Description of Political Philosophy

Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown—if ever. In a vernacular sense, the term "political philosophy" often refers to a general view, or specific ethic, belief or attitude, about politics that does not necessarily belong to the technical discipline of philosophy.

Three central concerns of political philosophy have been the political economy by which property rights are defined and access to capital is regulated, the demands of justice in distribution and punishment, and the rules of truth and evidence that determine judgments in the law.

Bangladesh: A Poor Muslim Democracy

Bangladesh is an interesting puzzle. It is representative of the contemporary postmodern condition when nothing is clear-cut. It is at once both highly developed as well as underdeveloped. Bangladesh is a country that is economically backward and politically quite advanced. Many political and social scientists have often equated democracy with development and capitalism with political freedom. Bangladesh belies both these assumptions. It is a reasonably free society while being one of the world’s poorest economies. Even the Freedom House ratings, which are quite biased against non-Western societies in their measurements, rate Bangladesh as a reasonably free state.

In July of this year, the present government of the Awami League party with Sheikh Hasina Wajid as Prime Minister will complete one full electoral cycle. For a nation that has existed for only 30 years this is quite an achievement. In fact, if one were to compare the Bangladeshi democracy with the American democracy at the age of thirty, the nation of Bengalis will come out quite favorably. In 200 years, the US has yet to allow a woman to run the state.

Bangladesh has already had two women heads of state and the present head of the government, Sheikh Hasina, and the leader of the opposition party, Begum Zia, are both women. It is amazing that this country of a hundred million Muslims looks like a matriarchical society, belying another myth that associates patriarchy with Muslim culture. Bangladesh apparently is destined to destroy widely held myths. First by its very origins it has exploded the myth of Islamic unity. By breaking away from Pakistan, Bangladesh has shown that asabiyyah (Ibn Khaldun’s term for ethnic solidarity) can at times overwhelm Islamic unity. Perhaps the rupture of the united Pakistan is more a commentary on the lip service given to Islamic brotherhood by Muslim leaders than the relative powers of Islam and ethnicity. Nonetheless, the very existence of Bangladesh is a blow to the rhetoric of Islamic unity that most Muslims like to crow about. The present day Muslims of Bangladesh live in greater harmony with its 11% Hindu minority than they did with Muslims of non-Bengali origins.

Bangladesh is not the only case where interests other than Islamic unity have proven more powerful. The quick disintegration of the United Arab Republic, a union of Syria and Egypt that combined Islam, asabiyyah (Arab nationalism) and external threat (from Israel), is another case of Islamic entities splitting for interests other than Islam.

The second myth that Bangladesh has exposed is the claim by some Muslims and many westerners that Islam and democracy are incompatible. Bangladesh while not exactly an exemplary democracy or an advertisement for Islamic governance has nevertheless succeeded in demonstrating that a community dominated by Muslims can have Islam as the state religion and still provide democratic rights to its citizens and freedom of religion to its minorities.

Yes, there are cases of religious discrimination and harassment of minorities in Bangladesh. For example in 1992, when the Babri Masjid was destroyed in India by Hindu nationalists nearly 80 Hindu temples were desecrated in Bangladesh as an act of revenge. If what the Hindus did was a travesty, then what the Bangladeshi Muslims did was 80 times worse. Also in April, unknown miscreants blew a Roman Catholic Church. But these infrequent tragedies apart, Bangladesh is striving to be a good state that treats all its citizens justly.

Its constitution at least is determined to do justice to all. It recognizes the primacy of Islam (Article 2A) but guarantees the freedom of religion of all communities (Article 41). Article 11 of the constitution asserts that the Republic will be a democracy that respects all the human rights and freedoms of all its citizens. Article 39 specifically protects the freedom of speech and expression of every citizen (39a) and 39b guarantees the freedom of the press.

Cynics, especially those who neither understand nor respect democratic principles, maybe tempted to underestimate the importance of their constitution. However, the key is their implementation. In the era of globalization and global interdependence, having these rights enshrined in the constitution is an important first step. International pressure, especially from NGOs and human rights activists has a greater impact on states that already claim to respect these rights. Often moving court in cases of human rights violations provides effective remedy. But in states whose constitutions do not already enshrine human rights; states can continue to violate their own citizens with impunity leaving no recourse to domestic as well as international human rights activists.

As already discussed above Bangladeshis have also shown that Muslim societies allow women more opportunities for self-expression in the public arena than they are given credit for. Bangladeshi women are not only well integrated into the political arena but are also quite active in the economic sphere. The micro-enterprise project (Grameen Bank) initiated by Dr. Muhammad Yunus has shown that empowering women is an important strategy to fight poverty and underdevelopment. Bangladeshi women have shown that while remaining within the moral sphere of Islamic values, women can play an important role in the economic well being of their immediate families and the political well being of their nation.

Yes, indeed Bangladesh is a highly developed state in political terms. But sadly it exposes an American myth that prosperity follows freedom. Bangladesh is a “poor democracy”. Its per capita income is less than $500 a year. 36% of the population is below poverty level and nearly 35% of the population is unemployed. Annually a large section of the country is submerged in floods and as sea levels rise with global warming Bangladesh will face more drastic environmental threats with devastating economic implications.

Lack of industrialization, poor infrastructures, and untapped human resources will continue to challenge Bangladesh in its quest for economic well being. Poverty and disasters will continue to test the moral and political fiber of the nation. There are no shortcuts out of the environmental and economic troubles of Bangladesh. But we must remember that in spite of all its difficulties, Bangladeshis have found a way to live in freedom, respect each other’s dignity and remain connected with God.

Political Philosophy

Very roughly speaking, there are four main kinds of political philosophy around today.

Libertarianism (also called "classical liberalism" or just "liberalism"): emphasizes ‘negative’ rights, i.e. the right not to have certain things done to you (be killed, robbed, etc.). The role of government is to protect us from outside invaders and domestic criminals who would otherwise violate our rights, but otherwise to leave us alone. This is a somewhat old-fashioned view, associated with the 17th century John Locke and the 19th century John Stuart Mill, but it has recently made a big comeback, especially because of Robert Nozick’s book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, perhaps the ultimate philosophical argument for small government. Philosopher John Hospers has even run for President for the Libertarian Party. The libertarianism described here is a pure or extreme version which does not necessarily conform precisely to the views of real-life libertarians, who are likely to make some concessions to the objections listed below.

Objections: 1. Libertarians would allow anything between consenting adults, at least in private, including drug use, prostitution, hard-core pornography, sodomy, flag burning, etc. etc. Is this too much liberty?

2. Libertarians would not interfere with the economy at all, so they would allow monopolies, for instance, and would totally scrap welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. Would this be good for society?

3. Libertarians regard society as just a mass of individuals in the same place under the same government, ignoring common traditions, culture, religion, etc. Does this ignore the value of patriotism, community, etc.?

4. In a libertarian society, some people would end up with much more wealth than others, perhaps just by inheriting it. Is this fair?

5. In reality libertarianism as an impartial ideal of maximum freedom and justice seems to be a kind of fantasy. We are all born into a world in which property is neither evenly distributed nor freely available. This situation came about through history, in which piracy, imperialism, genocide, slavery, etc. have all had an important part. No individual is free just to live their own life, since (for instance) there is no free land to farm. We all depend on others (especially if we are poor or handicapped by low social status, low intelligence, unpopular ethnicity, or disability, etc.). A government that adopts a completely laissez faire approach effectively sides with the pirates, slave-owners, etc. and their descendants.

Socialism: the exact opposite of libertarianism. Values ‘positive’ rights, such as the right to healthcare, food, shelter, work, etc., more than ‘negative’ rights. The economy would be run for the good of society as a whole. Very few people today are real socialists, but many agree with parts of this theory.

Objections: 1. Would this be efficient?

2. Is it fair to violate some people’s ‘negative’ rights to provide for the ‘positive’ rights of others?

3. Do so-called positive rights exist at all?

Liberalism (also called "modern liberalism"): a cross between libertarianism and socialism. Its most famous philosophical defender is John Rawls. Rawls equates justice with fairness. A fair distribution of rights and other goods, he says, is one that everyone would agree to from behind a veil of ignorance about their place in society. He calls this the original position. Rawls believes that in the original position people would support two fundamental principles of justice:

I. "Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others." [i.e. freedom and (negative) rights should be equal, and there should be as much freedom and opportunity as possible.]

II. "Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all." [i.e. all inequalities should be avoided if possible, unless they benefit everyone.]

In other words, he believes in the basic ideal of libertarianism BUT he also thinks people would prudently limit this, just in case they end up near the bottom of society, by adding some form of welfare. Inevitably some people will be worse off than others, but we should make them as well off as we can.

Objections: 1. Is the best way to decide what justice requires imagining what people would agree to in certain fictional, indeed impossible, circumstances?

2. Would such people in fact agree to precisely the combination of freedom and equality that Rawls comes up with?

3. Feminist philosopher Susan Moller Okin objects that Rawls says very little about gender issues. Women, though, must be included in any satisfactory theory of justice, she says. Current gender injustices seriously undermine equality of opportunity. Furthermore, the family is where we learn our basic values, so the family must be just if society is to be just.

Communitarianism: a new (although it can be traced back to Aristotle) alternative to liberalism and libertarianism. Some communitarians are just moderate socialists, but others are nationalists or patriots. Communitarians value tradition; ethnic, regional or national identity; and the common culture that comes from religion or shared moral values. They emphasize the importance of belonging to a certain community and sharing in its traditions, values and culture. They think that libertarians and liberals over-emphasize the importance of the individual and stress that "no man is an island" and "it takes a village to raise a child." Hegel can be thought of as a good example of this type of thinker.

Objections: 1. Even libertarians allow people the option of celebrating their heritage, culture, etc., but no-one should be forced to do so.

2. Emphasizing the community is often a cover for socialism or nationalism, which in turn lead to communism and fascism.

3. Communitarianism seems vague and more a reaction against libertarianism than a philosophy of its own.

A note on conservatism:

Conservatism generally means sticking to the old ways of doing or thinking about things. Conservatives tend to be skeptical about theories of the kind outlined above. Instead they value the wisdom inherent in tradition and whatever institutions have evolved or arisen to meet the demands of each particular culture. If something clearly needs to be changed, they would say, then by all means change it, but do so cautiously. And if it ain't broke, don't fix it just to fit the theory that some philosopher devised in his or her study. There is a similarity with communitarianism here, but in the USA the traditional political institutions, and the philosophical justifications given for them, embody rather libertarian ideals. The philosophical division of libertarian/liberal/communitarian does not neatly fit the ordinary division of liberal/conservative or Republican/Democrat. Basically almost everyone today is some kind of liberal, accepting some role for the state in providing goods such as education as well as protecting individual rights. Republicans tend to lean towards libertarianism, but most recognize that the theory has its flaws. That's why the Libertarian Party is its own organization. Democrats tend to lean more in the direction of socialism, but again most are really liberals, seeing that in practice pure socialism tends to produce inefficiency and misery. Contemporary "socialists" in Europe are not really socialists at all, on the whole.

Posted in: Political Philosophy