Politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the political magazine, see The Politic. For other uses, see Politics (disambiguation).

Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. A variety of methods are employed in politics, which include promoting one's own political views among people, negotiation with other political subjects, making laws, and exercising force, including warfare against adversaries. Politics is exercised on a wide range of social levels, from clans and tribes of traditional societies, through modern local governments, companies and institutions up to sovereign states, to the international level.

A political system is a framework which defines acceptable political methods within a given society. History of political thought can be traced back to early antiquity, with seminal works such as Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics and the works of Confucius.

Modern political discourse focuses on democracy and the relationship between people and politics. It is thought of as the way people choose government officials and make decisions about public policy.[1]

Etymology[edit]

The word comes from the Greek word from which the title of Aristotle's books Politics (politika) derives: "affairs of the cities", a dissertation on governing and governments, which was rendered in English in the mid-15th century as Latinized "Polettiques". Thus it became "politics" in Middle English . The singular politic first attested in English 1430 and comes from Middle French politique, in turn from Latin politicus,[2] which is the Latinization of the Greek πολιτικός (politikos), meaning amongst others "of, for, or relating to citizens", "civil", "civic", "belonging to the state",[3] in turn from πολίτης (polites), "citizen"[4] and that from πόλις (polis), "city".[5]

History[edit]

The history of politics is reflected in the origin, development, and economics of the institutions of government.

The state[edit]

Main article: State (polity)

The origin of the state is to be found in the development of the art of warfare. Historically speaking, all political communities of the modern type owe their existence to successful warfare.[6]

Kings, emperors and other types of monarchs in many countries including China and Japan, were considered divine. Of the institutions that ruled states, that of kingship stood at the forefront until the French Revolution put an end to the "divine right of kings". Nevertheless, the monarchy is among the longest-lasting political institutions, dating as early as 2100 BC in Sumeria[7] to the 21st century AD British Monarchy. Kingship becomes an institution through heredity.

The king often, even in absolute monarchies, ruled his kingdom with the aid of an elite group of advisors, a council without which he could not maintain power. As these advisors, and others outside the monarchy negotiated for power, constitutional monarchies emerged, which may be considered the germ of constitutional government.[citation needed] Long before the council became a bulwark of democracy, it rendered invaluable aid to the institution of kingship by:[citation needed]

  1. Preserving the institution of kingship through heredity.
  2. Preserving the traditions of the social order.
  3. Being able to withstand criticism as an impersonal authority.
  4. Being able to manage a greater deal of knowledge and action than a single individual such as the king.

The greatest of the king's subordinates, the earls and dukes in England and Scotland, the dukes and counts in the Continent, always sat as a right on the council. A conqueror wages war upon the vanquished for vengeance or for plunder but an established kingdom exacts tribute. One of the functions of the council is to keep the coffers of the king full. Another is the satisfaction of military service and the establishment of lordships by the king to satisfy the task of collecting taxes and soldiers.[8]

The state and property[edit]

Property is the right vested on the individual or a group of people to enjoy the benefits of an object, be it material or intellectual. A right is a power enforced by public trust. Sometimes it happens that the exercise of a right is opposed to public trust. Nevertheless, a right is really an institution brought around by public trust, past, present or future. The growth of knowledge is the key to the history of property as an institution. The more man becomes knowledgeable of an object be it physical or intellectual, the more it is appropriated. The appearance of the State brought about the final stage in the evolution of property from wildlife to husbandry. In the presence of the State, man can hold landed property. The State began granting lordships and ended up conferring property and with it came inheritance. With landed property came rent and in the exchange of goods, profit, so that in modern times, the "lord of the land" of long ago becomes the landlord. If it is wrongly assumed that the value of land is always the same, then there is of course no evolution of property whatever. However, the price of land goes up with every increase in population benefiting the landlord. The landlordism of large land owners has been the most rewarded of all political services. In industry, the position of the landlord is less important but in towns which have grown out of an industry, the fortunate landlord has reaped an enormous profit. Towards the latter part of the Middle Ages in Europe, both the State - the State would use the instrument of confiscation for the first time to satisfy a debt - and the Church - the Church succeeded in acquiring immense quantities of land - were allied against the village community to displace the small landlord and they were successful to the extent that today, the village has become the ideal of the individualist, a place in which every man "does what he wills with his own." The State has been the most important factor in the evolution of the institution of property be it public or private.[9]

The state and the justice system[edit]

As a primarily military institution, the State is concerned with the allegiance of its subjects, viewing disloyalty and espionage as well as other sorts of conspiracies as detrimental to its national security. Thus arises the law of treason. Criminal acts in general, breaking the peace and treason make up the whole, or at least part of criminal law enforced by the State as distinguished from the law enforced by private individuals or by the state on behalf of private individuals. State justice has taken the place of clan, feudal, merchant and ecclesiastical justice due to its strength, skill and simplicity. One very striking evidence of the superiority of the royal courts over the feudal and popular courts in the matter of official skill is the fact that, until comparatively late in history, the royal courts alone kept written records of their proceedings. The trial by jury was adopted by the Royal Courts, securing its popularity and making it a bulwark of liberty. By the time of the Protestant Reformation, with the separation of Church and State, in the most progressive countries, the State succeeded in dealing with the business of administering justice.[10]

The state and legislation[edit]

The making of laws was unknown to primitive societies.

That most persistent of all patriarchal societies, the Jewish, retains to a certain extent its tribal law in the Gentile cities of the West. This tribal law is the rudimentary idea of law as it presented itself to people in the patriarchal stage of society; it was custom or observance sanctioned by the approval and practice of ancestors.[citation needed]

The state of affairs which existed in the 10th century, when every town had its own laws and nations like France, Germany, Spain and other countries had no national law until the end of the 18th century, was brought to an end by three great agencies that helped to create the modern system of law and legislation:[citation needed]

  1. Records: From the early Middle Ages in Europe there come what are called folk-laws and they appear exactly at the time when the patriarchal was becoming the State. They are due almost universally to one cause: the desire of the king to know the custom of his subjects. These are not legislation in the sense of law-making but statements or declarations of custom. They are drawn from a knowledge of the custom of the people. Unwritten custom changes imperceptibly but not the written. It is always possible to point to the exact text and show what it says. Nevertheless, the written text can change by addition with every new edition.
  2. Law Courts: By taking some general rule which seemed to be common to all the communities and ignoring the differences, English common law was modeled after such a practice so that the law became common in all the districts of the kingdom. The reason why in the rest of Europe, there was no common law till centuries later is because the State in those countries did not get hold of the administration of justice when England did. One of the shrewdest moves by which the English judges pushed their plan of making a common law was by limiting the verdict of the jury in every case to questions of fact. At first the jury used to give answers both on law and fact; and being a purely local body, they followed local custom. A famous division came to pass: the province of the judge and the province of the jury.
  3. Fictions: Records and Law Courts were valuable in helping the people adapt to law-making but like Fictions, they were slow and imperfect. Though slowly, Fictions work because it is a well-known fact that people will accept a change in the form of a fiction while they would resist it to the end if the fact is out in the open.

Finally there is the enactment of laws or legislation. When progress and development is rapid, the faster method of political representation is adopted. This method does not originate in primitive society but in the State's need for money and its use of an assembly to raise the same. From the town assembly, a national assembly and the progress of commerce sprang parliaments all over Europe around the end of the 12th century, but not entirely representative or homogeneous for the nobility and the clergy. The clergy had amassed a fortune in land, about one-fifth of all Christendom but at the time, in the 12th and 13th centuries, the Church was following a policy of isolation; they adopted the rule of celibacy and cut themselves from domestic life; they refused to plead in a secular court; they refused to pay taxes to the State on the grounds that they had already paid it to the Pope. Since the main object of the king in holding a national assembly was to collect money, the Church could not be left out and so they came to Parliament. The Church did not like it but in most cases they had to come.[citation needed]

The medieval Parliament was complete when it represented all the states in the realm: nobles, clergy, peasants and craftsmen but it was not a popular institution mainly because it meant taxation. Only by the strongest pressure of the Crown were Parliaments maintained during the first century of their existence and the best proof of this assertion lies in the fact that in those countries where the Crown was weak, Parliament ceased to exist. The notion that parliaments were the result of a democratic movement cannot be supported by historical facts. Originally, the representative side of Parliament was solely concerned with money; representation in Parliament was a liability rather than a privilege. It is not uncommon that an institution created for one purpose begins to serve another. People who were asked to contribute with large sums of money began to petition. Pretty soon, sessions in Parliament would turn into bargaining tables, the king granting petitions in exchange for money. However, there were two kinds of petitions, one private and the other public and it was from this last that laws were adopted or legislation originated. The king as head of State could give orders to preserve territorial integrity but not until these royal enactments were combined with public petition that successful legislation ever took place. Even to the present day, this has always been the basis of all successful legislation: public custom is adopted and enforced by the State.[citation needed]

In the early days of political representation, the majority did not necessarily carry the day and there was very little need for contested elections but by the beginning of the 15th century, a seat in Parliament was something to be cherished. Historically speaking, the dogma of the equality of man is the result of the adoption of the purely practical machinery of the majority, but the adoption of the majority principle is also responsible for another institution of modern times: the party system. The party system is an elaborate piece of machinery that pits at least two political candidates against each other for the vote of an electorate; its advantage being equal representation interesting a large number of people in politics; it provides effective criticism of the government in power and it affords an outlet for the ambition of a large number of wealthy and educated people guaranteeing a consistent policy in government.[citation needed]

These three institutions: political representation, majority rule and the party system are the basic components of modern political machinery; they are applicable to both central and local governments and are becoming by their adaptability ends in themselves rather than machinery to achieve some purpose.[11]

The state and the executive system[edit]

The administration is one of the most difficult aspects of government. In the enactment and enforcement of laws, the victory of the State is complete but not so in regards to administration – the reason being that it is easy to see the advantage of the enactment and enforcement of laws but not the administration of domestic, religious and business affairs which should be kept to a minimum by government.[citation needed]

Originally, the state was a military institution. For many years, it was just a territory ruled by a king who was surrounded by a small elite group of warriors and court officials and it was basically rule by force over a larger mass of people. Slowly, however, the people gained political representation for none can really be said to be a member of the State without the right of having a voice in the direction of policy making. One of the basic functions of the State in regards to administration is maintaining peace and internal order; it has no other excuse for interfering in the lives of its citizens. To maintain law and order the State develops means of communication. Historically, the "king's highway" was laid down and maintained for the convenience of the royal armies not as an incentive to commerce. In almost all countries, the State maintains the control of the means of communication and special freedoms such as those delineated in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution are rather limited. The State's original function of maintaining law and order within its borders gave rise to police administration which is a branch of the dispensation of Justice but on its preventive side, police jurisdiction has a special character of its own, which distinguishes it from ordinary judicial work. In the curfew, the State shows early in history the importance of preventing disorder. In early days, next to maintaining law and order, the State was concerned with the raising of revenue. It was then useful to the State to establish a standard of weights and measures so that value could be generally accepted and finally the State acquired a monopoly of coinage. The regulation of labor by the State as one of its functions dates from the 15th century, when the Black Plague killed around half of the European population.[citation needed]

The invariable policy of the State has always been to break down all intermediate authorities and to deal directly with the individual. This was the policy until Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations was published promoting a strong public reaction against State interference. By its own action, the State raised the issue of the poor or the State relief of the indigent. The State, of course, did not create poverty but by destroying the chief agencies which dealt with it such as the village, the church and the guilds, it practically assumed full responsibility for the poor without exercising any power over it. The Great Poor Law Report of 1834 showed that communism was widespread in the rural areas of England. In newly developed countries such as the colonies of the British Empire, the State has refused to take responsibility for the poor and the relief of poverty, although the poor classes lean heavily towards State socialism.[citation needed]

Taking into account the arguably significant powers of the State, it is only natural that in times of great crisis such as an overwhelming calamity the people should invoke general State aid.[citation needed]

Political representation has helped to shape State administration. When the voice of the individual can be heard, the danger of arbitrary interference by the State is greatly reduced. To that extent is the increase of State activity popular. There are no hard and fast rules to limit State administration but it is a fallacy to believe that the State is the nation and what the State does is necessarily for the good of the nation. In the first place, even in modern times, the State and the nation are never identical. Even where "universal suffrage" prevails, the fact remains that an extension of State administration means an increased interference of some by others, limiting freedom of action. Even if it is admitted that State and nation are one and the same, it is sometimes difficult to admit that State administration is necessarily good. Finally, the modern indiscriminate advocacy of State administration conceals the fallacy that State officials must necessarily prove more effective in their action than private enterprise. Herein lies the basic difference between public and business administration; the first deals with the public weal while the second deals basically in profit, but both require a great deal of education and ethical conduct to avoid the mishaps inherent in the relationship not only relating to business and labour but also the State and the people administrating its government.[12]

The varieties of political experience[edit]

According to Aristotle, States are classified into monarchies, aristocracies, timocracies, democracies, oligarchies, and tyrannies. Due to an increase in knowledge of the history of politics, this classification has been abandoned. Generally speaking, no form of government could be considered the absolute best, as it would have to be the perfect form under all circumstances, for all people and in all ways. As an institution created by human nature to govern society, it is vulnerable to abuse by people for their own gain, no matter what form of government a state utilizes, thus posing that there is no 'best' form of government.

All States are varieties of a single type, the sovereign State. All the great powers of the modern world rule on the principle of sovereignty. Sovereign power may be vested on an individual as in an autocratic government or it may be vested on a group as in a constitutional government. Constitutions are written documents that specify and limit the powers of the different branches of government. Although a Constitution is a written document, there is also an unwritten Constitution. The unwritten constitution is continually being written by the Legislative branch of government; this is just one of those cases in which the nature of the circumstances determines the form of government that is most appropriate. Nevertheless, the written constitution is essential. England did set the fashion of written constitutions during the Civil War but after the Restoration abandoned them to be taken up later by the American Colonies after their emancipation and then France after the Revolution and the rest of Europe including the European colonies.[citation needed]

There are two forms of government, one a strong central government as in France and the other a local government such as the ancient divisions in England that is comparatively weaker but less bureaucratic. Family plays an important role in poltics, with out a strong family its almost impossible to be a strong polition. These two forms helped to shape the federal government, first in Switzerland, then in the United States in 1776, in Canada in 1867 and in Germany in 1870 and in the 20th century, Australia. The Federal States introduced the new principle of agreement or contract. Compared to a federation, a confederation's singular weakness is that it lacks judicial power.[citation needed] In the American Civil War, the contention of the Confederate States that a State could secede from the Union was untenable because of the power enjoyed by the Federal government in the executive, legislative and judiciary branches.[citation needed]

According to professor A. V. Dicey in An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, the essential features of a federal constitution are: a) A written supreme constitution in order to prevent disputes between the jurisdictions of the Federal and State authorities; b) A distribution of power between the Federal and State governments and c) A Supreme Court vested with the power to interpret the Constitution and enforce the law of the land remaining independent of both the executive and legislative branches.[13]

Political party[edit]

Main article: political party

A political party is a political organization that typically seeks to attain and maintain political power within government, usually by participating in electoral campaigns, educational outreach or protest actions. Parties often espouse an expressed ideology or vision bolstered by a written platform with specific goals, forming a coalition among disparate interests.[citation needed]

World politics[edit]

The 20th century witnessed the outcome of two world wars and not only the rise and fall of the Third Reich but also the rise and fall of communism. The development of the atomic bomb gave the United States a more rapid end to its conflict in Japan in World War II. Later, the development of the hydrogen bomb became the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. The United Nations has served as a forum for peace in a world threatened by nuclear war. "The invention of nuclear and space weapons has made war unacceptable as an instrument for achieving political ends."[14] Although an all-out final nuclear holocaust is out of the question for man, "nuclear blackmail" comes into question not only on the issue of world peace but also on the issue of national sovereignty.[15] On a Sunday in 1962, the world stood still at the brink of nuclear war during the October Cuban missile crisis from the implementation of U.S. vs U.S.S.R. nuclear blackmail policy.

As an academic discipline[edit]

Political science, the study of politics, examines the acquisition and application of power.[16] Political scientist Harold Lasswell defined politics as "who gets what, when, and how".[17] Related areas of study include political philosophy, which seeks a rationale for politics and an ethic of public behaviour, political economy, which attempts to develop understandings of the relationships between politics and the economy and the governance of the two, and public administration, which examines the practices of governance.[citation needed] The philosopher Charles Blattberg, who has defined politics as "responding to conflict with dialogue," offers an account which distinguishes political philosophies from political ideologies.[18]

The first academic chair devoted to politics in the United States was the chair of history and political science at Columbia University, first occupied by Prussian émigré Francis Lieber in 1857.[19]

Spectra[edit]

Political views differ on average across nations. A recreation of the InglehartWelzel Cultural Map of the World based on the World Values Survey.
Main article: Political spectrum

Several different political spectrums have been proposed.

Left–right politics[edit]

Main article: Left–right politics

Recently in history, political analysts and politicians divide politics into left wing and right wing politics, often also using the idea of center politics as a middle path of policy between the right and left. This classification is comparatively recent (it was not used by Aristotle or Hobbes, for instance), and dates from the French Revolution era, when those members of the National Assembly who supported the republic, the common people and a secular society sat on the left and supporters of the monarchy, aristocratic privilege and the Church sat on the right.[20]

The meanings behind the labels have become more complicated over the years. A particularly influential event was the publication of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in 1848. The Manifesto suggested a course of action for a proletarian revolution to overthrow the bourgeois society and abolish private property, in the belief that this would lead to a classless and stateless society.[citation needed]

The meaning of left-wing and right-wing varies considerably between different countries and at different times, but generally speaking, it can be said that the right wing often values tradition and social stratification while the left wing often values reform and egalitarianism, with the center seeking a balance between the two such as with social democracy or regulated capitalism.[21]

According to Norberto Bobbio, one of the major exponents of this distinction, the Left believes in attempting to eradicate social inequality, while the Right regards most social inequality as the result of ineradicable natural inequalities, and sees attempts to enforce social equality as utopian or authoritarian.[22]

Some ideologies, notably Christian Democracy, claim to combine left and right wing politics; according to Geoffrey K. Roberts and Patricia Hogwood, "In terms of ideology, Christian Democracy has incorporated many of the views held by liberals, conservatives and socialists within a wider framework of moral and Christian principles."[23] Movements which claim or formerly claimed to be above the left-right divide include Fascist Terza Posizione economic politics in Italy, Gaullism in France, Peronism in Argentina, and National Action Party in Mexico.[citation needed]

Authoritarian–libertarian politics[edit]

Authoritarianism and libertarianism refer to the amount of individual freedom each person possesses in that society relative to the state. One author describes authoritarian political systems as those where "individual rights and goals are subjugated to group goals, expectations and conformities",[24] while libertarians generally oppose the state and hold the individual as sovereign. In their purest form, libertarians are anarchists, who argue for the total abolition of the state, of political parties and of other political entities, while the purest authoritarians are, theoretically, totalitarians who support state control over all aspects of society.[citation needed]

For instance, classical liberalism (also known as laissez-faire liberalism,[25] ) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, free markets, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitation of government, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. According to the libertarian Institute for Humane Studies, "the libertarian, or 'classical liberal,' perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by 'as much liberty as possible' and 'as little government as necessary.'"[26] For anarchist political philosopher L. Susan Brown "Liberalism and anarchism are two political philosophies that are fundamentally concerned with individual freedom yet differ from one another in very distinct ways. Anarchism shares with liberalism a radical commitment to individual freedom while rejecting liberalism's competitive property relations."[27]

Political corruption[edit]

Main article: Political corruption
Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.
 

Political corruption is the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is not considered political corruption. Neither are illegal acts by private persons or corporations not directly involved with the government. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties.[citation needed]

Forms of corruption vary, but include corruption, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement. While corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and trafficking, it is not restricted to these activities.[citation needed] The activities that constitute illegal corruption differ depending on the country or jurisdiction. For instance, certain political funding practices that are legal in one place may be illegal in another. In some cases, government officials have broad or poorly defined powers, which make it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal actions.[citation needed]

Worldwide, bribery alone is estimated to involve over 1 trillion US dollars annually.[29] A state of unrestrained political corruption is known as a kleptocracy, literally meaning "rule by thieves".[citation needed]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Losco, Joseph (2010). AmGov. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 3. 
  2. ^ Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short. "A Latin Dictionary". Perseus Digital Library. 
  3. ^ Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott. πολιτικός "A Greek-English Lexicon". Perseus Digital Library. 
  4. ^ Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott. πολίτης "A Greek-English Lexicon". Perseus Digital Library. 
  5. ^ Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott. πόλις "A Greek-English Lexicon". Perseus Digital Library. 
  6. ^ Carneiro, Robert L. (21 August 1970). "A Theory of the Origin of the State". Science 169. 
  7. ^ "Sumerian King List". Retrieved 7 April 2012. 
  8. ^ Jenks, Edward. A history of politics. pp. 73–96. "The origin of the State, or Political Society, is to be found in the development of the art of military warfare." 
  9. ^ Jenks, Edward. A history of politics. pp. 97–111. "No political institution is of greater importance, none has been the subject of greater controversy, than the institution of property." 
  10. ^ Jenks, Edward. A history of politics. pp. 112–124. "We are so accustomed to look upon the administration of justice as an inevitable duty of the State..." 
  11. ^ Jenks, Edward. A history of politics. pp. 124–139. "As we have before stated (p. 41), the notion that law could be made was unknown to primitive society." 
  12. ^ Jenks, Edward. A history of politics. pp. 140–150. "We come now to the last, and by far the most difficult department of State activity." 
  13. ^ Jenks, Edward (1900). A history of politics. J. M. Dent & Co. pp. 1–164. 
  14. ^ Rabinowitch, Eugene (June 1973). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, Inc. p. 13. ISSN 0096-3402. "...the rationale of traditional patterns of world politics." 
  15. ^ Dulles, Allen (2006). The Craft of Intelligence. Globe Pequot. p. 224. ISBN 1599215772. "...using 'nuclear blackmail' as a threat to intimidate other countries." 
  16. ^ Safire, William (2008). Safire's Political Dictionary. Oxford University Press US. p. 566. ISBN 0-19-534334-4. "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." 
  17. ^ Schmidt, Barbara A.; Bardes, Mack C.; Shelley, Steffen W. (2011). American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials (2011–2012 Student ed.). Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-538-49719-0. 
  18. ^ Blattberg, Charles (July 2001). "Political Philosophies and Political Ideologies". Public Affairs Quarterly 15 (3): 193–217. ISSN 0887-0373. Retrieved 26 April 2013. 
  19. ^ Farr, James; Seidelman, Raymond (1993). Discipline and history. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-06512-2. "...a chair at Columbia in 1857 as professor of history and political science, the very first of its kind in America." 
  20. ^ Andrew Knapp and Vincent Wright (2006). The Government and Politics of France. Routledge. 
  21. ^ Daniel J. Levinson. "CONSERVATISM AND RADICALISM". International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 
  22. ^ Bobbio, Norberto, Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction (translated by Allan Cameron), 1997, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-06246-5
  23. ^ Roberts and Hogwood, European Politics Today, Manchester University Press, 1997
  24. ^ Markus Kemmelmeier et al. (2003). "Individualism, Collectivism, and Authoritarianism in Seven Societies". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 34 (3): 304–322. doi:10.1177/0022022103034003005. 
  25. ^ Ian Adams, Political Ideology Today (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), 20.
  26. ^ What Is Libertarian?, Institute for Humane Studies
  27. ^ L. Susan Brown. The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism, and Anarchism. BLACK ROSE BOOKS LID. 1993
  28. ^ Safire's political dictionary, by William Safire, 2008, Oxford University Press US, pg 566
  29. ^ African corruption 'on the wane', 10 July 2007, BBC News

Further reading[edit]

  • Ryan, Alan: On Politics: A History of Political Thought from Herodotus to the Present. London: Allen Lane, 2012. ISBN 978-0-713-99364-6