First Past the Post electoral system OR of the proportional list electoral system

Each of the statements below is true either of the First Past the Post electoral system OR of the proportional list electoral system. In each case, write either FPTP or PL next to the statement.

	FPTP or PL?
1. This is a plurality/majority system.	FPTP
2. This system is used in the United States of America	FPTP
3. This system is used in South Africa
4. This system translates votes to seats in the fairest manner (i.e. 20% of the votes means around 20% of the seats)	PL
5. This system tends to result in dominant party or two party systems	FPTP
6. In this system you usually cast your vote for a party rather than a person.	FPTP
7. This system fairly often results in coalition government.	PL
8. Small parties are unlikely to make it to parliament when this system is used.	FPTP
9. Women are more likely to be well-represented in parliament when this system is used.	PL
10. There is a strong link between MPs and their constituents in this system.	PL

Should the state continue to be the primary focus of "security" in world politics? Why?

Modern thinking on “Security” in world politics is shrouded with a “state based and external-directed conception” (Bilgin, 2003; 5, 203) that in practice labels sovereignty as quintessential. This mentality means international borders are safeguarded, but in the context of third world nations many face an ‘insecurity dilemma’ arising from domestic ‘threats’ to state security; rather than using the individuals and communities who make up a nation as the referent for security the state is seen and acts as the sole agent of security. Policy makers in third-world countries using this top-down approach put limits on the exercise of domestic freedoms for purposes of state consolidation (Bilgin 2003; 5, 206). The problem here is whether the focus is truly on the people or just the desires of the state; that is, do the state’s privileges come at public sacrifice? If so, then the state is focused on its own survival – that is, state security rather than human security.

Bilgin (2003; 5, 207) says that the absolution of the Soviet threat presented an opportunity to broaden the security agenda and to point to threats faced by individuals and social groups. Rather, the elimination of the competing superpowers scenario allowed for security in traditional assumption of interstate framework to be dropped for focus on the international roles of non-state actors and humanitarian rights.

The question of ‘Who’s security?’ could be addressed by asking whether or not the current ideology of state security (physical, structural and social) is effective. Increasing economic disparity within and between states, hardships for those on the fringes of globalisation and its ‘benefits’, xenophobia against those from less-developed nations, and spreading intrastate conflict merit the need for increased interest in human security.

The failings of the state in multiple global instances show how the state can no longer be seen as the sole agent of security. The notion of state security is not synonymous with individual security; states provide security as a means of gaining more power in relation to other nations. As there is no universally accepted standard of security- different states, cultures, religions, and individuals prescribe to different ideals and standards- social relations become vital, and individuals become referents for security as well as agents.

Security should be emancipation from threats and the fear of such; which threats are prioritised then depends on the focus, but world politics has been forced into risk management by omnipresence of risk. Focusing on societal security rather than empowering the mechanisms of the state is favourable “as collective interest is national interest, failed states do not apply themselves to the collective interest effectively” (Bilgin 2003; 5, 215).

Society is unfixed, and must be viewed as a “process of negotiation, affirmation, and reproduction-instead of as an objective reality or independent variable” (Bilgin, 2003; 5, 213). The components of security are interdependent – disruption in one place affects other parts of the world. A broader security agenda, therefore, requires greater social movements, nongovernmental organisations, and transnational citizens to effectively take in the global scope of security rather than the conditioned focus on analysis of the state.

How to theories help us to understand, explain and potentially transform the world in which we live?

Theories help one to understand, explain and transform the world one lives in by allowing one to conceptualize contextualize and visualize both past and current events, their causes and their consequences (Burchill, 1996:13). The role that theories play in transformation is perhaps the most important aspect of theories because transformation only arises out of the reevaluation of what constitutes norms.

A theory is just a theory until it is put in practice. Jackson puts it quite eloquently in his description of the fallacy of theory. Jackson says that fallacy of theory is that it is academics that use theory, not the states that are being theorized about (Jackson, 2010:6). My argument is that both explanatory theories and constitutive theories are equally important because they compliment each other by sometime offering a constructive critique.

It is important then to distinguish between the two main types of theory in international relations. These two theories are explanatory theory and constitutive theory respectively. An explanatory theory takes the point of view that the theory itself is separate from reality and only exists because of the observer, observed effect. Constitutive theory on the other hand takes the perspective that theory itself is not external to reality and that theory and reality both affect each other respectively (Burchill, 15).

To illustrate the importance of both theories, one can apply them to a single aspect of international relations such as the role of war. From an explanatory perspective, war arises out of conflicts between nations and is an inevitable part of international relations. From a constitutive perspective, the acceptance of war as an integral part of international relations may have stemmed from such theories as Hobb’s State of Nature and his description of the essence of anarchy for its players as “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short” (1651). Hobbs may have been biased. Perhaps he thought war was inevitable without a hegemon because he did know any better. To say that Hobb’s theory has had no impact on global wars may be naïve.

In conclusion, both theoretical schools of thought are equally important because the explanatory school of thought helps one to better understand an issue while the constitutive school of thought continually pushes us to reevaluate the explanatory perspective as well as instill hope within academia that theories are not disconnected from reality. And that continuing to work on and think about new theories can improve the lives of people. What is the point of understanding the problems of a system if one cannot attempt to correct them?

List of References:

· Hobbs,T, The Leviathon. 1651.

· Jackson, P.T, What is Theory?. 2010.

· Burchill, S. Theories of Internation Relations. 2010.

How does the situation in the Chagos islands give credibility to the claim that “all states are sovereign but some are more sovereign that others”?

The situation in the Chagos islands gives credibility to the claim by demonstrating how two states with power can blatantly disregard the welfare of another nation without power in order to attain their own national interests, namely the United States and Britain.

According to Houbert, its was because of the rise of Communism that the United States and Britain felt they needed setup bases in the Indian ocean to prevent the spread of communist ideologies (1992: 466). The USSR has land access to the rest of Asia, which gave them the ability to spread their communist ideologies with relative ease. The only way for the United States and Britain to gain influence into Asia was to setup a base on the island of Diego Garcia.

What is important to note here that they did not simply setup a base on Diego Garcia, they first deported the population. The local inhabitants, which had been living there for over 300 years (Pilger, 2004:1) were striped of their national identities and forcefully evicted into the slums of Mauritius. One can draw comparison between how the Diego Garcians were evicted with how the Apartheid state evicted people of colour from their homes.

Another important thing to note is that this took place during the Cold War. People generally learn from their mistake, but not the United States and Britain. Even in recent time, the sovereignty of the United States and Britain is still put ahead of less powerful states. According to Pilger, in 2000 the islanders made a small victory. The high court of Britain ruled their expulsion illegal. This victory was, however, short lived as in 2003 a follow-up case in the High Court of overturned the 2000 judgment (Pilger, 2004:1).

It appears that even in recent time, the United States and Britain are unwilling to admit their mistakes and that all states are sovereign but some states are more sovereign than others.

List of References:

· Houbert, J. (Sep., 1992). The Indian Ocean Creole Islands: Geo-Politics and Decolonization. The Journal of Modern African Studies. 30 (3). 465-484.

· Pilger, J. 2004. When Sin Plucks on Sin: Stealing Diego Garcia. [Online]. Available: http://www.counterpunch.org/pilger10062004.html. [Accessed: 2 August 2010].

Which of South Africa, India and the United States is the most democratic?

To determine which one of South Africa, United States and India is the most democratic country, it is necessary to highlight the socio-economic inequalities that prevail in these countries and cross compare how their respective governments are dealing with these issues. As Abrahamsen says (2000:138), “Democratic practices are never perfect” and it is by this means that one cannot look at the end outcome of a socio-economic reform but must rather look at the intent of the of the policy because to the realization of the outcome may take many decades to achieve. In order to see which country is the most democratic according to the socio-economic definition of democracy, one must compare the different spheres of socio-economic liberation. In this paper we will look at poverty and education.

The redistribution of wealth is a primary focus of any policy that intends to bring any real socio-economic reform to the people of a country. The Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment program launched by the South African government is an example of such a reform. Its aim is to address the inequalities in the economy that arose out of the Apartheid governments polices of racial segregation and align the economy with the demographics of the country (Department of Trade and Industry, 2010:1). This shows that the South African government is so serious about addressing poverty and unemployment that they brought into affect a policy on how the economy should operate.

The global financial crisis of 2009 affected the economies of many countries around the world. The United States manufacturing industry is one of the biggest employers in the country and was hit hard by the recession because of a decrease in global aggregate demand for products such as automobiles. In response the United States government passed the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which allowed the government to stimulate the economy with up to 700 billion Dollars (Recession.org, 2010:1). While this policy may have been necessary to save the global economy from a meltdown, it did not do anything to address the already existing economic inequalities within country. This bill was passed in the interest of the economically elite and not working class Americans.

India has the second highest population on earth. In 1973 more than half of India’s population fell beneath the poverty line (Indian Planning Commission, 2010:1). By initiating sustainable programs, the Indian government has reduced poverty to the lowest levels the country has ever seen. One of the reasons for this is India’s unique view on poverty. The Indian government does not view the poverty line as most western countries do. They measure poverty by the amount of calories a person consumes per day (Indian Child, 2010:1). In alignment with this view of poverty, anti-poverty programs targets issues such as the sustainability of food crops to the provision with shelter. India has been innovative and effective in their fight against poverty.

South Africa has excelled in terms of making education more available. The Bill of Rights, contained within the South African Constitution (1996) stipulates that everyone has the right to basic education. To realize this goal, the South Africa government increased its spending on education and now its contribution to public education is its largest investment (South Africa Government Information, 2010:1). Laws were changed and now it is compulsory for all children between the ages of 7 and 15 years of age to attend school. Many children who come form disadvantaged backgrounds often go to school Hungary as their households have little or no income. This is a problem, as the learning process requires a lot of energy and concentration. In response to this problem, the South African government launched the National Schools Nutrition Programme. As of March 2009, 5,6 million learners are supported on a daily basis by this programme (South Africa Government Information, 2010:1). The South Africa government has done well to address the inequality with education in the country.

In the United States, education is taken seriously. Basic education is funded predominantly by government and has had a very successful history. The United States has a 98 percent literacy rate and is the 20^th most literate country in the world (Nation Master, 2010:1). In the late 1990’s, graduation rates from high schools began to fall. The United States government immediately responded by passing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Great Schools, 2010:1). This law changed the way students were taught, the training of educators and most importantly increased the budget for basic education. The United States has set a good model for other countries on how to make education available to the everyone.

India has a highly developed education system and just like in South Africa and the United States, education is free and compulsory. The problem with education in India is that social conditions are so bad that often children have to work in order to bring more income into their households (Child Labour: 2010:1). Child labour is perceived as being a necessary practice in order to alleviate poverty. The Indian government is however attacking this issue head on. The Indian government launched the National Child Labour Project, which aims at ending the practice of child labour by strictly enforcing the Child Labour Act of 1987 and provide social security to the families of child labourers so that they do not feel their children have to go work (Ministry of Labour and Employment, 2010:1).

In conclusion,

List of references:

Abrahamsen, Rita, 2000, Disciplining Democracy: Development Discourse and Good Governance on in Africa, London and New York: Zed Books, Chapter 4 (‘The Democratisation of Poverty’) .

Department of Trade and Industry, 2010, BEE Proposal, http:// www.dti.gov.za/bee/complete.pdf, Date Accessed: 5 October 2010.

Recession.org, 2010, U.S Financial Bailout Plan, http://recession.org/library/financial-bailout-plan, Date Accessed: 5 October 2010.

Indian Planning Commission, 2010, Indian Planning Experience: A Statistical Profile, http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/plndx.pdf, Date Accessed: 5 October 2010.

Indian Child, 2010, India Anti-Poverty Programs by Indian Government, http://www.indianchild.com/poverty_in_india.htm, Date Accessed: 5 October 2010.

South African Government Information, 2010, Education, http://www.info.gov.za/aboutsa/education.htm, Date Accessed: 5 October 2010.

Nation Master, 2010, American Education Stats, http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/edu-education, Date Accessed: 6 October 2010:

Great Schools, 2010, What the No Child Left Behind Law Means for Your Child, http://www.greatschools.org/improvement/quality-teaching/no-child-left-behind.gs?content=61, Date Accessed: 5 October 2010.

Child Labour, 2010, Child Labour in India, http://www.childlabor.in/child-labour-in-india.htm, Date Accessed: 5 October 2010.

Ministry of Labour and Employment, 2010. Initiatives towards Elimination of Child Labour – Action Plan and Present Strategy, http://labour.nic.in/cwl/childlabour.htm, Date Accessed: 5 October 2010.

Political prediction for the 21st century

Abstract:

By looking at empirical evidence from the transitional period between the 20^th and 21 century, one can make a prediction of nature of the latter 21^st century. The evidence points to the 21^st century being dominated by realism.

The 21^st century promises to an extraordinary one for humankind. From technological advances in communication technology to pressing issues of climate change, one is for certain; change is inevitable. The question that then remains is that of the nature of the change that the globe will experience. Will the 21^st century be a utopic paradise of international cooperation or will it be a continuation of the exploitive and self-interested state system that has dominated the 20^th century?

Will the 21^st century be a realist one? To answer this question one needs to understand what realism theory is and how it is applicable to international relations study. One needs to then look at empirical evidence from the transitional period between the 20^th century and the 21^st century. Only by following this approach can one predict with any accuracy if the 21^st century will be realist or not. This transitional period is the 20-year period between 1990 and 2010. By looking at the evidence, one can clearly see that 21^st century world politics will be realist in nature and dominated by individual state’s self-interest.

What is realism in international relations and where did it start? Political realism has its roots in the philosophies of classical philosophers such as Thomas Hobbs and Niccolo Machiavelli. Hobbs argues that an anarchist system would always lead to conflict and war between individual parties in the system (Leviathan 2002:535). Machiavelli argues that the single aim of the political is to seek power regardless of ethical or the religious (The Prince 2009:18). While these classic philosophers may have created the precursors to realism, it would be ignorant to say that they would call themselves realists.

The theory of political realism as we know it today is a constitutive theory that says that international politics is dominated by states, and that all states act in their own self-interest because of the nature of humans themselves, acting in their own self-interest. It is a practical theory of how politics is and should be conducted. It places the importance of practical applicability of world politics over the more idealistic aims of liberalism theory. It is for this reason; the need to contrast the realist perspective with the liberalist agenda, that one needs to understand liberalism in its entirety as well. In brief, liberalism is a theory that places idealism above the more pessimistic view of realists.

Liberalism contests that states have more to gain from peaceful international cooperation than war. Liberalism has an optimistic perspective of the nature of humans and believes humans are primarily peaceful. Liberalism also states that other actors beside the state have crucial role in international politics. It is because of these opposing views that liberalism and realism and non-compatible.

Now with a firm understanding of the theories involved, one can contrast empirical evidence from the transition period between the 20^th and 21^st century. This evidence needs to be examined from both a realist and a liberal perspective and needs to be viewed in its social, economic and political contexts. Special attention must be given to issues that are especially pressing such as the scarcity of oil and our dependence on it, the limitations of the United Nations as a global hegemon and the importance of nation security for the realist agenda.

In 1945, the UN charter was signed which effectively create an organization that was supposed to umbrella the globe; put an end to global conflict and deliver on the ideologies proposed by the advocates of liberalism such as the then president of the United Nations, Franklin D. Roosevelt (UN 2010:1). While the initial aim of the United Nations may have liberal, the reality that one finds is quite the opposite.

In 2003, the United States of America and its allies invaded Iraq. According to the then Secretary-General of the United Nation Kofi Annan, the invasion was illegal as it contravened the UN Charter (BBC 2004:1). The reason why this instance is interesting and relevant to this papers argument is because it shows that the state’s self-interest still takes precedence over that of an NGO with considerable influence in world politics. This shows that the liberal idea that other actors play an important role is only true when it is convenient for the state. The state still has the final word in world politics, which tends to suggest that the early 21^st century is realist in nature.

Realism does not only derive its theoretical argument that power is primary for a state’s national interest by having a large military force to protect national security, it also states that power is derived from economic dominance as well. It is rather the combination of the two that makes a state powerful. In February 2000, Ukraine disarmed a large percentage of its nuclear arsenal and handed it over to Russia in return for debt relief. This massive debt owed to Russia had arisen from monies owed from gas consumption (Nuclear Information Project 2010:1).

This example shows that Russia has economic superiority over the Ukraine, as the Ukraine is dependant on Russia for gas. The Ukraine is a direct threat to Russian national security because it posses such a large cash of nuclear weapons and is in relative proximity to Russia. Russia does, however, have economic supremacy over Ukraine. By using this supremacy Russia was able to reduce the threat that the Ukraine had over it. This shows Russia managed to use its power over Ukraine to protect its national security, which once again shows that realism prevailed in the 21^st century.

Another pressing issue of international politics is that of state sovereignty. The international community of states gives sovereignty to other states by means of recognition of that state. Sovereignty implied that a state could make its own choices and govern itself internally. Sovereignty can, however, be taken away just as quickly. In 2000, the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America helped start a coup to overthrow the president of Venezuela. This was because Venezuela drafted a new constitution that was not inline with the United State’s self interest. Venezuela is rich in oil and the United States economy is designed to run on a cheap fuel source such as oil (Global Research 2010:1).

This illustrates the realist nature of the relationship between Venezuela and United States. It shows that sovereignty, an idea so critical to international cooperation which itself is at the heart of liberalism, is so easily overlooked when issues of nation interest are at stake. This supports the argument that the 21^st century will be realist in nature.

In conclusion, while international politics has aspired to live up to liberal ideologies with the creation of such organizations such as the United Nations, the fact of the matter is that national interest takes precedent over how the system should work on paper. States are perpetually trying to gain power with military and economic dominance over other states. Sovereignty is only respected as long as it is convenient for all parties involved in international politics. To suggest that the 21^st century will not be dominated by realism is to suggest that the fundamental nature of humankind will itself change.

List of References:

· Hobbs, T (ed.) 2002, Leviathan, A.P. Martinich, Broadview Press, Toronto.

· Machiavelli, N (ed.) 2009, The Prince, R. Dillion, Veroglyphic Publishing, Plano.

· United Nations n.d., About the United Nations/ History, viewed 15 August 2010, .

· BBC News 2004, Iraq was illegal says Annan, viewed 15 August 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm.

· Nuclear Information Project 2010, Ukraine Special Weapons, viewed 15 August 2010, .

· Global Research 2010, Venezuela: Coup and Countercoup: Revolution, viewed 15 August 2010,

The Paradox of Authority and the Failures of the United Nations.

Abstract:

By examining the theory of contractualism and examine the paradox of authority, one can better understand the shortcomings of the United Nations with regards to Somalia and Rwanda.

The United Nations is a world governing body that has in many ways failed to accomplish its mandate. This failure is especially evident when one looks at the ongoing wars that are forever ravishing the globe. In the paper I will apply the theory of social contractualism (Hobbs, 1651) to the failures of the United Nations with regards to global peace. Special focus will be applied to the paradox of authority that arises out of the inherently flawed structure of contractualism. My argument is that the failures of the United Nations have arisen out of a lack of accountability stemming from this fatal flaw in contractualism.

Before one can understand how the paradox of authority transcribes to the failures of the United Nations, one needs to first understand contractualism in its original context. According to Hobbes, people living in a state of anarchy would inevitably come together to form a state. The idea behind this being that individuals would surrender a small portion of their natural rights in return for the security of the rest of their rights. (Hobbs, 1651). This means that people would surrender their natural right to resort to violence and in return would have their other rights protected; for example their right to life. This agreement between people effectively ends anarchy and the state begins. This agreement is called the social contract. Unfortunately contractualism creates new problems.

One of these problems is the enforcement of the social contract. To have a contract, it needs to be binding. This means that an authority needs to exist within a state to make sure people adhere to the social contract. This authority is the government of a state. The government exercises its rule of law to enforce the contractualism. One can imagine this as the government being able to exercise the natural right of violence that society gave up in order to come together to form the state. The government is able to enforce the social contract among its people, but who enforces the government social contract between it and it’s electorate? This is where the paradox of authority begins. It begins within the state.

Another problem that arises out contractualism is the anarchic state system. This is where there is no longer anarchy among individuals, but rather anarchy among nations. This situation is far more dangerous that the “state of nature” (Hobbs, 1651) because states have far more resources to commit acts such human right violations on a larger scale. The problem is that there is nothing to enforce civil relations between states.

“Man is by nature a political animal.” (Aristotle in the Free Library, 2010). I agree with Aristotle’s interpretation of human nature. This is because humans tend to fix political problems with political solutions. The solution that most believe would fix the problems that arose out of contractualism was another form of contractualism, namely the United Nations. The idea behind this is if all states come into contract with each other, there will be one authority that enforces peace on a global level and enforces good governance within sovereign states. This is Hobbsian contractualism brought up one level in political scope and unit.

This is where the paradox of authority arises. The paradox of authority can be look at as an infinite loop of child-parent relationships in terms of political units. To enforce a contract, there needs to be an authority that enforces it and makes it binding. That enforcing authority itself needs authority to oversee its enforcing of lower-level contracts. This means that another contract is needed and so even another authority is needed to over see that contract.

This cycle of contract-authority can continue infinitely. This is the paradox of authority. Today, the United Nations is where this infinite loop ends. This means that there is no authority that makes sure the United Nations does not violate the contract it has with nation-states. In essence this means that the United Nations has no accountability for its actions. When decisions have no accountability, they are made prematurely thus failures are more likely.

One only needs to look at the failures of the United Nations and in specifically the failures of the United Nations Security Council to see this lack of accountability in one of the biggest reasons for their existence. In the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, there are broad aims that illustrate what the United Nations mandate should be. (1945). These aims include the end of ware and the promotion of peace, the reaffirmation of human rights to all humankinds, the establishment of law where previously there was none and the promotion of social progress for all humankind.

The Black Hawk Down situation that occurred during the early 1990’s can be seen as one of the monumental failures. (Meredith, 2006). The United Nations sanctioned and sent the United States military into Somalia for a peacekeeping mission. The United States wanted to look good in front of the world because its was an election year and sending in their army as peacekeeping force would have achieved this image. Had the United Nations achieved their aim, the United States would have received the good publicity it was look for.

The situation in Somalia unfortunately escalated into a war, which left Somalia extremely distrustful of the United Nations and the West. Somalia was left in a worse state that it was in when the United States entered the country. Had there been some accountability in the United Nations for their choices and actions, they may have approached the situation completely differently. This incident changed the foreign policy of the United States and ultimately led to an unwillingness to intervene in the Rwandan Genocide by the United States.

In 1994, 800 000 Tutsi’s were murdered in what became known as the Rwandan Genocide (BBC, 2008). The United Nations got involved too late and the United States refused to get involved at all because of the Black Hawk Down incident that occurred four years earlier. Here one can see how previous choices and actions led to people suffering that had nothing to do with the initial situation. If the United Nations has made better choices, nearly a million people could have had their lives spared.

In conclusion, the paradox of authority stems from the structural nature of Hobbsian contractualism (1651) and that this paradox means eventually there will be an authority at the top of a chain that does not have any accountability to a higher authority.

This is the case with the United Nations. The United Nations made a bad decision with Somalia that ultimately left Somalia in a worse condition than it was in when the United Nation sent in the American military as a peacekeeping force. This bad decision subsequently affected the United State’s foreign policy. When the United States and the United Nation was really needed in Rwanda, they did not respond and subsequently 800 000 people were murdered. It is apparent that the paradox of authority lead to a lack of accountability which is ultimately lead to the failures of the United Nations.

List of References:

· Hobbs, T, 1651. Leviathan. England.

· BBC News. Rwanda: How the Genocide Happened. [Online]. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1288230.stm [Accessed 12 May 2010].

· The Free Library. Book I: Chapter II. [Online]. Available: http://aristotle.thefreelibrary.com/A-Treatise-on-Government/1-2 [Accessed 12 May 2010].

· Meredith, M. 2006. The State Of Africa. Great Britain: The Free Press.

On the nationalization of mines in South Africa.

The nationalization of the mines in South Africa is a controversial issue at the best of time. Mining is an enormous part of the South African economy. This means that the decision to do so would affect each and every citizen. One needs to weight the positive affects against the negative affects of such an action. My argument is that the positive affects of the nationalization of South African mines would outweigh the negative affects with proper management.

The constitution of the republic of South Africa states that the mineral riches of the country belong to its people (1996). Currently mostly conglomerate companies own mines. The nationalization of the mines would mean that ownership in the mines by private parties would be transferred to government. To understand this further, one needs to look at potential pitfalls of this action.

Mismanagement or corruption in the handling of profits by government would not server the general social interest of the country. In this case, the nationalization of the mines would only serve to further enrich the bourgeoisie and expand the already wide gap between the rich and poor. One only needs to look at the situation of the power utility Eskom to see how a situation like this could arise.

Investor confidence is an important aspect for the South African economy as it stimulates economic growth. The nationalization of the mines would no doubt weaken investor confidence in South Africa, which could have a disastrous impact on the economy. Economic growth would decline which means that there would possibly be less jobs, which would negatively affect society. The nationalization of the mines would not just have negative affects. There would be a positive spin-off too.

Most of the revenue generated by the mines ends up in the pockets of private individuals. Assuming that government is properly managing mines, there would be a much need influx of cash which could be spent on improving the life’s of South Africans. More people could then have education. Poverty levels would decrease, as more people would have employable skills. The spinoff of this is that crime would also decrease.

The nationalization of the mines in South Africa would bring in the transformation that South Africa has long been seeking since 1994. The question then is not if we should nationalize the mines, but rather if we are able to manage them without corruption so they can actually benefit society.

List Of References:

· 2006. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

John Hobbs

1.

Hobb’s contract theory explains the constitutive and not the historical causes of the state because the social contract effectively establishes the state in the first place. The idea behind the social contract is that it protects the rights of the people and limits the power of the ruling authority which infers that historically those rights of the people were not protected and were abused by the authority of the land therefore it favours sapientia over prudential because the knowledge behind the social contract is not build upon historically proven wisdom, but is build upon new wisdom. “There is really no inevitable progress of constitutional theory through history”. (Vincent, 1987:82) I agree with Vincent about this relevance of historical knowledge with regards to the social contract as proposed by Hobbs (1651).

2.

The mains differences between Aristotle’s and Hobb’s political ideas is that Aristotle believed the theory of constitution’s purpose was to regulate how government ruled while Hobb’s believed that government purpose was to support the constitution. Their idea of political power was vastly different too. Aristotle believed that political power arose as a result of inequalities within society while Hobb’s believed political power arose out of a mutual interest to procure security between peoples. (Hobbs, 1651).

3.

In the state of nature, Hobb’s identifies three causes of war. These are competition, diffidence and glory. “The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation.” (Hobbs, 1651). In modern times, war is often fought under the idea of safety while in reality it is being fought for greed. The war in Iraq is an example of this. Depending on who one speaks to, this war could either be in the name of safety of in the name of greed. In reality it is probably a bit of both. The UN sent in the American army into Somalia, this can be looked at as being in the name of glory. Somalia was supposed to make the American government look good in front on the world.

Reference List:

· HOBBS, T, 1651. The Leviathon.

· VINCENT, M, 1987, Theories of the State.

A failed state, a failed attempt to resuscitate it.

Today Somalia is a failed state. Somalia is anarchistic with there being no real authority rule. There is no rule of law or military to speak of. As with most African countries, Somalia bears the post-colonial scars of divided territories and an even more divided peoples. The United Nations is a global organization that is supposed to promote peace and prevent war. Unfortunately the UN failed to prevent anarchy and chaos within Somalia and now it seems that Somalia is too far gone to for the UN to restore peace and order. My argument for this paper is that if the UN had successfully executed their four principles for peace as identified in the “An Agenda for Peace” by Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1992), Somalia would have decayed into state run by militia-men. To understand how the four principles for peace could have saved Somalia, we need to understand them in their full contexts and how they were or were not adhered to within Somalia.

The first principle for peace is preventative diplomacy. This is the “most desirable and efficient employment of diplomacy”. (Boutros-Ghali 1992:205) The idea is the age-old prevention is better that cure methology. Boutros-Ghali goes on to elaborate his ideas of preventative diplomacy. These ideas include measures to build goodwill between conflicting parties, fact-finding and information sharing between conflicting parties and the UN, early warning systems, the preventative deployment of the UN peacekeeping force and use of demilitarized zones where international aid groups can work without fear for their safety. (Boutros-Ghali 1992:205).

The UN should have identified the potential for conflict in Somalia fairly soon after its colonial independence. Somalia was relatively stable until the United States removed economic aid for the country in 1989. (Meredith 2006:465). The already weakened government collapsed and a power struggle arose between the respective ethnic clans, which effectively tore the country into pieces and brought it into instability. The UN should have never allowed Somalia to become so dependant of foreign aid for that situation was unsustainable and doomed the country to collapse in on itself.

The second principle for peace is that of peacemaking. This is the idea of bringing hostile parties to discussion where they work out their sources of frustrations and conflict. (Boutros-Ghali 1992:207). Peace is so important for the global social interest that parties may be forced into peaceful negotiations by use of economic sanctions and the use of military force. This is exactly why the UN brought in the United States military. The idea was to forge a stable state. The way in which the UN went about attaining this was flawed from the start. The UN never encouraged the Somali militia leader the de-arm themselves. (Meredith 2006:465). They instead tried to work a solution with Somali clans that were armed for war.

The third principle for peace is that of peacekeeping. This is the idea of maintaining the peace once peace is attained. The UN failed at this too. When the United States peacekeeping forces originally arrive in Somalia there was a ceasefire between the clans. This is what opened the opportunity in the first place for the UN to get involved in the Somali conflict. Peacekeeping forces were less than diplomatic. Instead of taking a neutral approach, they allowed a rival militia of Aideed to occupy a town. This sent the wrong message to a powerful clan. The clan responded by starting a riot, which killed several member of the peacekeeping force and started a manhunt for Aideed by the American forces. (Meredith 2006:479). Ironically the American forces went to Somalia in a peacekeeping capacity and left a war behind.

The fourth principle for peace is that of peace-building. Peace-building is the idea of identifying and supporting structures, which are conducive to building a peaceful relationship between two parties. (Boutros-Ghali 1992:204). Somalia never truly got to a point where this could occur. The Black Hawk Down incident occurred and the United States left the country. Had the peacekeepers remained in the Somalia and brokered a peace deal, they could have issued in a representative unity government or taught the different clans to work together towards common national goals.

In conclusion, the four principles for peace are theoretically useful in resolving conflict and maintaining the peace between nations and within nations. The UN was unfortunately unable to successfully use these principles to defuse the situation with Somalia.

List of references:

· Boutros-Ghali, B. 1992. An Agenda for Peace.

· Meredith, M. 2006. The State Of Africa.

Choices and Responsibilities

Jean Paul Sartre claims “man is condemned to be free”. (1946). Sartre is saying that humans are fully responsible for their own values and therefore responsible for themselves. Ultimately individuals must make their own choices without direction from institutions such as law, government and religion. Humans are free to choose whatever they like. Because of the freedom of choice humans are completely responsible for the choices they make. Existentialists believe that responsibility is tied to freedom. I agree with Sartre’s claim.

When a person makes a bad choice, they and them alone bear the responsibility of that choice. The same can be said when a person makes a good choice. They are solely responsible for the benefits that the choice brings. Existentialists do, however, believe that responsibility is dark side of choice. (Harle, 1999).

When Sartre writes that man is condemned to be free, he is elaborating on the statement that man is responsible for everything he does. If God does not exist, man must live his life without any guidance. Even if God does exist, he holds a silent position in the world of man in which case we are free anyway. Existentialists also believe that one cannot have excuses for their actions as they are entirely responsible for their own actions. One of the paradoxes that I saw in Sartre’s theory can best be looked at, as humans have no choice but to have choice.

Choice for humans ultimately means that we define our own images of ourselves. If God is not telling us what to and we are in charge of our own destinies, then we are in charge of our own self-perception.

I personally subscribe to this philosophy. For example, if a person gets into a car with a drunk driver and the car is in an accident, it is not the drunk drivers fault that you were hurt. You got into the car; it is your responsibility as it stemmed from one of your choices. This causal manner in which to look at responsibility is a good way of justifying Sartre’s philosophy to a logical mind.

“Sartre's atheistic Existentialism focuses on mankind's acts and responsibility when facing a universe devoid of laws and marked by a non-existence of God.” (Farzaneh, 2009). Laws are conceptual boundaries. People have the freedom not to abide by these law. They are then responsible for the consequences that this may bring. This shows us Sartre is correct in his statement. One could even say that slaves are as free as their masters. It may not be a convenient freedom but they are free to take their own live.

List of references:

· Sartre, J. 1946. Existentialism is a Humanism.

· Harle, R. 1999. Condemned to be free.

· Farzaneh, A. 2009. Sartre’s existential philosophy in a nutshell. [Online]. Available: http://western-philosophy.suite101.com/article.cfm/sartres_existential_philosophy_in_a_nutshell [Accessed 15 March 2010].

Self-interest is the fatal flaw in all Political Systems

“The executive of a modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” (MARX, 1848). The above statement informs us that Marx viewed the modern state as proposed by Hobbs (1651), Locke (1689) and Rousseau (1762) respectively as existing in order to safeguard the interests of the upper class. While Marx’s statement was contrary to the norm of the time period, it does deserve credit for identifying a possible flaw of the social contract (HOBBS, 1651) between society and state. Marx is; however, wrong in claiming that all states are only acting in the interest of the upper class and not the working class as the very theory that state is build on says otherwise.

Thomas Hobbes’ describes the lives of people before the formation of the state as being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. (HOBBS, 1651). He believed that individuals would inevitably establish a state in order to protect themselves from themselves. Hobbs claimed that an independent state would serve as an intermediary and protect the social interest over the self-interest of individuals. According to Hobbs, everyone whom was part of the society would be protected by the rule of law imposed by the state regardless of whether that person was in the dominant class or the working class.

John Locke also argued a similar view with respect to the “modern state” critiqued by Marx (1848). There were some differences between what Hobbs’s and Locke’s ideas were of what exactly the benefit of a state would be for society. Locke believed that the state would be able to protect the private property, freedom and lives of those whom chose to live within it. The “bourgeoisie” as proposed by Marx is defined by accumulated wealth and private property. At a first glance it may appear as though Marx has a valid point. Upon further glance into Lock’s Second Treatise of Government (1689), it becomes evident that Lock believed anyone could own property as long as they worked the land. This includes the working class.

In the case of a failed state, it is more than likely possible that the state is in fact acting in the interests of the upper class. This should not be allowed to happen, as it is contradictory to the theory a social contract. Maximilien Robespierre theory of how a state should deal with corruption solves this issue. Robespierre says, “the characteristic of a popular government is confidence in the people and severity towards itself”. (Robespierre, 1794). What he means is that a state should internally regulate itself and deal with corruption.

The theory is solid. A state should act in the social interest autonomously. In reality this rarely happens. Regardless of what political system one lives in, whether it is Communism or Capitalism, people are corruptible and it is usually the working class who suffer the consequences of this corruption. Therefore Marx is wrong in his claim.

List of References:

· HOBBS, T, 1651. The Leviathan.

· LOCKE, J, 1689. Second Treatise on Government.

· MARX, K, 1848. Communist Manifesto.

· ROBESPIERRE, M, 1794. Justification of the Use of Terror.

· ROUSSEUA, JJ, 1762. On the Moral and Political Principles of Domestic Policy.

Revolutions have pitfalls

Peter Hallward claims that the Haitian revolution differed from the American and French revolution because it truly applied Thomas Hobbs’s concept of the state of nature (Hobbs, 1651). Hallward also claims that “the declaration of human freedom” (Hallward, 1762) was fought for at any price and that this action was contrary to the thinking of the time period. Hallward then goes on to claim that people seeking true liberalist concepts in the modern day should look towards the Haitian revolution.

I disagree with Hallward’s claim that a state of nature was truly applied in the Haitian revolution. Toussaint L’Ouverture was the leader of the Haitian revolution. L’Ouverture was one of the revolutions biggest perpetuators and had an enormous influence on its outcome. After L’Ouverture expelled the French commissioner, he wrote the new Haitian constitution and named himself governor-for-life. (Knight, 2000:1).

A governor-for-life is a dictator. Any form of dictatorship is completely against the natural rights of a society. One can only speculate how long L’Ouverture would have been in power had he not been removed and how far he would have gone to justify this power. He could have possible violate many peoples natural right, in which case Hallard would have had a different opinion.

Hallards also stated that the Haitian believed “the declaration of human freedom” would be fought for at any cost by them. This is statement is correct because the Haitian generals wrote in their Act of Independence (Tonerre,1804) that they would rather die than live under French domination. This general attitude toward living under French rule was probably one of the biggest factors that led to the independence of Haiti.

This because what Haiti was attempting had never bee done before. It was a completely new precedent. All the factors were stacked against Haiti winning their war of independence. The fact that the Haitians would not compromise and were so determined is what ultimately led to the freedom. I do not think the colonial powers ever expected Haiti to be successful in their revolution.

In conclusion, while the aim of the Haitian revolution might have been true to the idea of the state of nature, in practicality, it had faults just like the American and French revolutions. One of the reasons that Haiti won the revolution was because of their sure perseverance and brut will. I do not think that the Haitian revolution has any more or less value than the American or French. It is different in its respective right as this was the first time that a nation of slaves had rebelled but it still has its pitfalls; L’Ouverture’s lust for power which left him dictator for life and weakened the democratic fiber of Haiti.

List of References:

· HOBBS, T, 1651. Leviathan.

· HALLWARD, P, 1762. Haitian inspiration: On the bicentenary of Haiti’s independence.

· TONERRE, B, 1804. Liberty or death.

· KNIGHT, F, 2000. The Haitian Revolution. Times Live. [Online]. Available: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/105.1/ah000103.html [Accessed 24 February 2010]

Robespierre’s view of Political Morality and Accountability

Maximilien Robespierre was an idealistic philosopher. He believed in democratic governance and was greatly influenced by the concepts introduced by Jean Jacques Rousseau, namely the “General Will”. (ROUSSEAU, 1762) Robespierre claimed, “the characteristic of a popular government is confidence in the people and severity towards itself” (ROBESPIERRE, 1794). In other words, Robespierre’s conclusion is that a non-corrupt government has to trust its electorate as well as be strict and severe in enforcing internal discipline.

Robespierre arrives at this conclusion because of a number of factors. First of all, he subscribes to the view of equality for all. He is, in the context of the time period, a true libertarian. This is why he believes that the government must be strict towards itself. The aim of this idea is to prevent an aristocracy or another monarch from developing.

He also speaks about the government being severe towards itself. Robespierre certainly expects factions to arise within government that aim at derailing the principles at the core of the republic. He is saying that if this is to occur, government must be severe in punishing those involved in the movement.

Robespierre view is that if found guilty of corruption, the punishment is ultimately execution. He claims that corrupt officials are the allies of the enemies of the revolution and should be punished with the same level of severity. This is an interesting statement because what Robespierre is saying is that the government needs to hold itself accountable for internal actions that go against the core principals on which it was founded.

Robespierre also speaks about the confidence that the government should have in its people. This trust should arise out of the relationship that the people have with their government. The people elect a government that has a shared respect for the “General Will” (ROUSSEAU, 1762) and “virtues” (ROBESPIERRE, 1794) of the society. The government should have nothing to fear from the people as they have shared interests.

If on the other hand the government did not trust the people, it would be because their interests were not shared. This lack of trust would arise out of conscience and suspicion on the governments behalf; officials knowingly violating the principles that the society was build on and worrying about the consequences of such actions. Upon observing the lack of trust, one could assume that the government was not being strict in enforcing the values of the society and is ultimately corrupted on some front.

In conclusion, Robespierre’s claim can be looked at as a model for a healthy political system. A political system governed by the strict enforcement of law where officials are held accountable for corrupt actions. The lack of trust in the electorate on the government’s behalf should serve as a marker of a failed or failing state.

List of References:

· ROBESPIERRE, M, 1794. Second Treatise on Government.

· ROUSSEUA, JJ, 1762. On the Moral and Political Principles of Domestic Policy.