Analysis of Political Theory Essay

There ar 2 policy-making theories that I combined and go forth implement if I were to be placed as the highest-ranking official of the boorish. These are the theories of Immanuel Kant and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. I chose to unite the devil theories because twain of them, as I was reading through its contents, had the biggest impact on me than on the whole the other theories I researched for. The joined theories would build up my nonpareil call down as a leader of the country so that I may be able to take the people to a show away say of life, in my innocent opinion as part of this countrys youth.First, allow me to discuss to you Immanuel Kants semipolitical philosophical system. His approach to reignance favored classical republi loaferism. The doctrine of Rechtsstaat is Kants biggest contribution in the philosophy of law and politics. harmonize to this doctrine, the power of the earth is limited in crop to protect citizens from the arbitrary reckon of power. In a Rechtsstaat, the citizens share de jure based civil liberties. It is a essential state in which the exercise of governing bodyal power is labored by law. It is often tied with the Anglo-American mold of law.Now, what is the rule of law? It is a efficacious maxim that suggests that establishmental decisions be made by applying known sub judice principles. Aristotle one quoted, Law should govern. It implies that every citizen is subject to the law. It stands in contrast to the idea that a prescript is above the law, for example by divine right. Going back to Immanuel Kants philosophy, he also supported the separation of powers of the executive, legislative and judicative branches of government. The executive and the judicative are bound by law, while the legislative is bound by perfect principles.Rechtsstaat also requires transparencyof state acts and the requirement of providing a reason for all state acts. The doctrine also demands for a hierarchy of laws and the requiremen t of pellucidity and definiteness. Now, the world has indeed seen the applications and implementations of the Rechtsstaat through Russias jural system. TheRussian legal system, born out of transformations in the 19th century under the reforms of emperor mothAlexander II, is based primarily upon the German legal tradition. It was from here that Russia borrowed a doctrine ofRechtsstaat, which literally translates aslegal state.The model of legal state is a fundamental (but undefined) principle that appears in the very first dispositive cookery of Russiaspost-Communist constitution The Russian Federation Russia constitutes a democratic federative legal state with a republican form of governance. Similarly, the very first dispositive training of Ukraines Constitution declares Ukraine is a crowned head and independent, democratic, kindly, legal state. The effort to give meaning to the expression legal state is anything but theoretical. Valery Zorkin, President of the entire Co urt of Russia, wrote in 2003Becoming a legal state has farsighted been our ultimate goal, and we have certainly made serious progress in this direction over the past several years. However, no one can say now that we have reached this destination. such a legal state simply cannot exist without a lawful and just society. Here, as in no other sphere of our life, the state reflects the level of maturity reached by society. Rechtsstaat has also approached Russias constitutional economics. The Russian concept of legal state adopted many a(prenominal) elements ofconstitutional economics.One of the founders of constitutional economics, James M. Buchanan, the 1986 pass receiver of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, argues that, in the framework of constitutional government, any governmental intervention and regulation has been based on collar assumptions. First, every failure of themarket economy to function smoothly and perfectly can be corrected by governmental interventi on. minute of arc, those holding political office and manning the bureaucracies are altruistic upholders of thepublic interest, unconcerned with their own individualised economic well- be.And, third, changing the responsibilities of government towards more intervention and control depart not profoundly and perversely affect the social and economic order. nigh Russian researchers are supporting an idea that, in the 21st century, the concept of the legal state has become not only a legal but also an economic concept at least for Russia and many other transitional and developing countries. Let us now black market on to Jean-Jacques Rousseaus political theory. His most important work is The brotherly Contract, which outlines the basis for a legitimate political order within a framework of classical republican.The treatise begins with the dramatic opening lines, Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater s laves than they. Rousseau claimed that the state of nature was a primitive condition without law or morality, which human beings left for the benefits and necessity of cooperation. As society developed, division of grind and private property required the human race to adopt institutions of law. In the degenerate phase of society, man is prone to be in patronize competition with his fellow men while also becoming increasingly dependent on them.This double pressure threatens both his survival and his freedom. According to Rousseau, by joining together into civil society through the social contract and abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free. This is because long-suffering to the authority of thegeneral resultof the people as a all told guarantees individuals against being subordinated to the go outs of others and also ensures that they obey themselves because they are, collectively, the authors of the law.Although Rouss eau argues thatsovereignty(or the power to occupy the laws) should be in the hands of the people, he also makes a sharp notation between the sovereign and thegovernment. The government is composed of magistrates, charged with implementing and enforcing the general pass on. The sovereign is the rule of law, ideally decided on bydirect countryin an assembly. Under a monarchy, however, the real sovereign is still the law. Rousseau was argue to the idea that the people should exercise sovereignty via arepresentative assembly.France could not meet Rousseaus criterion of an ideal state because it was too big. practically subsequent controversy about Rousseaus work has hinged on disagreements concerning his claims that citizens constrained to obey the general will are thereby rendered free The apprehension of the general will is wholly central to Rousseaus theory of political legitimacy. It is, however, an unfortunately obscure and controversial notion. Some commentators see it as no more than the dictatorship of the proletariat or the tyranny of the urban pitiful (such as may perhaps be seen in the French Revolution).Such was not Rousseaus meaning. This is clear from theDiscourse on Political prudence, where Rousseau emphasizes that the general will exists to protect individuals against the mass, not to require them to be sacrificed to it. He is, of course, sharply aware that men have selfish and sectional interests which will lead them to try to oppress others. It is for this reason that loyalty to the good of all alike must be a supreme (although not exclusive) consignment by everyone, not only if a truly general will is to be heeded but also if it is to be formulated successfully in the first place.French revolutionaries read the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This would suggest that his philosophy was one of the proponents that sparked the French Revolution among the commoners. In brief, Rousseau believed in the natural charge of man that humans we re corrupted by the greed and competition of civilization. He believed in a social utopia, of humans returning to natural harmony, being made free of vices and sharing a natural equality and a general will.These ideas appealed to many people, including some of the people instrumental in the events leading to the French Revolution, such as the oath at the Tennis Court. In a country where a wealthy minority indulged themselves while hundreds of thousands suffered from austere poverty and inflation, people yearned for a basic equality, natural or government ordained. Many felt that if the general will (or the will of the people) was for change, that the current government was expected to make compromises.The First Estate of the French government was against these changes, the Second Estate was to some extent and later cast its lot in with the Third Estate. Later the idea of a utopian government changed to the will of the people (although how successful this was carried out can be deb ated, in both France and the U. S. ) Maximillien Robespierre, who played an important part in the middle to later events in the Revolution and was one of the architects of the Terror, was deeply influenced in his youth by Rousseaus writings.My report would end at this, since only this stuff is what is conveyed of us. But if you would ask me, I wouldnt agree to all things mentioned by the two philosophers. I, of course, would make a few reforms here and there. For example, the abandonment of our natural rights as tell in The Social Contract. In the contemporary world, one would want to lead about their natural right for general will. Sure, the idea of general will sounds very convenient, but if you think about it, its not worth giving up your natural rights for.