Aristotle, Hobbes and Chimpanzees

The article is an exercise in the philosophical anthropology of politics. According to Aristotle, man is a political animal but not uniquely so, whereas, according to Hobbes, politics is artificial and the preserve of humans alone. Both Aristotle and Hobbes draw upon contemporary science. The dominant relevant science today is neo-Darwinism – humans are products of evolution and genetically closely related to the other primates. The argument that chimpanzees are political, thus putatively endorsing an Aristotelian rather than a Hobbesian perspective, is scrutinised. However, at best, chimpanzees are only metaphorically political. While this conclusion may weaken the Aristotelian position, it cannot of itself vindicate the Hobbesian one. The philosophical anthropological endeavour to investigate the relation between politics and human nature still has work to do.     

On Hobbesian Resistance Theory

As many have observed, Hobbes's political theory contained elements of an inchoate resistance theory. The present article identifies those elements, and considers their significance for the general interpretation of Hobbes's thought. It is suggested that Hobbes's resistance theory provides evidence of his belief that the artificial commonwealth was built upon foundations of natural morality. If the sovereign ruler of any commonwealth infringed natural morality then she might well face the natural punishment of rebellion, even though in the artificial realm of civil law this rebellion could never be justified. In the light of these remarks, the interpretation of Hobbes given by Howard Warrender is reexamined. Although Warrender's conclusion that Hobbes grounded natural morality in the command of God cannot be sustained, it is shown that much else in Warrender's work remains valid. In particular, his contention that Hobbes was a genuine natural law thinker seems more defensible when Hobbesian resistance theory is properly understood.     

Equity and Political Economy in Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes is often viewed as a seminal figure in the development of the homo economicus philosophical anthropology central to the acquisitive, bourgeois morality of liberal modernity. The present study challenges this interpretation of Hobbes as an antecedent to free market ideology by arguing that his political economy presupposed a complex relation between contract, law, and social networks of credit informed by prudence and robust norms of equity. The normative claims of equity permeate Hobbes's holistic account of political economy and inform his vision of liberal statecraft that gave priority to prudential judgment against economic determinism, especially as Hobbes understood trade, taxation, allocation of resources, and the provision of social welfare. I will conclude by reflecting upon how Hobbes's political economy both reveals the internal diversity within the liberal intellectual tradition and can help us to better understand and critique contemporary liberal states and democratic theory.     

Hobbes and the prophet Samuel on leviathan government

Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan is one of the most important treatises in the history of political economy and has influenced writings on constitutional economics and public choice. In his treatise, Hobbes proposed the desirability of voluntary subjugation to an authoritarian ruler. Hobbes appealed to the authority of the prophet Samuel to make his case for Leviathan, a precedent that has remained unquestioned for some 350 years. Yet Samuel clearly warned against the dangers of appointing an all-powerful king. Hobbes’s argument in favor of Leviathan thus demands an authority other than Samuel.     

Evolutionary psychology and politics

Like its predecessor sociobiology, evolutionary psychology has distanced itself from political discourse. In so far as evolutionary psychology can contribute towards an understanding of politics, it claims to do so only as a potential explanation for political behaviour. However, I argue that evolutionary psychology - like sociobiology - is itself a political phenomenon. It proceeds from a conception of the political - drawn from the Hobbesian social contract tradition - which crucially informs its theoretical trajectory. A recognition of the political character of evolutionary psychology, in this respect, should be the starting point of its critique.     

Judicialization of politics or politicization of the judiciary? Considerations from recent events in Thailand

Abstract

Courts are becoming major players in the political landscape of Southeast Asia. This paper seeks to examine the causes and consequences of this new trend with particular reference to Thailand. Our study primarily analyzes the behavior of the Thai Constitutional Court during the political crisis in 2006–2008; the findings suggest that recent judicial activism and assertiveness in political matters, while partly explained by the interests of judges themselves and by the constitutional rules guiding their activities, is best understood as a direct consequence of the intervention of the monarchy, to which the judiciary has traditionally been closely aligned. Accordingly, the Thai case not only provides new evidence about what may be driving the new judicialization trend, it also draws attention to problematic aspects of this trend, namely the gradual politicization of the Thai judiciary and with it the erosion of the rule of law in Thailand and its replacement with rule by law. Our findings may also illuminate some larger issues at the intersection of politics and the courts throughout the region in ways that advance the theoretical understanding of both.     

The Two Leviathans: R. G. Collingwood and Thomas Hobbes

In this article I draw upon the published and unpublished works of R. G. Collingwood in order to discern the relation between the Leviathan of Hobbes, and that of Collingwood. First, an attempt is made to explain why Hobbes became important for Collingwood, having had no special status in the writings of the latter prior to the composition of The New Leviathan . Secondly, two misconceptions of the ostensible relation between the two Leviathans will be exposed. Thirdly, the two Leviathans are compared at the level of general intent. It is argued that Collingwood never meant merely to update Leviathan in a piecemeal fashion, but instead formulated an entirely different criterion of conduct from that offered by Hobbes. Finally, some of the arguments of the two Leviathans are compared. Principally, Collingwood found Hobbes deficient in failing to provide an adequate account of the perpetual transition from the state of nature to civil life. One of the aims of Collingwood was to make good this deficiency.     

Beyond the Middle Finger: Plato,Schiller and the Political Aesthetics of Ai Weiwei

The photograph of Ai Weiwei’s middle finger set against the backdrop of Tiananmen Square has become an icon of politically subversive art. But can we see beyond the middle finger? Here I argue that current theories of political aesthetics (e.g. Jacques Rancière) operate on an oversimplified dichotomy between two competing paradigms of political art, and that this threatens a more nuanced engagement with contemporary artistic practices. In the first part, I re-examine both the antagonistic relation between art and politics exemplified in Plato's verdict against poetry as a socially corrosive form of imitation as well as the instrumental relation of art and politics developed in Friedrich Schiller’s conception of aesthetic education as a means of social and political reform. Then, drawing on recent work by the controversial Chinese artist, I argue for a model of political art that can account for the more complex interrelation of criticism and cultural affirmation evident in a growing body of politically-oriented art.     

The Conscientious Sovereign: Public and Private Rule in Thomas Hobbes's Early Discourses

In midcareer political treatises, Hobbes trades humanism for scientific method and minimizes distinctions between conquest and mutual covenant as grounds of sovereignty. From this, many conclude that arbitrary government is the goal, or the likeliest outcome of Hobbes's science of justice. Three early discourses, however, suggest that the perils of transition from the private rule of a conqueror to the public rule of a law-bound sovereign are of primary concern. Whether the change is taken as proof of the independent activity of natural law, or as solely attributable to the skills of exemplary sovereigns, it destabilizes any law-bound ruler who fails to reorient the passions motivating subjects to obey. Lasting stability and comfort can be achieved only when public rule is redefined as the preservation of a cognitive balance, setting fear of the destructive effects of unregulated self-assertion against hope of the possibility of continuous peace through obedience to law.     

Constitutional Prohibitions in a Rent Seeking Model

I extend the standard rent seeking model to allow lobbying fora constitutional prohibition on wealth transfers. I examinetwo issues: (1) the ability of special interests withsignificant political capacity to block constitutional change;and (2) the effect of adding a constitutional stage on totallobbying expenditures. Defeating a prohibition on wealthtransfers is a public good for rent seekers; success inconstitutional politics merely allows them to lobby for wealthtransfers. The resulting collective action problem for rentseekers in constitutional politics offsets the generalinterest's free rider problems, reducing the probability oftransfers and expected total lobbying expenditures compared tothe traditional rent seeking contest. Introduction of aconstitutional stage also reverses several comparative staticsresults from the rent seeking game. An increase in the numberof rent seekers or the general interest's (consumers') abilityto organize increase lobbying in the rent seeking game butgenerally reduce expected lobbying in the constitutionalprohibition game.     

Conserving the Constitution? The Conservative Party and Democratic Renewal

In 2008 David Cameron declared that the Conservative party was 'ready for government' and suggested that 'the change we need is not just from Labour's old policies to our new policies… It's about a change from old politics to new politics'. This 'new politics' narrative is something of a cliché: British constitutional history reveals a regular pattern whereby opposition parties renege upon implementing far-reaching constitutional and democratic reforms once they win power. It is in this context that this article draws upon documentary analysis and a number of interviews to examine the Conservative party's position on constitutional reform and democratic renewal. It concludes that although the Conservative party has spent the last decade decrying the 'destruction' of the constitution it has undertaken little detailed preparatory work in relation to how it might seek to alter the governance of Britain. As a result the research presented in this article provides a number of insights into elite politics, strategic game-playing and executive veto capacities within a context of growing political disengagement from politics and falling levels of trust in politics.     

Genro Rule in China and Japan: A Comparative Perspective

For a time in both Japan (roughly 1890–1915) and much more briefly in China (about 1987–1992), major political decisions were made by cohesive groups of retired elders of the founding generation. Necessary if not sufficient conditions for rule by elders include a closed system, with the elite not held responsible to a wider public; and a constitutional or practical vagueness about the locus of final political authority. The more general pattern in such systems is personal dictatorship, with rule by elders as an alternative when cultural or political conditions stand in the way of one-man rule. This essay explores the pattern, conditions, and characteristics of rule by elders in China and Japan as genro rule serves as an alternative to one-man rule in generational transitions in political regimes with a relatively cohesive ruling group and a weak institutional structure. Peter R. Moody, Jr. is professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame and he specializes in the study of Chinese politics. His more recent books include Tradition and Modernization in China and Japan, Political Change in Taiwan, and Political Opposition in Post-Confucian Society. He is editor of China Documents Annual and book review editor for the Review of Politics. He has written on Chinese politics, Asian international affairs, Chinese political thought, international relations theory, and theory of political parties.     

Virtue,Law and Chinese Political Tradition: Can the Past Predict the Future?

This paper intends to build a case for a third alternative that can reconcile the two opposing views of democracy, i.e., the consensual vs. the adversarial, through a reexamination and reconstruction of Chinese traditional theories of political governance. The paper links the rule of virtue with consensual politics, and the rule of law with adversary politics, By focusing on the roles of virtue and law, and their importance to the acquisition and maintenance of original and utilitarian dimensions of political legitimacy, the paper proposes a hybrid version of democracy that will continue the dualist political tradition while enabling necessary political modernization.     

廉洁政治:内涵、结构与运行逻辑

十八大报告在党的重要文献中第一次提出"廉洁政治"这个概念,要求做到干部清正、政府清廉、政治清明。从政治发展角度来看,廉洁政治是现代国家治理的必然要求。廉洁政治内涵具有三个理论维度:政治设计、价值取向和实践状态。政治设计为廉洁政治建设提供合法性,价值取向为廉洁政治建设提供发展方向,实践状态让政治设计和价值取向实现统一,从而为廉洁政治建设开辟道路。廉洁政治的内在结构包括廉洁政治观念、廉洁政治关系和廉洁政治行为三个部分,这三个部分具有一定的逻辑关系,从廉洁政治观念到廉洁政治关系再到廉洁政治行为,一个比一个更接近于政治生活现实。建设廉洁政治应遵循并实现法治逻辑、制度逻辑和治理逻辑的统一:法治逻辑要求依法治腐,把所有廉政建设事务纳入法制框架;制度逻辑要求制度反腐,推进宏观层面的行政体制改革、中观层面的廉政制度建设以及微观层面的分权机制探索;治理层面要求实现廉政组织重构、廉政资源配置、廉政信息公开、廉政主体合作等。     

Bringing the Constitution Back In: Political Science and the State

At one time the study of politics centred on the state but for much of this century the emphasis has been on political behaviour and policy-making with governmental decisions explained as a response to societal forces. In the last decade or so, state-centric theorists have sought to bring the state back, arguing that it is more autonomous than society-centred theorists have suggested. I record the retreat of the state in the Anglo-American study of politics and the related rise of a particular kind of political science, going on to outline the more recent growth of a 'new institutionalism' which places the state at the very centre of political science. Bringing the state back in to the study of British politics must necessarily involve bringing the constitution back in but in ways that avoid the limitations of the constitutional approach and a narrow legalism.     

孙中山五权宪制中的国民大会

国民大会是孙中山后期五权宪制架构中的一个重要权力结构。从这一结构所承载的功能来看，它首先是一种“民主”的制度安排；同时，作为中央政制中针对政府权力的“结构性制约因素”，它又具有“宪政”的意义。章力图分析这一机构所折射出的政治理念的基本取向及其自身存在的问题。     

Zur Politisierung der Europäischen Union

The constitutional treaty of the EU failed. Why so? Does this failure indicate the end of European integration and the beginning of re-nationalization of European politics? This contribution argues that the failure of the constitutional treaty is due to a process of politicization of the EU. As a result, political processes beyond the nation state are judged increasingly not just on the basis of their effectiveness, but also in terms of the criteria for good political order, such as fairness and legitimacy. The respective governments of the EU member states, however, publicly still take an instrumental approach to the EU. This is doomed to failure and thus the future of the European project is open. Either politics adapts to the new evaluation criteria for European integration or a partial re-nationalization of European politics is indeed likely.     

Aristotle and the Eleatic Stranger on the Nature and Purpose of Political Life

This article argues that Book I of the Politics represents Aristotle's critique of Plato's Eleatic Stranger on the specific character of political rule and the knowledge required for political rule, and that this critique produces a different understanding of the proper division of regimes and the relationship between political theory and practice. These differences can be traced to a more fundamental disagreement about nature: Aristotle sees nature as generally hospitable to human life and argues that the natural end or goal of political association is not mere life but the good life, while the Eleatic perceives nature as hostile and proposes a minimalist politics, aimed primarily at preserving life. Although the Eleatic's view of nature might appear to be closer to and more compatible with modern political thought, the conception of nature Aristotle presents in his Politics offers richer possibilities for political theory and political life.     

Pierre-Louis Rœderer and the Debate on Forms of Government in Revolutionary France

The French Revolution raised the problem of how to construct a modern republic under conditions of acute political conflict. The debate over the forms of government was at its most intense before the outbreak of the Terror in 1793, when there seemed to be no alternative to instituting a republic, but there was serious disagreement over what this entailed. The problem was considered in terms of the political thought of Hobbes, Locke, Bayle, Voltaire, Helvetius, Montesquieu, Rousseau and Sieyès. The urgent political and constitutional need to reconcile accountable with effective government was central to the use made of both inherited and new ideas about the republican form of government. This parallels Madison's concern to reconcile accountable with effective government during the constitutional debates of the American Revolution.     

Three Basic Questions in Political Inquiry

Discussion about political research could be seen as dealing with three basic questions. The first being whether type of government or type of public policy should be considered as our main object. The second being whether constitutional law or the more realistic approach of political science should dominate. And the third being whether we should be arguing in or about politics. If we separate these three questions it is much more likely that discussion will improve.