A person’s political philosophy pertains to their ideologies regarding politics as a science; meaning of justice; execution of liberties; ownership of property in the society, articulation of human rights; application of the law along with measures of enforcement. In some cultures political philosophy even has a strong impact on a person’s political science interpretations. As such, the exploration of my political philosophy will be addressed accordingly as it relates to the aforementioned subject areas or branch of disciplines. At first a world view of these interwoven political dichotomies will be presented followed by my personal interpretations of how just/fair a political system ought to function.
Essentially, politics means influencing people. My precise philosophical position on influencing people pertains to manipulation into support of a specific idea. Often these ideas are not entirely beneficial to the people being manipulated. Arguments have been that exercising influence is solely for obtaining power to execute dominion over minorities in the society. Consequently, for me the real role of politics in modern as well as ancient societies is creating structured inequality. This design allows for under privileged people to always exist and gaps between rich and poor continue or even broaden.
Theoretically, Plato's Republic, the politics of Aristotle and Confucius contributions have shaped political thought. With references to these assumptions and framework of thinking, my discussion pertaining to justice; execution of liberties; ownership of property in the society, articulation of human rights; application of the law along with measures of enforcement, will be embraced.
Justice according to Plato’s Republic originates from designing valid social contracts. Further, with reference to Glaucon justice was perceived as not just being a great desire, but an expression of a value for which everyone ought to grave. The philosopher explained that justice does not only benefit the person to whom it is being extended, but also the one who extends it. In essence, justice is then a value which is retributable. The way in which one exercises justice in similar manner it will be returned. Therefore, the ‘do unto others as you would have them do to you’ concept of living fairly, becomes the hallmark of demonstrated justice (Nails, 324)
In articulating the use of justice in societies highlighted by Plato and his counterparts, it was communicated that this value is often executed out of fear and not integrity. The philosophers specifically advanced that there are basically two reasons for executing justice by politicians. First, it is protecting themselves and their families from injustices. The population may turn towards them violently. if injustices are obvious. Secondly, the life of the unjust man lacks divine guidance and is open to affliction, Plato and his counterparts argue. However, it was concluded that while justice is relative its practice is not only right, but necessary for a stabled society (Nails, 324).
Now, when applying these perspectives of justice to modern political practice we would find politicians during their campaigns try to demonstrate justice through free and fair elections initially. The freedom or liberty relates to persons being given the choice to exercise their franchise regarding who must lead the country. Through a democratic process when a leader is elected justice for contesting parties should have been served.
This is not the case in every country around the world. For example, justice during an election campaign is initiated though democracy. Counties such a Cuba and Soviet Union, which for decades did not practice democracy during the electoral process, are they considered just to citizens? In these countries one party obtains power and rules forever. Citizens have no choice of selecting any other leader. They simply have to abide with the conditions offered them or be tortured.
It must be understood that while this attitude of executing power may be condemned because of human rights violations other forms of injustices occur among nations practicing democracy. For example, in South Africa and the early United States of America Apartheid and segregation created immense injustices for black skinned human beings. According to Plato the social contracts designed projected inequality and subjugation of man by man for obscene reasons.
Through this paradigm my philosophical assumption is that people cannot find justice in democracy nor dictatorship. Both patterns of political governance have produced different degrees of injustices to humanity. Consequently, for justice to be just a new system whereby equality is demonstrated at every social level, must be the focus. Karl Marx (1818 -1863) reiterated that no philosopher must confuse equality with equity. Marx‘s interpretations of these concepts in relation to justice explains that many injustices are demonstrated among humans. Often one group wants to dominate the other economically (Marx. & Engels, 477)
This being the motive then, equality is making resources available to everyone alike in the society, whereas equity is insinuating that everyone must have the same amount of resources. This does not have to be the prequalification for social justice to exist in a society. Instead the political system must be so designed that no one is ahead of the game, but everyone has equal opportunities of acquiring the resources that are available. In apartheid and segregation there is no equality. Structured inequality is the name of the game. These are the avenues of injustices articulated by modern political systems in the fallacy of creating social order.
Based on these observations of ancient and contemporary models, my political philosophy regarding social justice is not based on democracy or dictatorship rule, but a models that upholds human dignity. The foundation for my assumption is that there is no need to kill, create wars, and segregate one group of people from the other due to prejudices. The underlying motive is economic gain and ultimate acquiring power wield economic power, influence and subjugate minorities. The good news is that there are enough resources in the world for every intelligent human being to become a millionaire. Why prevent the majority from accessing them due to fear that there will not be enough?
The fear of not enough has destroyed families and create wars internationally during colorization of the new world. Imperialist systems must go whereby mother counties dominate children colonies and politicians create and demoralize minorities. Minorities are considered uncivilized as the American Indians and native peoples all over the world. This has been the greatest injustice second to slavery executed towards human beings. Man countries that were plundered had their unique patterns of civilizations. These people were forced towards being Christianized against their will and work to support the wealthy.
Marx continued to pronounce that religion serves as an option for the masses. Therefore, the fear of a fierce judgmental God keeps poor people anticipating a better day in heaven when they die due to inadequate healthcare or being killed by the police. Ultimately, my philosophy of social justice is destroying all structures, polices, types of governance that prevent people from functioning as free human beings. Why humans have to live in chains on earth while others have more than enough of their share of resources? Essentially social justice summarized the extent to which liberties can be executed; property owned or resources acquired. Social justice also determine the level of human rights privilege one can demonstrate within the social structure. Ultimately, social justice allocations are the true remedies for inconsistencies in law applications within the legal system. It is also the solution to law enforcement uses unnecessary force against minorities, when compared to supporter of white supremacy.
The aforementioned deliberations regarding the face of social justice within modern and ancient political systems, explain my specific opinions on current political issues. These issues articulated reflect my position on fundamental problems of political thought regarding social justice. For me social justice encompasses human liberties, human rights, the rule of law and law enforcement practices. Certainly, the ideas shared pertaining to democracy and dictatorship are grounded in world view concepts of the situations presented as examples.
Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature fascinates me as a political philosopher. He advanced that humans will engage in any activity to achieve power. These activities often require that fellow humans suffer and even die. However, the end justifies the means. Therefore, social justice is determined by achievement of personal goals regardless of who gets hurt in the process(Adams, 20). While for me such disregard for human dignity appalling it must be admitted that this is the way world politics functions currently. Since my concept of human nature is inconsistent with those of a Machiavellian perspective the politics for me should be presented with cleanliness. Democratic political processes are relatively transparent when compared to various levels of dictatorship. As such, this has influenced my thinking of politics as an institution in society while expected to design compatible social structures still fail to create them.
For example, when measures of law enforcement are explored at a deeper level, it was discovered that the police in America seems to be interpreting laws from a personal political agenda. There are series of police shootings across the nation. The socio-political function of this institution is public safety. If twelve years olds are being gunned down to death by police for carrying a toy gun. Where is the public safety offered by this political structure? Is this section of the law enforcement mechanisms serving the rights of people in these communities? How are politicians responding to this crisis? The law specifies that if some kills that person ought to pay the penalty for the life lost by being executed. However, the scenario has been the police who kills an innocent child goes free. Therefore, in my judgment politics is a dirty game with total disrespect for human life. There is no justice for the masses.
My political values embody classical liberalism. In some political cultures it is called laissez-faire liberalism being advanced by philosophers in the caliber of Adam Smith and others. Human rationality is a sub value of this doctrine. Also, protection of civil liberties, constitutional government limitation, free markets, individual freedom, and individual property rights among many more positions encompass classical liberalism. Its main assumption is that government must play limited role in structuring society (Adams, 20). The people to whom the society belong must participate in this activity. This is how I think government and society ought to be organized with human rationality prevailing. Individual property right is the next value of priority in my value paradigm with free market and individual freedoms following
Works cited
Adams, Ian, Political Ideology Today. Manchester University Press. 2001. Print.
Marx. Karl; Engels Frederick. The Communist Manifesto. Collected
Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. 1848. Print
Nails, Debra. The People of Plato: A Prosopography of Plato and Other Socratics. Hackett
Publishing. 2002. Print
