Free Custom «Investigation of International Political Events» Essay Sample
Many issues arise when it comes to investigation of international political events. The intention of the investigators determines whether the entire process aims at establishing a more inclusive isocratic and democratic political process or aims at other malicious purposes. Investigations guided on the ideas expressed in existentialism do not aim at establishing a democratic and isocratic political processes, since they emphasize on the uniqueness and isolation of individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe regarding on human existence as unexplainable and stressing the freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of an act. The aim of such investigation is to try to figure out the negative sides of a political process, instead of figuring out the possible changes that are essential in the process of ensuring a more inclusive isocratic and democratic process. This paper investigates the ways international political events contribute to the establishment of a more inclusive, isocratic, and democratic political process. It highlights the ways the above notion is expressed in existentialism, personalism, perspectivism, egalitarianism, ethnoscience, and opportunity cost in the management of public resources.
Personalism-based investigation does not contribute to the establishment of a more inclusive isocratic and democratic political process, since it stresses the value of persons in making their decision. This could introduce mechanisms attacking the political process; thus, making it difficult for the decision makers in the process to do their work in an effective manner. Another investigation, on which their inquiry focuses, is perspectivism doctrine that may not contribute to improving the nature of a political process towards involving the citizens in the process of decision-making (Brown, 2002). This is because in perspectivism, people will understand the reality only in terms of the perspectives of the matter at hand according to the individuals or groups at that particular moment. The conditions affecting a certain nation are prone to change; hence, the requirements of the investigations could turn to be inapplicable at specific times.
In times of peace, the political process should strive to involve the citizens in the process of making some decisions, but at times of war and emergence. This may not apply, since there is a need to ensure public safety and to carry out a confidential investigation to the state; thus, some information must be kept away from the public (Baylis, 2001). This is a realistic reason, as to why the public should not be involved in decision making at these times; though, they may assist in providing the necessary information.
Philosophers, such as Plato (427–347 be) and Aristotle (384–322 be), formulated theories about the link between the nature of human beings and the nature of the Greek city-state, and offered arguments about the nature of both a good man and of good political order. Whereas Plato and Aristotle both thought that rationality was the highest virtue that governs politics through reasoning, Thucydides offers an account of human beings, which is significantly mixed (Joseph, 1994). His politicians and soldiers are sometimes heroic, but they also make mistakes through teir own pride, greed, and emotional attachments, or because of their inability to predict the actions of others (James, 2011). This clearly shows that humans are prone to mistakes, and perspectives of certain people about an issue of political process at a particular time might not apply all the time.
Most of Thucydides chronicle recounts speeches and debates between the different political actors within and between the various states involved in the war. A most common dramatic theme of these debates is a tension between doing what is in the interests of a particular state and doing what is just in terms of the standards inherent within the state. Cleon and Diodotus debated whether Athens should punish the city of Mytilene, which had fought against Athens, by putting all men to death and enslaving all women and children in the city (Baylis, 2001). The debate is not straightforwardly between Cleon, who supports this punishment arguing on grounds of interest, and Diodotus, who opposes it arguing on grounds of justice. Rather, both men use the ideas of justice and interest to make their cases. Cleon makes claims both that Mytelines deserve the punishment, because of the injustice of their behavior, and that the devastation of Myteline is crucial to Athens’ interest, because it would demolish opposition and deter other powers from doing what Myteline did.
Limited Time offer!
Get 19% OFF
Diodotus claims that not only would the devastation of Myteline be unjust and against the great traditions of Athens, but it would also be against Athens’ interests, because it would entrench opposing powers in their opposition, discouraging them from surrendering and giving them reasons to further fear and fight against Athenian power. In this debate, Thucydides dramatizes recurring and crucial themes in Western 83 International political theory. It is evident that perspectives differ among different people; hence, this is not an appropriate ground to base investigations concerning international political process in establishing a more inclusive isocratic and democratic political process (Williams, 1993).
There are better grounds, on which these investigations should be based on for better results. Elegalitarianism is one of the better factors, which could work towards improving the nature of political process within a certain state. The belief in the equality of all people during administering of the political process forms the basis of elegalitarianism.
According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78 ce), who lived at the time often referred to as the “European Enlightenment”, there was a situation, when most philosophers and scientists believed that human reasoning provided a key to both scientific and socio-political progress. Concerning humanity, he was atypical, and this implied that he did not share Enlightenment optimism about the key reason to the historical progress. Instead, he saw the contemporary society and politics both within and between states as fundamentally corrupt and full of conflict, which then denied the people their right to equality within the state. However, he saw this corruption and conflict as socially produced, rather than naturally obligatory. He, therefore, took the issue with Hobbes’s view that in a state of nature people are selfish and viiolent, argued in contrast that people are naturally peaceful, and inclined to be solitary (Williams, 1993). They have a survival instinct, but they also have the capacity to sympathize with the pain of others.
Only as civilization develops, according to Rousseau, we find in humans the desire for power and the conflict of interests that Hobbes identifies as natural or pre-social. Rousseau identifies the development of the institution of private property as a corrupting force, which encourages greed, envy, and violence (Ross, 2011). For Rousseau, war is the product of a social order, in which princes regard their territories as private property and seek to both protect and extend their holdings. Most of Rousseau’s writings on politics focus on political authority within the state. The argument, which he is most famous for, is that one can preserve individual freedom within a state only if one becomes a part of people, that is self-legislating. Rousseau’s ideal state is a republic, where all citizens participate in legislating for the whole community and ensure equal distribution of properties (Brown, 2002). This is because the citizens have the responsibility of accounting for the money that the government spends on the various developmental issues. The community plays an essential role in the process of development, since they pay taxes and must be in the forefront in the monitoring government spending.
Let’s earn with us!
Get 10% from your friends orders!
Ethnoscience is an attempt to reconstitute what serves as a science for others and their practices of looking after themselves and their bodies, their botanical knowledge, but also their forms of classifications of making connections (Brown, 2002). It is concerned with the study of the systems of knowledge and classification of concepts in the different cultures. It may be quite useful, since while studying about the political process of other states, important concepts may be acquired, and their implementation on the process of a different state may lead to bettering of the process and to making it more inclusive in terms of isocratic and democratic process.
It is evident that one’s investigation of international political events contributes to the establishment of a more inclusive, isocratic, and democratic political process. This is because in any form of democracy, deliberation is central to the decision-making. In the case, basing the investigation on the opportunity cost helps in determining the value of an asset to be given up to acquire other gains. The public should be involved in such processes, since they affect the state as a whole, and their views are presented through the representatives within the state. Such investigations may help to curb dictatorship within a state, whereby the authorities will give up what they feel like. Regarding isocracy, it is evident that regardless of the inspiration, there can never be sufficient reason to compel an individual to be witnesses against themselves. This fundamental human right allows democratic process in management of the country’s resources. Through the process, both the government and the community become accountable for better management of the country’s resources. Finally, if the process is successful, it ensures the establishment of a more inclusive isocratic and democratic political process.
Want to know what your projected final grades might look like?
Check out our easy to use grade calculator! It can help you solve this question.Calculate now