Explain Western Political Philosophy

In My Humble Opinion
1

I have some Chinese friends and several times I have found myself in the position of having to explain to someone some basics about western governments. Stuff that is basic knowledge for any educated westerner and which is totally unknown by most Asian people. After I have done my best I figure I have done a pretty poor job and probably confused them more than anything else. Maybe there is no simple way to explain the fundamentals of or culture which have taken centuries to develop to their present point.

So, I would like to ask everybody knowledgeable and articulate to contribute to this thread and help me explain the fundamentals of western civilization.

While the USA is a good example and its constitution reflects many of those values, I do not want to make this a case study of the USA even if in determined instances it may serve as an example along with any other western countries.

Also constitutions are only a reflection at best of the country that wrote them. At worst they are empty words. As has been pointed out so many times, the UK has no written constitution and yet is an example of freedom and democracy while the constitutions of the communist dictatorships are full of good words which are void of any effect in practice. Also, many people believe the Supreme Court of the US is reading stuff into the Constitution which isn’t really there.

So let us try to distill the essence of western political philosophy to the simplest terms where it may be understood by someone totally foreign to it and yet does not lose its meaning.

I will start. Feel free to expand on the points I mention, to add new ones or to correct any inaccuracies But please let us not make this thread into a deep discussion of the finer points.

= = = = =

1- Rule of law. We are governed by laws, not by people. Everybody is subject to the law, from the top down. The laws are made by a legislative which is representative of the people.

2- Limitation of government powers. The powers of the government are strictly limited, by laws and by custom, to those strictly needed to carry out its functions. The government cannot interfere with the individual unless it has a compelling reason for the benefit of the public.

3- Separation of powers (AKA checks and balances). To better limit the powers of the government it is divided into three equal branches (legislative, executive and judicial) with no one being above the other.

4- The individual is recognized as having certain dignity and rights which no one, not even the government can take away.

5- Among these rights is the freedom of thought, of conscience, of religion, of expression. They cannot be limited in any way by the state except in extreme cases and for compelling public interest.

6- Due process: everybody is presumed innocent until declared guilty after due process of a trial where he will have certain guarantees (defense, etc)

= = = = = = =

OK, that should get the ball rolling. Feel free to add more, to explain the ones mentioned, to provide examples which illustrate the point well. Just try to keep it simple so it can be understandable to people who do not know even the basics of western political philosophy.

2

Sounds good… the only thing that jumped out at me as wrong on first reading was the Power Triumverate (Judicial, Executive, and Legislative).

As far as I know, and I could be wrong, that is mostly an American thing… many countries have similar set-ups, but that particular model is American.

Anyone else know more on this??

3

Try this for a start:

**The purpise of the government is to serve the individual citizens.

4

Tristan, AFAIK all European countries have the same separation of powers which develops from the middle ages and even back to the Romans.

In medieval times and certainly in modern history you see all over Europe the separation of powers which gradually eveolves to what we have today. I cannot think of any western country which does not have such a separation

5

Western Political Philosophy?

(We actually have some?)

Basically, he who cheats, lies and gets away with it, gets to cheat and lie another day.

6

And in what article of the constitution would one find that? <sigh>

7

Thanks sailor… I have to admit that most of my knowledge of European government is about 500 years out of date. I know more about Medieval kingdoms and how they operated than about modern Parlimentary Monarchy.

Keep it up, I thought it was a good post!!

8

One thing you might add is recognition of foreign sovereignty; ie the idea that other nations have rights equal to those of your own nation.

9

I think it comes down to the idea of the social contract. A government rules with the consent of the governed, who are justified in removing the government if it violates the terms of that consent. All the other aspects of contemporary Western political thought pretty much follow from that basic concept. Obviously there are many more aspects to something as complex as the political philosophy of an entire culture, but it seems to me the social contract is at the heart of it.

10

Good Luck Sailor. IMO you can diagram the conceptual structures of western political philsophy and differences vis a vis other systems for your Chinese guests until you are blue in the face and they will most likely still look at you quizzically.

Your 4th item is the key one. Much of western political theory and practice centers (imperfectly and hypocritically at times) around the serious belief that the individual citizen/political actor has some bundle of inherent rights. For all the promises the various Marxist etc revolutions may have made, this idea, in practical terms, is foreign to both real world, day to day Marxism as implented in China, and more importantly (especially for non-Chinese Asians) to the historical Chinese/Asian cultural context.

Without a general understanding (and faith in) this concept the rest (separation of powers etc) will seem like some interesting political paradigmatic tinkertoy that is no better or worse at root than what they live with.

11

Here’s a little reading list for you.

John Locke, Two Treatises of Government
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Separation of powers is a purely modern phenomenon. It certainly has medieval and Greco-Roman precedents, but is certainly not the natural product of a continuous tradition of governance.

MR

12

this is by no means meant to be a criticism of capitalism, but i think you need to include the maxim that ‘money talks’, and that the implementation of the principles outlined in the op are largely affected by money - who has it, and who is willing to do what for it. again, not a criticism, but a reality, and not necessarily a bad one. it’s what motivates us. and unlike china and its communist ilk, our society is (ideally) set up in a way that allows access to money, limited only by our personal ambitions and abilities.

13

That seemed like a pretty decent summary of American political philosophy. In Europe though, things are a bit more confusing.

Britain doesn’t have a constitution, so the rights of British subjects are supported by Parliamentary tradition.

I’m not sure limitation of powers has much of a tradition in Europe. As pointed out earlier, checks and balances are more American than European: most European countries have 1 legislature, not 2. (An exception is Britain, but there the House of Lords has substantially less power than the House of Commons.)

The presumption of innocence does not appear to be universal; for example, it does not exist in France, nor (if I’m correct) does it exist in Italy.

Here’s an interesting link, which compares the US judicial traditions with those of other countries:

http://www.usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/freedom/freedom4.htm

<Actually, there are a lot of “interesting links”, though I could find none that provided a pithy summary of contemporary European political philosophy.>

Europe does have a Convention on Human Rights, though I am unclear about its effects in practice.

14

I’d keep your list, but call it American Political Philosophy, rather than Western Political Philosophy. I’d add that the following overlapping components are usually (always?) reflected in current western political systems.

Rule of Law (articulated well above)

Representative Democracy - with free and fair elections, in addition to free speech rights.
Whether there has ever been a peaceful change of power due to an election is a rough indicator for whether a give country is democratic. Admittedly, Japan would have (unfairly) failed this test until I believe the early 1990s.

Civil and Political Rights - such as (again) freedom of speech, expression, etc. These are typically not absolute; even in the US there are restraints relating to libel and commercial speech.
Other notable rights pertain to curbing the powers of law enforcement, partly to prevent the abuse of such powers.

An independent judiciary, which perhaps is corollary to the rule of law.

Private property, which delimits certain powers and responsibilities (eg paying taxes) to particular individuals or private institutions.

15

I wouldn’t say that list is specifically American – well, not rule of law or representative democracy, anyway.

16

A slight hijack here, but related -

I visited Monticello (again) last week. On the drive home I began to think about Jefferson, et al and was completely taken with the idea that these men that accomplished so much were all in the right place, at the right time, and at the same time. The fact that Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence at the age of 33 blew me away. I don’t recall what I was doing 3 years ago, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t setting out a statement about the rights of man and waving it in front of the greatest power on Earth.

17

Woops. I meant to suggest that the original posting had an American flavor. The elements that I proposed were intended to have a broader scope: they were meant to apply to the set of largely democratic nations that are sometimes referred to as, “The West”.

So, for example, all western democracies maintain independent judiciaries, though I understand that not all have an elaborate mechanism of judicial review, whereby unconstitutional laws are commonly struck down by the judiciary. (Correct me if I’m wrong on that.)

18

Well, Jefferson did crib most of the Declaration from John Locke, who was well older than 33 when he wrote his Second Treatise on Government. Think you could have done some righteous plagiarism when you were 33? :wink:

MR

19

This week the Economist magazine published a proposed a draft constitution for Europe, which touches on some of the ideas here.

The link is

The first article states, in part,

ARTICLE 1

Founding principles

The Union is established by the Treaty on European Union signed
in Maastricht on February 7th 1992, and founded on the European
Communities.

The Union shall uphold the principles of liberty, democracy and the
rule of law.

The Union and its Member States shall respect the fundamental
rights of citizens, including, but not limited to, those rights
guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on
November 4th 1950, and rights common among Member States. (1)

All powers, other than those clearly delegated to the Union by this
constitution and by the treaties of the Union, are reserved to the
Member States.
<snip>

Just thought that you might be interested.

20

flowbark wrote:

Do you consider England to be part of Europe? The Magna Carta, signed in 1215, placed some limits on the soverign’s power; these limits weren’t always honored, but that’s still the case today.