Politics of Redemption

Politics of Redemption

Name:

Institution:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:

Introduction

The political landscape been one which is really challenging with scholars coming up with up with counter arguments as to whether the goal of politics is a politics of redemption or should the “best city” only concern itself with things of this world (Taylor, 1995). These different schools of thoughts have been explained by two political theories that include state centered and non-state centered theories. The state centered theory is simply a political theory which was established to stress the role of the civil society and the government. This theory is of the opinion that the state can actually structure the political life to some extent independently of the very way power is often distributed between the different classes as well as several other groups within a given period of time (Brown, 1995). The principal actors within the world have increasingly been the nation states; however they are actually not the only actors. International system is consisting of the nation states, private actors, as well as the international organizations. The numerous numbers of the international organizations are reported to be parallel to the levels of social, economic, political, as well as the cultural transactions between the different societies, individuals, as well as states (Clark & Chan, 1995). “The increase in the non-state actors has created a great challenge and consequently weakened the particular static concept of the international politics and subsequently replaced it with the transnational system where the relationship is seen to be more complex. Indeed, the organizations have completely changed the whole international environment (Miller, 1994).

The increasing proliferation of the non-state actors have made some of the observers of the international relations to make a conclusion that the various states are actually declining in significance and that the non-state actors are on the other hand gaining influence and status. The new theories of the international l relations that include the complex interdependence of Robert Keohane & Joseph Nye (1989) that was established so as to help in providing explanation of the new developments. The main concern of this paper will be whether the goal of politics is a politics of redemption or should the “best city” only concern itself with things of this world in the context of the two international relations theories.

Politics of Redemption

Kegley and Wittkoph (1995) have accurately pointed out that, “as the world grown smaller, the mutual dependence of nation-states and other transnational political actors on one another has grown” (p. 2). However, realism international relations theory which best explains the state centered approach is one of the most dominant schools of thought in the international relations discipline. This theory gives priority to the national interest and security of a given state over other issues such as the social reconstructions, moral concerns, economic concerns and ideologies (Donnely, 2002). Indeed, this is the advantage of the state centered approach; it ensures that the interest of the state is taken care of including its own security.

On the other hand the liberalism theory of international relations is a school of thought that explains the non-state centered approach. Liberalists believe that the state is a unitary actor; they focus mostly on the informal and formal international institutions that are devised by states to help in facilitating cooperation and overcoming several obstacles that are faced by different states around the world. They believe that relationship between states is not limited to political issues only but also other issues of economic and social importance (Skidmore, 1997). Realists do not recognize the sovereignty of other states and always put their personal interest ahead of any international issue. Realists believe that the relations between different states of the world are determined by their level of political power which is always derived from the military and economic capabilities. The realism school of thought in international relations puts the interest of a state first before the sovereignty of other states of the world. Liberalism school of thought in international relations believes that a state should focus mostly on the informal and formal international institutions that are devised by several states to help in facilitating cooperation among other states.

The liberalism school of thought also believes that the relationship between sates should not be seen only in terms of political power but also social and economic impact. A good international relations theory should be able to make sound political judgment about the world in general and not based on personal interest of a given state (Skidmore, 1997). In the analysis of this paper, liberalism is the best international relations theory as compared to realism in that the non-state centered approach is the best in analyzing the politics of development as opposed to the state centered approach. The realist believe that international system is always in a state of antagonism and that there is no actor that can have powers above the particular states that can be given the sole purpose of regulating the interaction of different stats of the world. It simply states that the individual states should arrive at the relations with other states on their own without relying on any other higher organization or authority. Realists put the national interest of states first before looking at any other states interest. They also focused mainly on the political aspect of international relation without giving attention to socio-economic factors (Donnely, 2002).

Every political move is as a result of a political directive meant to offer a political solution to an existing potential that has a capacity to become an eventuality. For each and every war that has been fought, there is a political reason and justification behind it and of course it brings with it its own political implications. It is a fact that International Relations do not just take place or happen without an explanation or powerful force behind them. The events come up as a result either intended or unintended decisive action taken by powerful individuals in the government (Donnely, 2002). Despite the fact that the state approach provides an opportunity of considering the interest of the state first, it has several disadvantages. Take for instance the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

The U.S. invasion in Afghanistan is best explained by the realism international relations theory, the invasion initially factored in the interest of the Americans and did not factor in the interest of other states including that of the Afghans who have suffered several cases of human rights violation including loss of life. The U.S. believed that the invasion could prevent any further terrorism and terrorist attacks on their homeland. The U.S. invasion on Afghanistan was mainly focused on the political aspect and did not give adequate attention to the social and economic impact the war was likely to create on the Americans and Afghans in general. The invasion involved military combat who have been reported to be involved in gross violation of the Afghans fundamental human rights and several others have been forced to migrate in fear of the attacks leading to increased social problems for the Afghans (Holmes & Dixon, 2001).

However, the non-state centered approach is the best since it provides an opportunity for others actors that are independent from the state to come in a play a critical role of ensuring that the decisions taken by the government is valid and will ensure development (Keohane, 1984). The non-state actors are reported to play an extremely major role in the foreign policy making of the nation-states as well as significantly influencing their specific foreign policy behavior (Goldstein, 1999). They increasingly lobby in the domestic and international settings, mobilizing their host or home or home states as well as the global public opinion. The non-state actors are reported to be extremely active in more one individual state, this ensures that they have the ability of exploiting one particular state against the other. Through hiring the former political leaders and bureaucrats, the non state actors are able to employ the personal connections of their various employees. Indeed currently the non-state actors have increasingly begun the substitution of the non-states in several areas (Miyoshi, 1993).

Indeed, the approach will enable the church to play a role in coming up with the best city or state. Despite the Aristotelian philosophy that recognized the independence of the state, the church still plays a significant role in the state in the context of morality and values (Charlesworth, 1986; Miller, 2010,). The neorealists have assumed that the states as the primary international actors do not actually become inadequate or misleading due to the non-state actors. According to the realists, the international non-governmental organizations are simply considered instruments of the states (Donnelly, 1994). They can actually not change the behavior and belief of the states and consequently the role of the international institutions are seen as marginal (Waltz, 1979). Nonetheless, some of the arguments that have been made by the realists have proved to be inefficient and inadequate.

Marx was from a school of thought that the state should aim towards equality where the other individuals which he referred to as proletariats are not exploited. This can only be achieved if the other actors are brought in board and the state is not left to act as a unitary (Gilbert, 1969). Their school of thought that the states is actually the unitary actor has increasingly been questioned by various perspectives such as domestic politics, bureaucratic politics, transnational, liberal, as well as regime models. In the contemporary society, the nation-states are actually unable to solve their own problems. They are unable to deal with the problems that include climatological changes, acid rain, overpopulation, nuclear contamination of the nation atmosphere, poverty, insufficient natural resources, as well as food shortage (Miller, 1994; Kegley & Wittkoph, 1995).

The neoliberalists have accepted the state dominated school of thought of the realists; nonetheless, they make a suggestion that the international institutions are actually part of the world system and are very effective in the international politics. In this stare, Lapid (1994) has argued that,

“the gap between the ‘nation-state’ ideal and political reality seems to be actually growing rather than narrowing,” since “recent technological, economic, and social developments have posed enormous challenges to the capacity of territorial states to fulfill their traditional functions of security, welfare, and identity” (Lapid, 1994: 23, 24).

Strauss and Cropsey (1987) contend that the church plays a very critical role in mounding individuals within the state. The authors argue that the core of the political doctrine is the teaching that is concerned with virtue and this has its roots on the biblical and philosophic traditions. Indeed, man is by nature a social being and therefore the goal of politics should be political redemption. When the state boundaries are not overlapping with the national boundaries which is the cases in several cases, “the ascendance of nationalism as a ‘generative order’ will set into motion a disruptive dual-track process that predisposes ‘stateless-nations’ … to embark in energetic efforts to ‘normalize’ their existence” (Lapid 1994: 22). It is therefore extremely impossible to separate the public from the private, domestic from the foreign, as well as political from the social and economic matters. However, the disadvantage of the non-state centered approach is the fact that it gives more emphasis on the international issues forgetting the states interests (Barnet & Cavanagh, 1994).

Conclusion

State centered theory is a political theory which was established to stress the role of the civil society and the government. The non-state centered approach is the best of all the two approaches since it provides an opportunity for others actors that are independent from the state to come in a play a critical role of ensuring that the decisions taken by the government is valid and will ensure development. The state should act alone; rather the other non-state actors such as the church and others should be incorporated. Therefore the goal of politics should be political redemption

References

Barnet, R. J. & Cavanagh, J. (1994), Global Dreams: Imperial Corporations and the New World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Brown, S. (1995), New Forces, Old Forces, and the Future of World Politics. Post-Cold War Edition, New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Clark, C. & Chan, S. (1995), “MNCs and Developmentalism: Domestic Structure as an Explanation for East Asian Dynamism,” in Thomas Risse Kappen (ed.) Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 112-145.

Charlesworth, M. (1986), ‘Augustine and Aquinas: church and state’ in Muschamp, D (ed) Political thinkers, Macmillan, South Melbourne, pp. 39-50.

Donnelly, J. (1994), “Human Rights and International Organizations: States, Sovereignty, and the International Community,” in Friedrich Kratochwil and Edward Mansfield (eds.) International Organization: A Reader, New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Donnely, J. (2002), Realism and international relations. United Kingdom: University Press, Cambridge.

Goldstein, J. S. (1999), International Relations, Third Edition. New York: Longman.

Gilbert, A. (1969). Political philosophy: Marx and radical democracy. Deakin University.

Holmes, D. & Dixon, N. (2001), Behind the US war on Afghanistan. Australia. Chippendale NSW, Resistance Books.

Kegley C. W. & Wittkopf, E. R. (eds.) (1995), The Global Agenda: Issues and Perspectives. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Keohane, R. O. & Nye, J. S. (1989), Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Second Edition, 1989.

Keohane, R. O. (1984), After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lapid, Y. (1994), “Theorizing the ‘National’ in IR Theory: Reflections on Nationalism and Neorealism,” in Friedrich Kratochwil and Edward Mansfield (eds.) International Organization: A Reader. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1994, pp. 20-29, p. 29.

Miller, D. E (2010, ‘Mill on liberty and individuality’, JS Mill: moral, social and political thought, Polity, Cambridge, UK, pp. 113-153.

Miller, L. H. (1994), Global Order: Values and Power in International Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Miyoshi, M. (1993), “A Borderless World? From Colonialism to Transnationalism and the Decline of the Nation State,” Critical Theory, 19:4, 726-751.

Strauss, L & Cropsey, J. (1987), History of political philosophy, 3rd edn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Skidmore, David. (1997), Contested Social Orders and International Politics. Vanderbilt University Press.

Taylor, C. (1995), ‘Politics’, in J Barnes (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 233-58.

Waltz, K. N. (1979), Theory of International Politics. Reading, MASS: Addison-Wesley.