Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
LIST OF CONTENTS
S. PARTICULARS PAGE
No. NO.
1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3
2. INTRODUCTION 4—6
3. HOW POLITICIANS 7
BECAME CRIMINALS?
6. CONCLUSION. 13
7. BIBILIOGRAPHY 14
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
3
INTRODUCTION
1
Ernest Barker, ed., The Politics of Aristotle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), pp.1, 110.
4
Ever since Aristotle’s time, the notion has been widely shared that
politics and political relationships in some way involve authority, ruling,
influence, or power. For example, one of the most influential modern
social scientists, the German scholar Max Weber (1864-1920), postulated
that an association should be called political “if and in so far as the
enforcement of its order is carried out continually within a given
territorial area by the application and threat of physical force on the part
of the administrative staff.” Thus, although Weber emphasized the
territorial aspect of a political association, like Aristotle he specified that
a relationship of authority or rule was one of its essential characteristics.2
5
and Weber, on the other hand, define the term “political” so as to require
one or more additional characteristics, indicated by circles B and C. For
example, to Weber the domain of the political would not be everything
inside A or everything inside B (territoriality) but everything in the area
of overlap, AB, involving both rule and territoriality. Although Aristotle is
lass clear than either Weber or Lasswell on this point, he would probably
limit the domain of the political even further—to relationships in
associations capable of self-sufficiency ( C ). Hence, to Aristotle,
“politics” would be found only in the area ABC.
Clearly, everything that Aristotle and Weber would call political,
Lasswell would too. But Lasswell would consider as political some things
that Weber and Aristotle might not: Activities in a business firm or a trade
union, for example, include, “political” aspects. Recognizing the great
contributions of Aristotle and Weber to the study of politics, our own
perspective on what politics is partially incorporates theirs. But, more
directly in the tradition of Lasswell and countless other contemporary
political scientists, we construe politics purely and simply in terms of
influence. For us, then politics is simply the exercise of influence.
GOALS OF POLITICS
7
Most political and social thinkers have been concerned with the desirable
(and even necessary) goals of a political system or with the common and
competing ends that men actually desire, and then pragmatically
considered the means that are available to rulers and citizens. Even those
who have sought a single, general and decisive criterion of decision-
making have stated the ends and then been more concerned with the
consequences of social and political acts than with consistently applying
standards of intrinsic value. It has become almost a sacred dogma in our
age of apathy that politics, centered on power and conflict and the quest
for legitimacy and consensus, is essentially a study in expediency, a
tortuous discovery of practical expedients that could reconcile contrary
claims and secure a common if minimal goal or, at least, create the
conditions in which different ends could be freely or collectively persued.
Liberal thinkers have sought to show that it is possible for each individual
to be used as a means for another to achieve his ends without undue
coercion and to his own distinct advantage. This occurs not by conscious
cooperation or deliberately pursuing a common end but by each man
pursuing diverse ends in accordance with the “law” of the natural identity
of interests, a “law” that is justified it not guaranteed in terms of
metaphysical, economic or biological “truths.” Authoritarian thinkers, on
the other hand, justified coercion in the name of a predetermined common
end, the attainment of which cannot be left to the chaotic interplay of
innumerable wills. The end may simply be the preservation of a
traditional order, the recovery of a bygone age of a glory, or the ruthless
reconstruction of society from the top to secure some spectacular
consummation in the future.
8
It appears to be common to most schools of thought to accept a
sharp dichotomy between ends and means, a distinction that is deeply
embedded in our ethical, political and psychological vocabulary, rooted in
rigid European presuppositions regarding the very nature of human
action. Distinctions have been repeatedly made between immediate and
ultimate, short-term and long-term, diverse and common, individual and
social, essential and desirable ends, as also between attainable and
utopian goals. Discussion about means has not ignored questions about
their moral implications and propriety, or about the extent of their
theoretical and contingent compatibility with desired ends or widely
shared values. But despite all these reservations, the dangerous dogma
that the end entirely justifies the means is merely an extreme version of
the commonly uncriticized belief that moral considerations cannot apply
to the means except in relation to ends, or that the latter have a moral
priority.
9
HOW CORRUPTION IN POLITICS AFFECT
ON
ADMINISTRATION AND INSTITUTIONS
10
Corruption poses a serious development challenge. In the political
realm, it undermines democracy and good governance by flouting or even
subverting formal processes. Corruption in elections and in legislative
bodies reduces accountability and distorts representation in
policymaking; corruption in the judiciary compromises the rule of law;
and corruption in public administration results in the unfair provision of
services. More generally, corruption erodes the institutional capacity of
government as procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off,
and public offices are bought and sold. At the same time, corruption
undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as
trust and tolerance.
11
dealings, thus further distorting investment. Corruption also lowers
compliance with construction, environmental, or other regulations,
reduces the quality of government services and infrastructure, and
increases budgetary pressures on government.
12
CONCLUSION
Politics has rightly become one of the last resorts for scoundrels.
Politics gives those scoundrels a chance to show that they can be even
good but generally it doesn’t happen.
The mafias who become politician get extra power to commit their
wrong. They get immunity from arrests, probation and hand cuffing. They
get a security cover from government, increasing their fleet of goons.
They get a sort of legal power to suppress the down trodden people and
extract revenge from their enemies.
13
BIBILIOGRAPHY
www.wikipedia.com
Max Weber. The theory of social and economic organization, trans. A.
M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1947)
14