately claim to know and what not. Furthermore, Locke presented the theory of mind in his essay, which influence the development of modern sociological and psychological concepts including, “identity” and “Self”. Locke explained self as the continuity consciousness. He referred to the human mind as blank slate which is filled with knowledge via experiences, observation and experimentation. His theory of mind went against the Cartesian perspective which suggest that human are born with intrinsic ideas or knowledge.
Moreover, he says that everything we know, believe and think is merely the outcome of the knowledge we obtained through experience. He believed that education plays an important role in the development of individual personality. How individuals turnout in their later stage of lives good or evil — virtuous or vicious depend on their education. Individuals are very vulnerable to the ideas which people put in their mind in the early stages of life. He further argues that, the ideas which are learned in childhood have important and enduring effect on one personality compare to the ideas that are learned in adulthood.
Political philosophy was also one among the Locke areas of interest, which is relative to and followed in present world or modern societies. Locke’s writings on political philosophy is based on seventeenth century unpredictable political events that took place in Britain such as, civil war of 1642 – 1651, establishment of commonwealth, restoration of monarchy in 1660, glorious revolution of 1688 and 1688 bills of rights.
Two treaties of government was another great contribution of Locke to the political philosophy. This work of Locke try to answer the question that; who should rule the country and on what legitimate basis? The commonly share idea at the time was that the political authority is directly derived from God. In other words, Kings and the royal families have been grated the authority by God to rule over country and common people. In first treaties lock thoroughly rejected the idea that God have created the kings. His second treaties was influenced from Hobbes social contract theory. Lock accepted the view of Hobbes that before or without government there would be a state of nature. State of nature refer to the idea that each individual have some God rights which are not subjected to any authority. However, he disagreed with Hobbes views of how this place would have been without government or ruler.
Locke believed that, state of nature is risky and unstable because individual can cause harm to one another without government. Stability requires cooperation and solidarity among individuals which is created by government. Therefore to achieve stability people willfully surrender some of their rights to the government. Lock argues that, people obtain some inalienable rights that no ruler or government can take from them, people voluntarily concede some of their personal freedoms for the reason that, their other rights should be preserved or protected by the ruler or government. He further says that if the ruler is tyrant and does not protect or preserve the rights of people he will be overthrown and replaced by the people.
“Toleration” is among one of the most influential work of Locke. He wrote this essay because he was fascinated about the question that what to do when people don’t agree with one another adhered religious views or beliefs? His fascination regarding the question was inspired from the religious turmoil in England that was initiated during the regime of Henry the VIII and continued until 17th century.
In 16th century Henry VIII decided to separate entire country of England from Roman Catholic Church as a result English Protestants initiated the process of questioning the religion openly. As the process was getting out of hand and could not be easily stopped, which gave birth to the views that government should have complete control over religion in order to stop this process. However, Locke was the first to advocate the idea of freedom of believe in his essay titled “Toleration”.
In his essay, he advocated religious toleration based on three points. Firstly he argues that, the state and human beings are not in a position to evaluate the truth regarding established viewpoint of different religions. Secondly, even if they were able to determine the true religion, they could not compel the adherent of other religions to change their beliefs and to adhere the belief of a particular religion through violence. Lastly, coercing a single religion hinders the diversity and could lead to social disorder. Locke believed that the ultimate objective of the state is to fulfill the various felt needs of citizen in order to provide them comfortable lives rather than to be concerned about citizen after lives. He argued that, religion is a personal choice and churches are voluntary organizations which could be only build for the purpose of worship. He advocated religious toleration but was against atheism. Because he believed that, atheism could lead to social disorder and chaos.
Written by; Khushdil Khan Kasi
The post John Locke Philosophy appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>The post What Is Public Opinion? appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>Many distinguished political thinkers have defined the concept of public opinion differently . Rousseau a prominent political thinker referred to public opinion as general will. He explained the general will by categorizing individual opinion in to two types these include, actual will and real will. Whereby, actual will refers to a person opinion regarding his or her personal interest. Whereas, real will is a person opinion concerning national interest. Rousseau however believed that general will or public opinion is the collection of individuals’ real will. In simple words sum of individuals’ opinion regarding national interest is called public opinion. Lord Bryce defined public opinion as the collection of citizens opinion that is developed based on shared national interest. In other words public opinion is the aggregate of people those opinions that are formulated keeping in view the collective national interest. According to Salta public opinion are those desires of people which they want to take on in their practical life.
Generally, we can define public opinion as reactions of citizen towards contemporary issues and events. The government structure of ancient states is unlike modern democratic state. Ancient state administrative structure was based on centralized authority of one man rather than the ideology of public opinion. Such traditional states were ruled by a monarch. Whereby, kings or monarchs would make each and every administrative decision without considering public opinion. Whereas, public opinion hold utmost importance in modern democratic states because in modern states people rule themselves directly or through their representatives by exercising their acquired power of votes. Therefore, it can be said that the existence of modern democratic state is slave to public opinion.
The objective of government is to protect political and social rights of citizens, sustain peace and order, sustain economic progress and stability, provide justice to citizen, protect state from external aggression etc… in modern democratic state legislative, judicial and executive branches of government function to fulfill various felt needs of citizens. The elected members are supposed to formulate and execute such policies through which the functional goals of government could be achieved. In modern state public opinion is taken in to account in the process of policy making for instance, if a country is facing economic crises which could lead to major recession and in order to cope with this problem the government has to give billions in loans to the giant firms. However, if the public reacted negative towards this bailout package the government may not follow through because of the fear that public may not vote for or elect contemporary ruling party in future elections.
Modern states do give importance and regard public opinion but it is not necessary that the policies which are formulated based on public opinion are always effective. Mass public do not always understand the severity and complexity of a given problems and the plan of actions which are mandatory to resolve problems. The reliability of public opinion based policies could be questioned because public opinion could be developed on misinformation — out of anger or hysteria. These issues of public opinion stir up an old question; who should formulate the policies? experts who understand the complexity of problem or general public?
Until now we studied the importance of public opinion and how does it effects the process of policy making within modern democratic state. The above explanation suggests that modern state honor the opinion of citizens while formulating policies but the question is how does government measure or get aware of public opinion? Public opinion can be measured through different research methods and mass media such as, opinion polls, surveys, print media, electronic media, social media and newspaper forums.
The method of opinion poll was used for the first time in American presidential election of 1984. This method was experimented to measure the public opinion in order to determine the presidential candidate probability rate of success. After a successful experiment public poll become the routine method for the measurement of public opinion. Many newspaper and magazines started conducting opinion polls to know the wishes of people regarding a given issue or event. However, the polls conducted via newspaper and magazines did not give sufficient results because the method was not used in accordance with given scientific criteria. The causes of insufficient results was poorly fashioned poll question and unsuitable options of answer regarding a particular issue.
Moreover, Harris Survey and Gallop poll are the two prominent expert agencies that measure and interpret public opinion via polls and survey. These agencies conduct polls before presidential elections to forecast the probability rate of success of the candidates contesting in election and their results have proven to be accurate.
Survey is the most effective and modern method to obtain the knowledge of public opinion or to measure public opinion regarding a given political or social problem. If we want to conduct a survey to measure the public opinion regarding economic policy of contemporary government. Firstly, we have to collect relevant data via using various data collection survey instruments. Secondly, after data collection we have to compile and quantify the given data. Lastly, we will interpret the compiled data in order to draw results. In survey method two types of instruments can be used for data collection including, questionnaire and interview.
Questionnaire is among one of the data collection instruments of survey method. Questionnaire is further categorized in to two types including, close ended and open ended Questionnaire. Close ended questionnaire refers to the list of questions that has multiple options of answer for each question whereby, respondents have to select one answer from given options. On the other hand, open ended questionnaire contain series of questions without any answer options, respondents have to answer the given questions themselves. However, among these two types of questionnaire close ended questionnaire is most preferred choice of experts for data collection because close ended questionnaires contain multiple relevant answer options in each question which could aid surveyor to obtain reliable results. Whereas, in open ended questionnaire respondents are not given options of answer in questions therefore, they may give irrelevant answer or they might not be able to express their opinion properly. Additionally, it is difficult for researcher to compile data that is collected through open ended questionnaires which may lead to inaccurate results.
Interview is another instrument for data collection of survey. Though, how does surveyor collect data for survey via interview? Respective research agency send interviewers to ask similar set of questions from people regarding a given issue. These interview questions are designed in a fashion which allow surveyor to quantify and compile people responses in order to draw survey results. Moreover, like questionnaire interview is also categorized into two types these include, structured and unstructured interview. Structured interview is the type of interview that contain close ended questions. Whereas, unstructured interview refer to the type of interview which contain open ended questions. In structured interview respondent have to choose the answer of each question from the choices provided by interviewer. In this type of interview the response of interviewee is confined through given choices. Whereas, in unstructured interview the response of interviewee to the asked questions is not confined to few choices.
Newspapers arrange and provide different forums to the experts where they discuss different national issue. These experts hold different and opposing views. These discussions among experts of opposing views are arranged to explore real facts about particular national problem.
World has become a global village due to mass media. Television, internet, communication devices and social media are the modern sources of measuring public opinion. Surveys and polls could be easily conducted through these medium because it allow us to reach mass public.
Written by; Khushdil Khan Kasi
The post What Is Public Opinion? appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>The post Unitary and Federal System appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>Unitary system is highly centralized structure of government that grants entire authority to national institutions to conduct state business however, in rare cases it grants very little authority of governance to local or provincial institutions. Therefore, in this system governance entire state territory radiate from state capital. Whereas, federal system provide complete autonomy to its subdivision or provinces which allow local institutions to conduct administrative within respective province.
Unitary governments regulate local authorities as well as citizens’ lives more than federal governments. In unitary state national government hold the authority to formulate judicial, legislative, education economic policies for the entire state. Such state has national police force and a single court or judicial system whereby officers are also appointed by the national government.
However, in 1970 the uneven distribution of authority, economic opportunities and resources among provinces or subdivisions gave rise to regionalism in many countries. At that time nationalists of unitary states claimed that their region has been given less importance compare to other regions by the central government therefore, their region remained poorer and has not progressed over decades. In some unitary states people from different regions wanted to preserve their respective language and culture. For the reason that many nationalist political parties came into being in different subdivision of multiple countries and the objective of these nationalist organization was to obtain provincial autonomy. When these political parties won some seats they presented devolution bill in parliament. Devolution refer to the transfer of some power from central to provincial or local government for instance, in 1977 the devolution bill was passed in Britain parliament by labor party which gave autonomy to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
Moreover, historically the government of France of much more centralized than Britain. All the administrative power were held by central government of France in Paris. The government system of absolutism was initiated by the monarch of France Louis XI in fifteenth century. The centralized governance continued in France until mid-twentieth century.
Different regions of France was composed of distinct ethnic groups. The people within each region wanted to preserve their culture — language or economic interest which they believed was not possible to achieve without obtaining administrative power. Therefore, the people of these region started agitation and sometime used violence to claim administrative power from central government. As a result the process of decentralization began in France. “Decentralization” refers to transfer of administrative power from central government to local or provincial government but the power transferred is much less than devolution. The process of decentralization was initiated by two prominent French leaders “President De Gaulle” and “President Mitterrand” from 1960 to 1981 which grated certain power of economic planning to the provinces for the betterment of economic development.
Unitary state has highly centralized administrative authority because of which provincial or local government cannot even make a small administrative decisions. Each and every decision is made by central government in the capital of state. Local government have to take permission from central government even for installing a traffic light. This system sometimes hider the progress of some regions within a state. Which could further give rise to separatist movements, mutiny and violent demonstrations. Moreover, in unitary state the strategic administrative decision can be made promptly because there is no bickering in decision making among different government units.
Federal state grants much autonomy to local government units whereas, unitary state does not give administrative authority to provincial or local government. Different regions of federal state can make equal progress due to provincial autonomy but sometimes it is hard for state to maintain balance of authority among provinces which could lead to unrest. Moreover, in some country federal government system may lead to progressive change but whereas in some it may not work. The effectiveness of either systems depend on the social condition of country. America is the first state which adopted federalism and this administrative system brought progressive change within the country. Therefore, America has compelled or is compelling other countries to adopt federal system as well without considering the possibility that the system might not work for them for instance, Iraq is among one of the state which was compelled by America to adopt federalism but the system did not worked there due to the hostility among Iraqi Shia, Sunni and Kurds.
In federal state central government cannot take the power of local or provincial government. The power which are obtained by local government cannot be easily overridden by federal government. However, federal government have absolute authority to formulate foreign, defense and monetary policy. Whereas, local government has the authority to make educational, health and development policies.
It is easy for citizens to reach the concerned local authority in order to address their problems and influence them to resolve them promptly. Moreover local government can make suitable or effective policies for the province because locals authorities can coordinate with local more frequently and can closely observe the social conditions of a given region. On the other hand, local government might not have enough budget to implement their policies and the official of local government might be incompetent or corrupt. In such cases the federalism is not suitable choice of government for a state.
Written by; Khushdil Khan Kasi
The post Unitary and Federal System appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>The post Difference between State and Society appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>Specified geographic location or area is mandatory for the being of state whereas, society is not limited to a specific area. Every tribe, town, city, community, organization and country could be called society whereas, every tribe — community or organization could not be called state. Moreover, individuals within each society have their own ways of life or culture and two states might have a similar culture so it could be considered as a single society. Whereas, we cannot refer to two states as a single state because each state has its own territory for instance in Europe majority of people have similar ways of life therefore we call it European society but we cannot call an entire Europe a state because many states exist in Europe which are separated from one another through borders. These borders specify the territory of each state and those people who live within a given territory can enjoy the political as well as social rights.
The element of sovereignty is must for the existence of state whereas, supremacy over territory, people and resources is not a mandatory element for the existence of society. Any group of people with culture large or small power or powerless — with or without resources and land even nomadic culture can be called society whereas, state has control over its territory, people and resources.
The study of society pertain all social activities men such as economic, family, cultural, religious and political whereas state focuses on political activities of men specially regulatory activities such as, laws, authority and policies.
In state government is a formal organization which formulate, interpret and enforce laws to regulate the behavior of individuals in order to sustain peace and order within a given state for instance, if someone violate the state laws concerned government agencies will enforce negative sanctions on him or punish him. Whereas, the betterment of society depend on individuals voluntary conduct rather than enforced for instance, smoking is not against the state laws but if smokers’ voluntary quit smoking the society will become healthy.
It is necessary for an individual to be member or citizen of a state in order to enjoy the social and political rights. Whereas, membership of society is not necessary for an individual, he can become a part or member of any society by free will to enjoy the social environment.
State objectives are very limited which are only confined to the welfare of citizens on the other hand society objectives are very vast not only limited to benefit a small group or a state but the whole humanity.
State laws are formulated, executed and amended by the government whereas, social environment or laws evolve naturally with the passage of time, society is not static but dynamic in nature therefore social structure and environment change with time.
Four elements are essential for the existence of state including, sovereignty, government, population and territory without one an organization cannot be called a state. On the other hand, society can be refer to any group of people which has particular ways of life or culture either in the presence or absence of four elements.
Written by; Khushdil Khan Kasi
The post Difference between State and Society appeared first on Sociology Learners.
]]>