Chapter 1: Introduction: The Nature of Politics and Political Analysis

What is Politics?
Create the conditions for the pursuits of the good life, the kind of society within which it would
be desirable for us to live.
Definitional rigour not helped by the fact that politics is often popularly regarded in a pejorative
(disapproval) sense, associated with corruption and conflict. Critique = clue as to what it actually is.
- Associated with adversarial behaviour: reflects the conflictual nature of society, as seen in that all
societies of any complexity contain a range of different interests and values.
Process by which groups representing divergent interests and values make collective decisions.
There are two assumptions made:
1. All societies must contain diversity in that humans will always have diff values, thus the need for a
mechanism where these diff values are reconciled.
2. Scarcity as an inevitable factor of all societies. There needs to be some mechanism whereby goods
can be distributed. Thus, some like Harold Lasswell define politics as about "Who Gets What,
When, How." There are however other goods that humans value, like status and honour, despite
lacking monetary reward.

What is the best kind of society for us to live in? Stoker: a 'central divide for much of the last two centuries
has been between those who prefer liberty over equality and those who prefer equality over liberty'. This of
course raises the question of the balance between the two. In the present period, there is evidence of a
widening gap between rich and poor in many countries.
Of equal importance in the twenty-first century is the conflict between liberty and the value of security…

Harold Lasswell on the idea of liberty vs security helps us understand this debate as a dynamic process
where those in power must constantly weigh the costs of infringing on liberties to ensure security, and vice
versa. He provides a lens through which we can analyse how political elites frame security threats and how
public opinion is shaped to either support or oppose such measures.
- Esp post-9/11 and with the rise of terrorism and global crises, this tension has resurfaced.
Governments often invoke the need for security to justify actions that might limit liberties, such as
mass surveillance, detention without trial, or curbing freedom of expression.
- Lasswell’s theories on power and decision-making…
- Politics involves constant conflict over who controls power and resources, including
balancing liberty and security, especially in crises.
- Political leaders must decide how to limit civil liberties (e.g., surveillance, detention) to
ensure collective security during emergencies.
- Fear and prop to justify security measures
- Maintain legitimacy by convincing the public that security measures are necessary without
overstepping, esp in democracies.

Maximalism → involves radical, transformative policies that demand full-scale societal restructuring,
often w/o compromise.
 - Revolutionary Change: Maximalist political movements typically aim for large-scale reforms,
often rejecting incremental approaches. This can be seen in revolutionary movements (e.g.,
Marxism, which seeks a complete overhaul of the capitalist system).
- Comprehensive Agenda: addresses multiple aspects of society, including
econ, social, and political systems. E.g → abolish existing
institutions and replace them with entirely new structures.
- All-or-Nothing Approach: refusal to compromise on key issues, as the belief is that any
concessions would dilute the movement’s core principles.
Examples: Russian Rev, where the goal was to completely transform the political, econ, and social system.

Populism → political approach that seeks to represent the interests and will of the "common people"
against a perceived corrupt or out-of-touch elite. Populists often claim that they alone represent the voice of
the ordinary people, positioning themselves as outsiders challenging the establishment.
- Characteristics include: direct appeal to the people, antielitism, charismatic leadership, nationalism

Minimalism → limited, cautious reforms, often advocating small, manageable changes rather than
broad, transformative shifts. It emphasises a pragmatic, step-by-step approach to political change.
- Incremental Reform: gradual change within existing systems, often working to improve or fine-
tune institutions rather than overthrow them.
- Conservative Approach: associated w conservatism or centrism, where the focus is on stability.
- Centrism → having moderate political views or policies.
- Focus on Specific Issues: target specific, achievable goals, not a wide array simultaneously.
Examples: technocratic or centrist movements that aim to solve problems within existing structures, such as
reforms to healthcare or education systems without radically changing the political system as a whole.

Demos → body of citizens with the authority to participate in decision-making.

- Historically, the demos were often limited to certain groups, but modern democracies aim for
broader inclusion through universal suffrage.
- The legitimacy of democratic systems is based on the idea that they represent the will of the demos.
- In populism, demos is emphasized as the source of direct power, often in opposition to elites.

Is politics inevitable?

Inevitability thesis Critics

Politics as a Feature of Human Society: According to the Marxists suggest that politics is a result of class conflict. For them,
definition of politics as rooted in differences, conflicts, and the end of class struggle through the establishment of a classless
scarcity, it seems to be an inevitable part of all societies. The society would eliminate the need for politics and the state. In a
diversity of interests and limited resources create the need for classless, cooperative society, consensus would replace conflict,
mechanisms of governance, negotiation, and conflict resolution. making politics superfluous.

Marxism Critics
- Class struggle. Political power is merely the tool used by the Critics argue that Marx’s vision of a classless, conflict-free society
ruling class to oppress the working class. This idea is is overly idealistic. Political philosopher Isaiah Berlin referred to
encapsulated in the "Communist Manifesto," where political this as “ideal fancy,” suggesting that it ignores human nature’s
power is "the organised power of 1 class for oppressing another." tendency towards difference, striving, and competition. Humans
- Once capitalism is overthrown, the resulting classless society are naturally diverse in interests, values, and aspirations, which
would no longer require politics. In such a society, political means conflict will always arise, making politics unavoidable.
mechanisms would become redundant.

Spread of liberal democracy = no need for politics Critics

Following the fall of communism, the spread of Existence of other ideologies:challenges end-of-ideology thesis.
liberal democracy suggests that ideological conflicts Post-Communist States: adopted democratic practices but operate
had essentially ended, thus reducing the need for differently due to limited democratic experience.
East Asian Regimes: Countries like China, Singapore, and Malaysia
politics.
prioritise economic development, often at the cost of civil liberties and
democratic practices.
Non-Liberal Alternatives: Various non-democratic regimes, such as military
dictatorships in Africa and Islamic fundamentalist governments like Iran,
challenge the dominance of liberal democratic values.

Political conflicts in the modern Challenges to the Relevance of Politics Criticising the critics
world in a Globalised World:

- Political conflicts exist globally Globalisation and Pessimism: forces - Andrew Gamble: human agency still plays imp role in
and these may be territorial or of globalisation, technological shaping political outcomes.
ideological or even both. advancement, and bureaucratic systems While global market forces, tech change exert influence,
have diminished the role of politics. humans retain the ability to influence, change the world
- Even within Western
The global market, in particular, is seen through poli engagement.
democracies, debates over
as an uncontrollable force that red - he highlights the tension bet impersonal forces like
multiculturalism, national power of govts, thus globalisation and human will, which he calls the tension
identity, and social integration politics → pessimism → between "politics and fate." Recognizing and addressing
show that conflicts requiring "crisis of politics:" this tension is essential for reviving political agency and
political resolution are far from declining poli ppt, voter imagining alternatives to current global political and
over. economic order.
apathy, rise of anti-
politics sentiment
globally.

Key Political Qs: fundamental questions around the decisions made in governance:
1. What Values Do (or Should) Decisions Serve?
- Political decisions often serve certain values, such as justice or liberty.
- Key questions include: What is justice? Is a just decision one that benefits the few, the many, or all?
What do we mean by liberty?
 - These are normative questions that explore the ethical basis of political decisions.
2. Who Makes (or Should Make) the Decisions?
- Who holds decision-making power? One person, a few, many, or all?
- Are democratic decisions more legitimate or more binding than non-democratic ones? This
question is linked to the nature of democracy and Aristotle’s famous classification of political
systems.
3. Why Are Decision-Makers Able to Enforce Their Decisions?
- What enables decision-makers to enforce their decisions? Is it power or authority?
- Power: The ability to coerce or force compliance, often through sanctions or threats. A
regime that relies purely on power and coercion is seen as inefficient and unstable.
- Authority: The right to rule, based on legitimacy. Authority implies that rulers do not
need to use force because the ruled accept their right to govern. Legitimate authority
produces acceptance of decisions without the need for coercion.
The goal of rulers should be to transform power into authority to ensure stability and longevity.

Arrow’s impossibility theorem

According to Arrow's impossibility theorem, the Social-choice paradox illustrates the impossibility of
having an ideal voting structure. In all cases where preferences are ranked, it is impossible to formulate a
social ordering without violating one of the following conditions:
1. Nondictatorship: wishes of multiple voters should be taken into consideration.
2. Pareto Efficiency: impossible to make someone better off without making someone else worse off.
3. Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives: If a choice is removed, then the others' order should
not change; if candidate A ranks ahead of candidate B, candidate A should still be ahead of
candidate B, even if third candidate C is removed from participation.
4. Unrestricted Domain: Voting must account for all individual preferences.
5. Social Ordering: Each indiv should be able to order the choices in any way and indicate ties.

Chapter 2: Politics and the State

The political importance of the state
dominant form of political organisation: 'no concept is more central to political discourse and analysis.'
- Some argue 'the state is not a suitable concept for political theory, since it is impossible to define it.'
Weber’s definition → an institution claiming a monopoly of the legitimate
use of physical force in enforcing its order within a given territorial
area'. The state is therefore linked with sovereignty.
- Concept developed by Fr poli philosopher Jean Bodin. Denotes its superiority as the highest form
of authority, no external challenge to it in a particular territory.
Usefulness of sovereignty as a description of political reality, is debatable.
In constitutional theory, states are sovereign but, in reality, states
face challenges from within and outside their borders → limiting their
autonomy.
- de jure sovereignty→legal right to rule supremely
 - de facto sovereignty→ actual distribution of poli power: when a
state has the right to rule but the people may not necessarily
approve of their authority.
Held: 'Sovereignty has been a useful concept for legal analysis, but it can be a misleading notion if applied
uncritically as a political idea. E.g: little use when discussing ‘failed states’, like in Somalia, where the state is
unable to perform the functions of sovereignty.

A typology of the state

Classifying states → extent of their intervention in society and the
economy. At one end of this spectrum:
Night-watchman state: maintaining external, internal security, safeguarding individual rights—
specifically life, liberty, and property—against various threats.
State plays minimal role in civil society, econ affairs, allowing the market to function with relative freedom.
- Locke and Hobbes were apologists for a free market econ and limited state interference. Classical
liberals advocated this minimal state in order to maximise freedom.
- A modern version of this justification comes from the New Right.
- State intervention is counterproductive. It encourages individuals to overly rely on the state to
provide welfare support, thereby stifling individual initiative and self-help.
- Inefficient: unprofitable econ concerns and stifling the emergence of new lean and relevant ones.
- Unjust, failing to reward indiv effort appropriately.

Minimal state: ideal type, never existed in practice. The level and nature of state intervention varies across
diff contexts. For example, in a developmental state, there exists a strong partnership between the state and
private economic institutions aimed at achieving rapid economic development. This model has been
especially notable in East Asia, esp Japan since 1945.

Developmental states and social democratic states, which pursue broader social and political goals.
Social democratic states focus on achieving greater social and economic equality rather than merely
promoting economic development.
- Critics of post-1945 British political and economic strategies argue that while Britain adopted a
social democratic approach, it failed to adequately emphasise the developmental aspect.

States can also be characterised based on their relationship to democracy and the degree of popular control
over political leaders: liberal democracies, illiberal democracies, and authoritarian regimes.
- Liberal democracies → USA, UK, Ger: free, fair elections, universal
suffrage, personal liberty, protection of indiv rights. While
liberal democracy has become the dominant form of governance in
many regions there are indications that democracy is facing
challenges and may be in retreat.
 - Illiberal democracies → Russia, Malaysia: elections but lil
protection of liberties, rights, state controls communication,
leading to a situ where poli opps are at a disadvan.
- Authoritarian → absence of fair elections, political elites derived
from the military, royalty, ruling parties, or mere dictators.
Degree of intervention in the econ, society can vary. Extreme end: totalitarian state,
so-called because the state intervenes— often through a brutal and oppressive state police—in all
aspects of social and economic life, under the guise of a transformative ideology.

The state and power

Pluralism → power widely distrib among many grps, each capable of affecting public policy.
- Society composed of activities that have the effect of creating many diff groups. Existence of, often
competing, grps is a natural feature of societies.
- State's role: regulate, mediate bet various grps. Some pluralists view the state as a neutral referee,
while others see it as another competing group in society. According to this perspective, govt
actions reflect the pressures exerted by diff groups. Thus, what governments do mirrors the balance
of power among those groups.
- No predominant classes or interests within society. All groups are able to make their voices heard in
the political process, and that all groups get at least something of what they want.
In a pluralist state, power is fragmented. Dahl emphasises this: "minorities rule:"politics = interaction of
minority grps. Successful political parties → build majority coalitions from
these groups. Power fragmented based on arguments:
1. Variable Bases of Power: Political influence comes from various sources, such as wealth, function
(role they play), public support, and the ability to exercise or threaten sanctions.
2. Issue-Specific Influence: particular group appears influential in one area, it may not have the same
impact in others. Farmer organisations powerful in agri policy. Lil say in health, edu.
3. Countervailing Influences: powerful grp in a policy area faces challenges from opp influences.

Pluralism to elitism continuum → power concentrated in the hands of a powerful elite that
dominates the economic, military, and governmental sectors.
- Classical pluralist idea of widespread participation in decision-making and internal equality within
groups was unrealistic.
- Existence of political elites: small grp of indivs playing a disproportionate role in these groups.
- Pluralist model held bec these elites are not monolithic but have divided interests and compete
with each other.
- Politics is hierarchical, but instead of a single dominant elite, there are multiple competing elites:
business is seen as divided between sectors like finance and manufacturing.

Elitism → society is actually governed by a single, unified, and self-aware elite. Represented by a single
pyramid, with the elite at the top and the masses at the bottom.
- "iron law of oligarchy," → any complex organisation will always be
controlled by a dominant group. Elites rise to power due to the
 resources they control - economic, military, religious, their
psychological traits, positions in society.
Marxism → capitalist societies controlled by a united, self-interested ruling grp,
making democracy an illusion.
2 diff bet Marxism and elitism:
1. Nature of the Ruling Group:
- Elitists believe ruling groups can derive their power from various resources.
- Real power lies in the economic sphere, not in politics. They must challenge
the ruling class by addressing the root of its power in econ system.
- Marxists are specific about the ruling group's nature: in capitalist societies,
the ruling class is always the bourgeoisie, the class that controls the means of
production and holds economic power. The proletariat is the dominated
class, defined by its lack of ownership over the means of production.
2. Possibility of a Classless Society:
- Elitists, a hierarchical system of power is inevitable. A classless society is utopian and impossible.
- communist revolution will eventually abolish hierarchical power structures, leading to a
truly egalitarian society.

The new right theory of the state → prominent in 70s, 80s, esp w the rise of leaders like Thatcher,
Reagan. Emerged as a critique of inc govt influence, drawing from classical liberal thinkers like Hobbes,
Locke, and Adam Smith: The state over extends its reach, -vely impacting society. 2 forces driving
expansion:
1. External Force: The Economic Consequences of Democracy
Competitive electoral politics encourage politicians to promise inc benefits to win votes. Once elected, they
struggle to fulfil them w/o pushing govts toward financial instability or bankruptcy.
2. Internal Force: The Oversupply Thesis
State bureaucracy has a tendency to grow bec it serves its own self-interest. Bureaucrats, seeking to expand
govt intervention, form alliances with interest groups. Both grps benefit from the expansion of govt services
and financial offerings, which drives the inc in "big" govt.

The empirical dimension of the state

Empirical analysis examines how well a theory of the state reflects real-world political systems:
- Pluralism overstate the extent to which power is fragmented in liberal democracies. While
pluralists argue that grps can influence policy making, evi suggests that some interests hold more
power than others.
- Elitist, Marxist theories, can be critiqued by ? whether a ruling elite truly dominates w/o
challenge in liberal democracies, where representative mechanisms exist to balance power.Marx’s
predictions about the future of capitalism have been challenged as it has evolved in ways not fully
anticipated by classical Marxism.
- The New Right approach: As Keynesian policies appeared to falter, neo-liberal ideas: red govt
intervention in the econ. Ironically, the success of neo-liberal politicians contradicted the New
 Right's demand-side analysis, which predicted that voters wouldn't support parties aiming to cut
public spending and reduce the state's role.
- 2000s, the New Right’s influence had waned: terrorism, climate change, negative effects of
globalisation led to renewed calls for a stronger, more interventionist state.
- 2008 financial crisis further eroded confidence in a purely market-driven approach. For many, the
crisis was a result of limited regulation, and the state had to step in to bail out financial
institutions (using taxpayer’s funds), undermining the New Right's faith in the free market.
- Dryzek, Dunleavy argue modern tech has inc potential for a more efficient, state-planned econ.
- Defenders of the New Right, like Minford, argue that the financial crisis resulted from politicians
maximising their vote by encouraging unsustainable borrowing and spending.

The role of the state: what they ought to do

Pluralism and the Politics of Identity
Normative critiques of pluralism
1. Targets the revised elite pluralism theory, which accepts that political elites dominate decision-
making. A system that relies on elites is seen as undemocratic because it does not provide enough
room for active citizen involvement.
2. Devaluation of public interest → addresses pluralism’s view of society as consisting
of competing interest groups. By focusing on the diff, hostilities bet grps, pluralism takes a
pessimistic view of society, accepting division as a natural state of affairs. Critics argue that this
approach undermines the possibility of common goals, unity, particularly in the context of identity
politics.
3. According to new right → State is not neutral but acts to serve its own
interests.
4. Rather than fostering stability and equilibrium, liberal democracy
→ governing failure → "hyperpluralism." Powerful interest grps
confront weak govts → dysfunction not balance.

Identity politics (poli of diff)→ cultural movement based on a demand for recognition
and respect by particular groups of people centred on their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or
nationality. For identity groups on the progressive left, liberal societies promote the interests and values of
dominant groups (whites, men and the economically well-off) and undermine and marginalise other
groups who are regarded as inferior and less valuable. As a result,
identity politics is about redressing negative perceptions by reasserting
the value and dignity of the particular oppressed group. Examples → BLM,
feminist movements
- Fukuyama argues it has fragmented societies, making it harder to foster a shared sense of
community, thus deepening social divisions. While societies must protect marginalised and
excluded groups, they also need to work toward common goals through deliberation, consensus.
 - Solution → development of a civic national identity—one that is
inclusive and integrative, rather than being based on narrow
identity markers.

Normative Account of Elitism, Marxism, and New Right Theory

Elitism:
- Empirical Claim: modern societies are inevitably dominated by a ruling elite. This is an
observational claim, not a value judgement.
- Normative Confusion: people mistakenly interpret this as an endorsement of elite rule. However,
the empirical view simply describes reality without suggesting that this dominance is desirable.
- Normative Justification for Elitism: The idea that elites should rule because they are more capable
is a normative stance. For example, Plato proposed that society should be governed by the wisest
individuals, the "philosopher kings." In modern times, the masses tend to hold authoritarian values,
so political apathy is seen as beneficial because it reduces instability.
Marxism
- Normative Nature: Marxism is deeply normative, despite its claim to be scientific socialism. Marx
believed that capitalism's downfall and the eventual rise of communism were inevitable due to
historical forces. However, Marx preferred communism.
- Historical Determinism vs. Human Agency: he also recognized the role of human agency in
shaping social change. Therefore, the transition to communism might not be solely inevitable but
also influenced by collective action.
- Utopian vs. Scientific Socialism: Marx contrasted his vision of socialism with what he called
utopian socialism—which sought to persuade people that socialism was desirable. Despite this
distinction, Marx’s belief in the desirability of communism is clearly a normative position.
The New Right
- Normative Argument: state interv. harms society: dependency on welfare and discouraging indiv
self-reliance, undermines meritocratic principle: ppl rewarded based on effort, abilities.
- Competing Theories of Justice: Critics of the New Right challenge its meritocratic focus by
pointing to alternative theories of justice. Fairness lies not in rewarding effort alone but in meeting
people's basic needs and ensuring a more equitable distribution of resources.

The Liberal Social Contract Tradition: Hobbes vs. Locke

The social contract tradition offers a way of determining the role of the state by imagining a state of nature,
where individuals exist without government. This approach, rooted in the works of Thomas Hobbes and
John Locke, explores the justification for government and the form it should take.

Hobbes' View of the State of Nature and Government:

- Human Nature: pessimistic view of human nature, describing people as selfish, competitive, and
driven by fear of one another. Without a central authority, life in the state of nature: chaos,
insecurity, constant conflict. life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
 - Need for Government: strong, all-powerful sovereign was necessary to impose order and protect
individuals from external and internal threats. The state, or Leviathan, must have the authority to
control society and prevent people from descending into violent chaos.
- Nature of the State: absolute sovereign—whether a monarchy or another form of centralised
power. His emphasis was on order and security, making liberty a secondary concern in comparison
to the avoidance of conflict and anarchy.

Locke's View of the State of Nature and Government:

- Human Nature: In the state of nature, people are capable of living together peacefully, bound by
reason and mutual respect for each other’s natural rights.
- Natural Rights: people in the state of nature possess natural rights—rights granted by God—to life,
liberty, and property. These rights exist prior to and independently of government.
- Role of Government: necessary not to impose order, but to protect natural rights. The state is
justified only when it secures and safeguards individuals' rights from both internal violations
(crime) and external threats. Government exists with the consent of the governed.
- Negative Rights: the right to be free from undue state interference—set limits on the power of
government, emphasising that state should respect indiv freedom, property rights.

Utilitarianism (compared to night-watchman state)→ developed by Jeremy Bentham, later

adapted by John Stuart Mill. State centred on achieving "greatest happiness of the greatest num." Legitimacy
of govt rests on its ability to promote the well-being of pop.
1. Democratic Justification: Rulers would only seek to maximise public happiness if they were
accountable to the electorate. This formed the basis of a utilitarian defence of democracy.
2. Flexibility and Collective Goals: Utilitarianism's strength lies in its ability to justify social policies
that benefit the majority, such as those seen in the welfare state. Its focus on collective happiness
allows it to endorse collective social goals over strict individualism.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism → due to its aggregative nature: happiness of a few is sacrificed

for benefit of majority. This disregards indiv rights → unjust outcomes where
certain groups suffer for the greater good.

Comparison:
- Night-Watchman State: Prioritises indiv freedom, minimal govt intervention, with the state acting
primarily as a protector of natural rights, econ freedom.
- Utilitarianism: max happiness, supporting collective social goals like welfare policies, even at
potential cost of indiv liberties.
While both traditions emphasise the role of the state in enhancing indiv, societal well-being, they diverge on
the extent of state interv, with classical liberalism leaning toward minimalism and utilitarianism being more
open to collective decision-making and government action in pursuit of the common good.

Liberalism and Communitarianism

Liberalism: The Neutral State
 - Classical liberal theory emphasises neutrality in regard to competing visions of the good life.
- Role of the state is not to impose or endorse any particular conception of the good, but rather to
allow individuals to pursue their own goals and values freely.
- John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" is fundamental to this philosophy.
- State should respect indiv autonomy, safeguarding rights while refraining from interference in
personal decisions, as long as they do not infringe on others' rights.
Criticism → Indiv autonomy overlooks the importance of shared values and
the role of the state in promoting civic virtues that sustain social
harmony

Communitarianism: The perfectionist State

- State has a more active role in shaping and uniting society around shared values.
- Ppl are social beings whose identities and well-being are shaped by the communities they belong to.
Thus, state should not merely be an arbiter between competing individual interests but should
foster a sense of community, collective responsibility, and moral cohesion.
- Communitarian state is perfectionist: promote moral and social goods rather than neutrality.
Criticism → suppress diversity, indiv freedom by enforcing shared values
that may not align w every indiv's beliefs. State imposes a particular vision
of the good life. → paternalism or authoritarianism.

The State and the General Will

- Communitarianism draws on the ideas of political philosophers like Rousseau: state, morality
closely connected.
- Rousseau: legitimacy of the state evaluated based on how well it supports the general will—the
collective interest that unites people.
- Rousseau believed that the general will can only truly exist in small communities, where people can
directly engage with one another.

The Anarchist Theory of the State

Anarchists' abhorrence of the state is based on its corrupting influence, which undermines a human being's
tendency to be morally upstanding. This raises more ? than it answers:
- Who is to perform the functions of the state?
- How are the egalitarian aspirations of the dominant socialist strand of anarchism to be achieved
without authority structures to enforce it?
- If there is a need for some authority structure—as some anarchists recognize—can this be
consistent with the claim that this will inevitably lead to a loss of freedom?

Whither the state?

Empirical Argument: Modern developments, such as globalisation, have made the state less relevant.
- World is now so interconnected, both economically, politically, that individual nation-states have
limited power to control their own affairs. This creates a gap between the traditional theory of the
sovereign state and the reality of modern politics.
 - MNCs have grown so much that they now rival states in power.
- World trade = more liberalised, meaning that a state's econ policies are shaped by internat forces.
- Some argue that the realist view of sovereign states, which has been dominant since the Peace of
Westphalia, is outdated. Instead, we may be entering an era of 'new medievalism' where, as in
mediaeval Europe, sovereignty is shared across interconnected societies
Normative Argument: Some, like Marx, that the state is exploitative and should be abolished.
- globalisation as a +ve development: fosters econ prosperity and facilitates global cooperation on
issues like the environment. Global problems, such as climate change, often require solutions that
go beyond what sovereign states can achieve on their own.
- Globalisation promotes cosmopolitanism: ppl see themselves as citizens of the world rather than
of individual states. This vision supports values like peace, tolerance, and global justice (Heater,
1999). On the other hand, critics argue that a global market free from state regulation increases
inequality and exploitation, particularly in developing countries.
- Globalisation is not the only challenge to the autonomy of the nation-state. Inc governance has
replaced trad govt. The state now shares power w other social, economic institutions.

Chapter 3: Political Power, Authority, and the State

Power and authority
Distinguishing between power and authority: equate the former with coercion and the latter with consent.
Authority: legitimate power bec it’s grounded in the acceptance and consent of the governed, thus
recognizing the right of the rulers to exercise power.
Conversion of power to authority → more stable and sustainable, rather
than constant coercion.
- Goodwin →'Where coercion creates obedience at a high cost in
manpower and equipment, authority can control both the minds and
the behaviour of individuals at a very low cost.'

Difficulty of distinguishing between them

authority → normative concept: what ought to be.
power → empirical concept: what actually is.
Criticism of distinction: authority can sometimes stem from manipulation. If one doubts that people can be
easily brainwashed, it might be argued that people simply recognize the wrong leaders as legitimate.
- E.g → Hitler’s authority in Germany, but few would argue that this
makes the regime legitimate.
- Goodwin → a state's authority in the eyes of the people does not
necessarily indicate its justice.
- Goodwin → power may be preferable to authority. While authority can
be based on manipulation, power is based on coercion. In the case
of coercion, it is easier to recognize and respond to it.
Difference clouded further in that authority is granted bec it has power.
Heywood → authority is now particularly controversial, with some
bemoaning its decline due to the fall of social deference (submission).
- Conservatives seek to justify its importance: need for ppl to be led, protected.
- Liberals recognize its importance for social stability, but promote liberty which can challenge auth.

Hoffman and Graham: All govts tend to use both. Decisions taken by a majority leave a resentful
minority. Thus, even though democratic states exercise more authority than authoritarian states who
exercise more power, the former have some power and the latter always have some authority.
- Not only do democratic regimes have to exercise power, but also totalitarian regimes usually have
some degree of authority, even if it is the charismatic authority associated w poli leaders like Stalin.

Exercising power, difficulty of applying political coercion

To address the limitations of ruling by coercion, two approaches exist.
1. ideological control, where rulers influence people’s preferences to align with their own interests.
This method, connected with elitist theories and Marxist critiques, reduces the need for constant
coercion and monitoring, though it depends on the debatable idea that individual preferences can
be easily manipulated.
1. making rulers appear legitimate in the eyes of the ruled—transforming power into authority.
Without some authority, no regime can endure. This raises the question of what makes authority
legitimate. Political theorists have long examined this question, including Max Weber, who
identified "legal-rational" authority as the most common form in modern societies. For example,
the U.S. president’s authority stems not from personal charisma or divine right but from holding
an elected office. In modern democracies, authority is tied to democratic principles, where
institutions and leaders are seen as legitimate because they are chosen by the people.

Analysis on the basis of authority: Max Weber

- Weber regarded 'legal-rational' authority as the predominant basis in the modern world.
- American president is obeyed, not because he is charismatic or because he claims to have a divine
right to rule, but because he holds the office of the president.
- Political institutions are accepted bec they are subject to democratic principles. The American
president has authority because he is elected, not because he is charismatic. Indeed, the president
remains the only part of the American polity whose constituency is the entire American electorate.

Max Weber → developed a threefold classification of authority. He recognized that these were ideal types.
All societies likely to contain elements of all.
1. Traditional authority: authority derived from traditional customs and values.
E.g → principle of the divine right of kings, prevalent in European
monarchies.
2. Charismatic authority: personality traits.
E.g → associated with leaders of totalitarian regimes, not least because
such charismatic leaders tend to emerge at a time of crisis. Charisma in
the modern world still plays some part, due to the media image of
leaders. Weber regarded charismatic authority as inherently unstable.
This is because, since authority rests with an individual and not a set
of rules, the death/loss of authority → instability.
3. Legal-rational authority: derived from the status of an office as part of a system of constitutional
rules, in a democratic country, or a religious document such as the Qur'an in Islamic regimes.

Conceptual questions about power

Is power the same as force?
Power = general ability to influence ppl, while force is a specific tool that involves using physical or coercive
methods. Power can exist without force, but force is always a form of power. Using force = power has failed.

Must power be exercised deliberately?

Some argue that power must be exercised deliberately. Philosopher Bertrand Russell: power is "the
production of intended results." In other words,
If someone unintentionally influences others, it can't really be called power. Odd to say smn has power if
they benefit from a situation they didn’t create.
- E.g expressed by Nelson Polsby: Taxi drivers may benefit when it rains, as ppl need rides, but they
don't cause it to rain. It would be wrong to say that drivers are exercising power j bec they benefit.
As Polsby notes, you would need to show that they created or can control the situation

Is power a good thing?

- Using power to achieve desirable outcomes can be positive: Lukes → 'manifold ways in
which power over others can be productive, transformative,
authoritative and compatible with dignity'.
- Liberals think power is always undesirable: Barry → 'every
exercise of power involves the imposition of someone's values upon
another.’ This explains procedures to limit power like the
separation of powers to prevent 1 branch of govt from exercising too much
power.
- It is not clear, however, that the exercise of power is necessarily undesirable, whatever the
consequences. It is logically possible, for instance, to think of a situation where A might know B's
real interests better than B does, so that A exercising power over B would be to act in B's interests.
- Liberals could still contend, however, that such a power relationship is illegitimate because,
whatever the motive, the exercise of power still infringes the individual's freedom.
- A response to this could be that of slavery. Power was used to abolish it.

Can we eliminate power?

- Fr philosopher Foucault believed that power and power relations bet ppl is inevitable.
- Discipline and Punish, Foucault examines the history of legal punishment in France. On the
surface, it looks like there has been progress—from brutal, violent punishment to more organised
 imprisonment. He argues that both are just different ways of achieving the same goal: exercising
power and domination.
- Impossible to fully escape / be liberated from it. However, we can change how it's focused, applied.
- Lukes, who disagrees with Foucault’s conclusion, raises a critical question: should we give up on
the idea that people can be more or less free from others' power and live according to their own
nature and judgement? Foucault’s answer is yes, suggesting that freedom from power is impossible.

Power and theories of the state

Theories of the state focus on the distribution of power, thus explaining power structures in societies.
- E.g → undemocratic regimes reflect ideas from ruling-elite or
Marxist theories, while Western liberal democracies are more
aligned with pluralist theories.
- The debate about power (widely shared or concentrated in the hands of a few) is mostly focused on
liberal democracies. In non-democratic states, it’s generally assumed that the pluralist model (where
power is spread out) does not apply.
- When we analyse diff theories of power, we can't say that all of them describe the power structure
in a single country at the same time. For example, we can't claim that the UK can be fully explained
by both Marxist and pluralist theories simultaneously.
- However, at a detailed level, diff policy areas within a country might show diff power structures.
- The next question is: how do we decide which theory of the state best describes countries like the
UK or the USA? This is a very difficult task, partly because it's hard to measure power. The
difficulty comes from the fact that power is understood in diff ways.
- Stephan Lukes’ work on this sparked the "faces of power" debate, where he identifies 3 diff
dimensions of power. He believes the 3rd is the most comprehensive.
Lukes’ controversial basic definition of power: “A exercises power over B when A effects B in a way that
goes against B's interests.”

Chapter 4: Democracy and Political Obligation

What is democracy?
- Stoker → ⅔ of the world's countries have democratic systems built
around competitive elections where citizens can choose or remove
their leaders.
The rise of "illiberal democracies," w elections that are not blatantly rigged but where individual rights are
not fully protected, complicates how we define democracy. These regimes manipulate electoral outcomes
through control of the media and state apparatus, making it difficult for opposition parties to compete
effectively, which limits the turnover of leaders.

Democracy facing challenges

- Trend Diamond (democratic recession). Tur, Rus that had recently adopted democratic systems
have since shifted back to authoritarianism. Meanwhile, authoritarian regimes like China have
grown more confident.
 - Trad strong liberal democracies in West are facing crises due to declining poli participation, dissatis
w elites, rise of populists that portray the political establishment as corrupt and self-serving.
- Democratic promise of the Arab Spring (protests ag authoritarian regimes in NA, Middle East) was
also largely thwarted: Egy, although dictator Hosni Mubarak was overthrown in 2011, the
subsequent democratic election of the Muslim Brotherhood was short-lived, as the military seized
power 2 yrs later.
- The stagnation of democracy raises important questions. One factor is the perception that Western
democracies have underperformed, especially economically. Some argue that democracy’s
legitimacy might depend more on its ability to deliver positive results than on its inherent value.
- There is also a tension between democratic procedures and values. While we may value goals such
as liberty, equality, or environmental protection, democracy does not ensure those outcomes. First,
values are often contested—for every person who values freedom, another may prioritise equality.

Classical vs elitist theories of democracy

Classical (participatory/developmental) Elitist (revisionist/protective)

- Emphasises participation as valuable in itself, not just as - Schumpeter → elites compete for the
a means of holding elites accountable. people's votes, leaving decision-making
- Rousseau argues that political to these elites rather than involving
participation helps individuals grow the masses: unrealistic and undesirable
in virtue, intelligence, and self- → rise of fascism in Europe as an
worth → engaged, cooperative society, example of the masses being seduced by
and that political apathy is not authoritarian leaders.
inevitable. - Elites = protectors of demo from irrationality of masses.
- Advocate for industrial democracy and broader - This theory emphasises accountability to voters and
participation in decision-making, not just in politics but viewing it as a means to max voter satis.
also in the workplace.

Democracy as a source of political obligation → why should indivs feel compelled to

obey state’s laws
Democracy is seen as a strong basis for political obligation bec its laws are created with the ppt or consent of
the people. This concept is grounded in the idea of government by consent.
- John Locke: people living in a society and enjoying its benefits are implicitly consenting to its laws,
even if they haven't formally expressed their agreement.
This is problematic. Many have no real choice but to live under a particular political system. Moreover,
poli philosophers argue that consent must be ongoing, meaning each gen must have opp to express consent,
not just inherit it from their predecessors.
- Voting is often proposed as a way to express this consent, but there are challenges to this idea.
- Even if people vote and find themselves in the minority, they are still subject to the laws made by
the majority, raising the question of whether they are still morally obligated to obey.
- Who are they really voting for? What about moral clashes in laws?
 Although the emergence of the state helps to solve political disputes that citizens might have with one
another, it creates the potential new problem between the citizens and the state itself: if the state has
sufficient power to prevent conflict between its citizens, what is to stop the state from using this power
against the citizens?
→ Vertical vs horizontal accountability: mechanisms through which govt power is held
in check. Ensure political institutions and leaders act within the limits of their authority and in the public's
interest. While vertical accountability relies on periodic elections and citizen engagement, horizontal
accountability functions continuously through institutional checks and balances, ensuring the day-to-day
adherence to the rule of law and preventing power concentration.

Vertical → mechanisms that allow citizens to hold government Horizontal → checks and balances that exist within
officials accountable, primarily through the electoral process. This the government itself. Different branches or institutions
involves a top-down relationship between the government and the of the state monitor and hold each other accountable.
people.

- Elections: The most common form of vertical accountability, - Separation of powers: This refers to the division
where voters can reward or punish political leaders by voting of government into independent branches
them in or out of office. (executive, legislative, and judicial) that can limit
- Protests, media, civil society: These can also play roles in vertical each other's powers. For example, the judiciary
accountability by pressuring government officials to respond to can declare executive actions unconstitutional,
public concerns and demands. Free media and active civil or the legislature can impeach a president.
society groups amplify the voices of citizens. - Independent institutions: In many democracies,
Flows from the bottom up, as citizens, individually or collectively, act to institutions like anti-corruption agencies,
keep elected officials responsive to their needs. ombudsmen, or audit offices also serve as
horizontal accountability mechanisms, ensuring
that no single branch or office holder wields
unchecked power.
Alternative sources of political obligation
1. Security (Hobbes): obey the state because it provides security. If a strong sovereign can maintain
order and stability, it is worth following. However, if the state fails to ensure security, our
obligation to obey disappears.
2. Natural Rights (Locke): State's legitimacy depends on its protection of god-given rights. If it fails
to do so, people have the right to revolt. While Locke wasn’t a democrat, his theory isn’t
incompatible with democracy, as many democrats believe that rights are better protected when
people can influence state decisions.
a. Key challenge lies in determining which rights are most important, as rights like property
can sometimes clash w social, econ rights, such as the right to healthcare or education.
3. Max Happiness (Utilitarianism): From a utilitarian perspective, our obligation to the state is tied
to its ability to maximise overall happiness. The state should prevent individuals from causing harm
to others and ensure that people act in ways that promote the common good.
4. Pursuing the General Will (Rousseau): state should pursue the "general will," which represents
the collective interest of society, thus people are obligated to obey. Rousseau's idea is controversial
because it suggests that even if individuals don’t want to follow the general will, they should be
"forced to be free"—essentially, forced to act in line with what is truly in their best interest. This
 can be a dangerous doctrine, as it could be abused by dictators claiming to act in the public interest.
However, if the general will genuinely represents what everyone wants, Rousseau believes it solves
the problem of political obligation, allowing us to obey the state while remaining free.

Is democracy special? The problem of majority rule

New directions in democratic thought

Chapter 5: Freedom and Justice

Constraints on Freedom
Freedom → universally positive goal, but there are reasons to limit
freedom to pursue other valued objectives. Freedom is commonly seen as
the absence of constraints, but defining what counts as a constraint is
complex. Political philosophers debate what restrictions truly limit
freedom:
1. Democracy
- One potential constraint is living in a non-democratic society. However, freedom and democracy
don’t always correlate.
- A benevolent dictatorship could allow considerable freedom, while a democratic government
might impose limits, as seen in restrictive laws on issues like abortion. As Berlin explains, "Who
governs me?" is a different question from "How far does the government interfere with me?"
2. Coercion
- Physical coercion—being forced by others—clearly restricts freedom. Examples include
imprisonment and slavery.
- Laws enforced w severe penalties also function as constraints; risk of punishment can make
disobedience feel like an impractical choice, much like physical coercion.
3. Physical incapability
- Lack of resources to address a disability that limits someone’s ability to lead a normal life could be
viewed as a freedom constraint.
4. Rationality and morality
- Defining freedom through rationality is risky, as it may allow governments to impose their view of
rational behaviour on others.
- Linking freedom to morality suggests that we are only free when acting selflessly. Rousseau argued
that people should be “forced to be free” if they act selfishly, as their true desires align with moral
behaviour. Critics, however, argue that forcing moral behaviour blurs the line between enforcing
society’s moral values and promoting freedom.
5. Psychological influences
- … like advertising can also constrain freedom by shaping desires and behaviour in ways individuals
might not fully control.
 6. Economic Impediments
- Econ barriers can also limit freedom. Without basic necessities, it’s difficult for someone to fully
develop as an individual. Some counter that economic support from govt should be seen as a
pursuit of equality rather than a direct increase in freedom, as poverty and unemployment are
distinct issues from liberty.

Negative and Positive Freedom

Isaih Berlin: "Two Concepts of Liberty," distinguished bet 2 types of freedom:
1. Negative Liberty ("Freedom From"): Absence of external constraints or interference, particularly by the
state. If no one is stopping you from doing what you wish, you are "free" in the negative sense. Associated
this form of liberty with the classical liberal tradition, which emphasises indiv rights, personal autonomy.
- Examples: freedom from censorship, arbitrary arrest, government interference in one’s personal
choices, engaging in trade or business without heavy government regulation.
- Locke: individuals have natural rights—life, liberty, and property—and that the primary role of the
government is to protect these rights, not to interfere in people’s personal or economic affairs.
- Berlin: crucial defence against authoritarianism. Attempts to
promote positive liberty → paternalistic, coercive policies, where
the state imposes its own vision of the good life.
2. Positive Liberty ("Freedom To"): capacity to act upon one's free will or to achieve self-realisation. Ab
having actual power, resources to fulfil one’s potential, not just being free from external interference.
- Rousseau → freedom as something that could be realised through the
collective. Indivs not free unless basic conditions necessary for human flourishing, such as
food, shelter, and education.
- Amartya Sen: Poverty as the Absence of Freedom
Poverty understood not merely as a lack of y but as a lack of freedom and capability. In his view, being poor
means being deprived of the ability to live the kind of life one values, which directly limits one's freedom.
- Capabilities Approach: Having money doesn't guarantee that a person can live a healthy, educated,
or dignified life. True freedom, for Sen, requires access to the basic resources and opportunities that
allow individuals to realise their full potential. This means that extreme poverty is a form of
unfreedom because it strips people of the ability to exercise meaningful choices about their lives.
- Implications for the Role of the State: Govts have a responsibility not just to leave people alone
(which would align with negative liberty), but to actively remove obstacles to freedom, like hunger,
illiteracy, and lack of healthcare. This links Sen’s view to the tradition of positive liberty.

Is Freedom Special?
Revolves around the idea that justifying freedom is different from simply defining it. While the two are
related—since how we define freedom impacts how we justify its value—it raises important questions about
why freedom holds such a high status in political thought. For example, should freedom be limited to
achieve greater equality? If we define freedom in a way that requires state intervention to equalise opps,
resources, then freedom, equality might not conflict as much as we initially think.

Justifications for Freedom

 - S.I. Benn argues that there should be a presumption in favour of freedom—burden of proof should
rest with those who want to limit it. However, this assumes there's already a strong argument for
freedom’s importance, which needs to be examined.
1 justif is that freedom is a basic human right (H.L.A. Hart). However, this approach depends on accepting
arguments about rights in general, and the specific right to freedom.
- Dworkin provides a more dev justif by asserting that certain freedoms, necessary to treat people
with equal concern and respect, should be inviolable (he calls “strong liberties”).
- Dworkin’s reasoning assumes the importance of equality and has been criticised for being
subjective—unclear which liberties should be deemed "strong" and univ protected, esp in societies
w diverse cultures, norms.

Mill, Utilitarianism, and Freedom

John Stuart Mill = utilitarian approach, arguing that freedom promotes the greatest happiness. Unlike his
mentor, Bentham, who emphasised the quantity of pleasure, Mill distinguished bet higher, lower pleasures,
prioritising intellectual, cultural pursuits (art, literature, music) over more base pleasures.
1. Freedom of Thought and Discussion: maximising freedom of expression is essential, even if
opinions are false or offensive. For Mill, debating, challenging ideas strengthens truth and allows
society to progress.
2. Freedom of Action: Mill distinguishes bet self-regarding actions (only affect indiv) and other-
regarding actions (affect others). His harm principle states that the only reason society or the state
should restrict someone’s actions is if they cause harm to others. Actions that don’t cause physical
or financial harm to others, even if offensive, should not be interfered with.

Criticism to Mill
- freedom of expression may not always maximise happiness. E.g
- Withholding certain truths— terminal diagnosis—could be more beneficial for some.
- self-regarding actions are rarely isolated; most actions have some social consequences.
- Lord Devlin (1965) argued that even private behaviour affects society, such as drug use
affecting public health resources and economic productivity.

The Meaning of Justice

Complex political concept, but at its core, it means giving people what they are due or entitled to. Political
philosophers concerned w distributive: resources like wealth, y, and opps should be allocated. Need for
justice because resources are scarce.
Justice can be categorised into two types: procedural and social.
- Procedural justice → fairness in following rules, regardless of
outcomes.
- Social justice → fairness of outcomes themselves. Several criteria
have been proposed to guide the distribution of resources, such as
need, merit, and equality. While most agree that some form of
equality is essential, this doesn’t necessarily mean resources
 should be distributed equally; rather, it suggests consistency in
how people are treated.

Theories of justice often distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Some argue
that differential treatment can be justified based on factors like hard work or talent.

- Need-Based Justice → linked to socialism, where the idea is "from

each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
Even in modern welfare states, justice is often tied to meeting
basic needs, though merit may play a role once those needs are met.
- Merit-Based Justice → rewards ppl based on their talents, hard
work. This view associated w liberalism and emphasises value of incentivizing
productivity. For meritocracy to be just, all must have = opps →
structural disad (like poor edu or pov) addressed→ fair playing
field.

Chapter 8: Institutions and States

States
- Unlike pre-modern societies, which used various methods to create binding rules (edicts, fam
traditions, religious laws) and allowed different agencies to enforce them, modern states assert the
exclusive right to make laws and require that state courts enforce them.
- At its broadest level, the state refers to the structure of rule and authority within a geographical
area, making it more of an abstract concept or idea shared by a group of people than a physical
entity. We see this abstraction in terms like "nation-state" or "welfare state."
However, there is also a more concrete understanding of the state: institutions, indivs responsible for
managing public affairs: government executives, legislatures, courts, military, and local officials. The state
apparatus also collects revenue, usually through taxes, to fund its services. This tangible aspect of the state is
easier to understand, but the overlap between the abstract and concrete definitions can complicate how
people relate to the state. As Edelman (1964) noted, the state can be both protective and threatening,
sometimes seen as "us" and other times as "them."

The rise of european states

Before, state's identity intertwined with that of the ruler, who personally appointed officials, funded them
from their own resources. Origins of the modern state lie in Europe bet the 17th - 19th C.
A key change in this period was the rise of a salaried bureaucracy, primarily tasked with collecting
and administering taxes, crucial for funding wars: USA intro y tax in 1861 to fund the Civil War.
- Tilly summarised this relationship: "War made the state, and the state made war.”

French Rev expanded state power by intro a uniform taxation system, principle of
the mass army → France dominated Eur temp.
Other nations, like Br, had to adopt similar strategies to resist. By early 19th C, bureaucracies became central
to the state, with officials increasingly loyal to the state rather than individual monarchs or social groups.
- Weber: characterised this modern form of bureaucracy as impersonal, rule-based, and focused on
merit and performance
Radically altered the theory and practice of government: dismantled old institutions, equality before the
law, and established nationalism as a core political ideology.
Despite its populist ideals, the Fr Rev → intrusive forms of state power,
influencing both modern democracies and dictatorships.

Impacts of colonisation
European states' growing economic and military strength, coupled with technological superiority, enabled
them to build empires overseas in the 18th and 19th centuries. This spread European-style states to other
parts of the world through colonisation: British East India Company took over many functions of
governance from local rulers.
- Company acted as a part-trade organisation, part-nation-state and reap vast profits from overseas
trade with India, China, Persia.
Japan
Not all nations followed this pattern of colonisation. Japan, after being
forced to open its borders to international trade in 1854 by the US →
rapid modernization by emulating Western political, legal, and military
systems → transformed from isolated, feudal into a modern state →
powerful enough to defeat both China and Russia in wars.

Impacts of decolonisation
- After decolonization, newly independent states often adopted the state apparatus left by their
colonial rulers. These included both institutions and systems of governance.
- In some cases, rulers reverted to using the state to enrich themselves, leading to what are known as
patrimonial states, particularly in Africa.

Preventing tyranny: American Revolution was a key moment in this process

Due to the growth of the power of the state → principle of "law-
boundedness:" govt power constrained by a constitution interpreted by the judiciary.

Midterm review
- Resources are finite and preferences are infinite.
- Politics can be defined as the management of conflicts on scarce resources
- Then, politics can be defined as the process by which individual interests are reconciled with
collective actions and the provision of public goods.
Is a society without politics possible?
- Marxism → differences in interests within society center on the
distinctions between competing social classes.
 - The creation of a classless society offers the prospect of a society based on consensus and
cooperation. In such a society, a state wouldn’t be necessary
- General counterargum,ent is that marxism fails to consider huma’s tendency towards
conflict and competiton.
- Weber’s state definition → monopoly of the legitimate use of
physical force in enforcing irs order within a given territorial
area.
State capacities →
- Legitimation → capacity to dominate by using symbols and creating
consensus. De jure sovereignty
- Extractive → ability to mobilise financial resources to pursue the
national interest
- Coercive → use of physical force to enforce order.
- Steering → guide socioeconomic development

The state can be distinguished frm the govt in the sense that its a much larger entity, containing not just
political officers, but also bureacratic institutions, the judiciary, military, anf the security and police services.
- A state is an entity that uses coercion and the threat of force to rule in a given territory.
- A government is the set of people who run the state or have the authority to act on behalf of the
state at a particular point in time.
- A regime is the set of rules, norms, or institutions that determine how the government is
constituted, how it is organized, and how major decisions are made.

Conceptualisation and measuring democracy

- Procedural view of democracy → existence of elections is what
consituitues a democracy
- Minimalist definition → concept B: free and fair elections
- substantive view of democracy → focuses on the outcome of
democratic governance.
- Maximalist definition → concept A: political liberties and
socioeconomic liberty

The problem with democracy as a sourc eof political obligation is that few, if any, decsions are unanimous.
As a result, theres always minority of peop[le whose freedom is reduced by the fact that they have to accept
the decisions with which they disagree.

Freedom is the absence of constraints, but political philosophers disagree about what counts as a constraint.
- Non democratic state
- Democracy
- Psyocological
- Economic
 - Physical
- Coercion

Negative freedom → freedom from (Isaigh Berlin) govt interederence, esp

in economic matters. Rousseau by contrast argued that thew state had an
obligation with a decent standard of living
Positive freedom → freedom to (Isaiah Berlin)

Justice is concerned with how resources - wealth, income, educational opps should be distributed.
- Procedural → fairnes of the process by which the outcome is reached
- Social justice → fairness of the outcome itself.