What is Political Philosophy?

The advent of the Second World War has not only destroyed the social, economic, and moral fabric of human society, the global conflict also erased humankind’s faith in reason itself. The rise of fascism and Nazism in Europe meant that men and women no longer believed in reason. After the end of the war, political philosophy became an abstraction of society's aspirations. Human civilization lost its passion in pursuing the moral good. Echoing Machiavelli, people point to the distinction between the real and the ideal in politics. Even philosophy itself turned to language. Politics meant nothing to scholars who would rather do linguistic analysis.

The Revival of Political Theory after the War

However, there is no way of escaping the political. Social upheavals during the 1960s and the looming threat of communism overtaking everything else imply that liberal societies have to find their voice somewhere. Indeed, John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” almost single-handedly caused the rebirth of a philosophy that was at its dead end. Rawls took to task the prevailing utilitarian paradigm at the time.

Utilitarianism, as espoused by Mill and Bentham, justified the sacrifice of some in favor of the majority. The politics of utilitarianism is simple: maximum welfare at the expense of others. But to sacrifice the few in favor of the many violates the core principle of reason itself—life as inherently inviolable. It is unreasonable to sacrifice at the altar of politics the life of any human being.

Rawls is concerned about reconciling freedom and equality. The strategy is to design society on the basis of a method that will ensure the equal positioning of people. Rawls asks the participants to this social contract to imagine the starting point of society in which in the choice of the principles of justice, no one is in a position of advantage. "Justice as fairness" is about the protection of our basic liberties. The basic liberties are non-negotiable. For Rawls, inequalities are not bad as long as these are to the benefit of the worst off in society.

Liberalism as an Enlightenment Project

Liberalism is rooted in the Enlightenment. The state represents what reason is in terms of systems in which humankind is able to organize and legitimize itself in history and politics. The state, in this regard, must serve the very ends of reason, which is to render just service to human endeavors and to allow the individual to achieve the fullest enjoyment of his or her freedom.

Reason itself is the very unfolding of every person’s potential in the universe. It is the self-realization of the Spirit or Geist into flesh. Reason is the truth, the reality, or the actuality of life. This explains the dictum that everything happens for a reason. The logic of reality cannot be otherwise. Reason, we are taught, is freedom. When a powerful man talks about things without a sense of reasonableness, then he is simply fettered by his own bias and prejudices.

Political philosophy is the Spirit giving voice to human reason. Reason is the light of human subjectivity. Reason makes it an imperative that a person must not be reduced to the level of an object. Each human being is endowed with the power to be. This inner principle is not something that is bestowed like an attribute or an adjective that is added to a thing. A person is essentially freedom itself. To diminish the foundational value of freedom is to demean humanity.

Max Weber's 3 Types of Authority

The sociologist and philosopher Max Weber distinguishes three types of authority—charismatic, traditional and legal-rational—each of which corresponds to a brand of leadership that is operative in contemporary society. Jeffry Ocay, a scholar in critical theory, explains that the achievement of a particular form of political order in any democracy depends on prevailing conditions “in which different forms of society cohere” and different ways “in which consensus is achieved.”

First, charismatic authority points to an individual who possesses certain traits that make a leader extraordinary. This type of leader is not only capable of but actually possesses the superior power of charisma to rally diverse and conflict-prone people behind him. His power comes from the massive trust and almost unbreakable faith people put in him.

Second, traditional authority indicates the presence of a dominant personality. This leader is someone who depends on established tradition or order. While this leader is also a dominant personality, the prevailing order in society gives him the mandate to rule. This type of leadership, however, is reflective of everyday routine and conduct.

Third, legal-rational authority is one that is grounded in clearly defined laws. The obedience of people is not based on the capacity of any leader but on the legitimacy and competence that procedures and laws bestow upon persons in authority. Contemporary society depends on this type of rationalization, as the complexities of its problems require the emergence of a bureaucracy that embodies order and systematization.

Weaknesses and Democratic Deficit

First, charismatic leadership can be problematic because it is somehow based on some form of a messianic promise of overhauling an unjust system. It is not impossible, however, to find such type of a leader, as history would show. Consider Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., or Nelson Mandela. A charismatic leader holds the mission to unite his people amid adversity and differences in order to attain an almost insurmountable goal.

Second, traditional authority poses its particular difficulty insofar as it is based on some kind of a dominant power. For Weber, all authority exhibits some form of domination. A traditional leader may rely on or even exploit prevailing practices. Traditional authority may suffer from a lack of moral regularity in the creation of legal standards.

Third, legal-rational authority makes manifest the power of the bureaucracy over the individual. In the exercise of authority, the administration of power, laws and rules, including institutional duties and protocols, have control over individuals. While order and systematization are desirable, the bureaucracy may not be able to fully address the problems and concerns of everyone, as what the development of nation-states today suggests.

The above exhibit what theorists call "democratic deficits." What this means is that nations fail to thrive because of the failures of their basic institutions. In the Third World, this is often linked to warlordism, political dynasties, and massive corruption. The last result to the impoverishment of a people and the perpetuation of poverty which render them powerless in the state. As a result, insurgency and rebellion remain while those who join mainstream society are marginalized.