This article outlines a critical systems theory approach to the study of populism by arguing that populism is an avenue of contestation which assumes a distinct role and function in the existing constitution of the political system. Most notably, it is characterised by the re-entry of a popular sovereignty dimension within regular political procedures. By taking up a critical systems theory perspective, it becomes possible to more precisely distinguish populism from other forms of politics, such as oppositional politics, (...) social movement politics or procedural constitutional politics. Further, populism’s oscillation between democratic and authoritarian dynamics can be elucidated as an inversion which operates from within its political form. Finally, it is argued that the critical systems theory approach provides a more nuanced understanding of populism’s inherent problems and, consequently, moves beyond a blunt defence or rejection of populism as such. (shrink)

The phenomenon of corruption as a type of crime is immanently inherent in social and political reality. Sociality as a trans-societal universal form of human community is the environment in which corruption ties are born and function. The socio-political structure is organized as a collective effort, on the one hand, it overcomes disintegration, and on the other, it generates corrupt behaviour patterns. Corruption models of behaviour have an extremely wide scale of distribution and are characterized by active institutional (...) expansion into various spheres and institutions of modern society, they feed business relations and administrative activities, covering huge masses of the population. In this sense, their study is extremely important and relevant. (shrink)

This article relies on two international projects to argue for the existence of a ‘centrarchy’ in the fields of education and technology. Centrarchy denotes a power structure in which power rests with ‘the Centre’. The Centre signifies well-respected departments, top-tiered journals, the best editors, critical reviewers and leading authors; the Periphery denotes anyone else. The Centre has assigned itself the mission of guiding the Periphery out of its underdevelopment. It has served as a proxy for quality scholarship and believes that (...) Periphery’s societies require a saviour. It has ignored the knowledge that has been produced by the Periphery’s researchers. Its ways of researching the world have been internalised and taken for granted by the Periphery’s academics, who have come to see these ways as the natural order and common sense. It has seen the Periphery’s societies as outliers appropriate merely for local case studies, whereas its case studies transcend locality and have universal value. The Centre–Periphery ‘wall’ is unbreachable because of empirically uninspected factors, which are unearthed here. This article, furthermore, shows some academics to be on ‘the periphery of the Periphery’. (shrink)

By comparing the political systems in different dynasties, this book illustrates the continuous evolution of traditional Chinese political systems, and evaluates the merits and demerits of the political systems in different dynasties. It also provides detailed records of the evolved government organizations, the names and functions of various offices, the titles and responsibilities of officials. The book consists of five chapters, each of which focuses on one of the five dynasties respectively -- Han, Tang, Song, Ming, and (...) Qing, and a concluding summary. Combining historical facts and anecdotes from history to make the discussion straightforward, interesting, and easy to understand, this is an ideal book for anyone interested in the history of China, particularly its traditional political systems. (shrink)

It is my great pleasure to discuss Bell's latest book on political meritocracy. The China Model has received responses in both political theory and China studies, but unfortunately many of them still misunderstand his work. Therefore, before I articulate my critical comment, it would be helpful to clarify my own understanding of this book. As Bell points out in the preface to the paperback edition and in many responses to his critics, his aim is neither to denigrate democracy (...) in Western countries nor to defend the exact status quo of China. What he tries to do is to introduce political meritocracy as a legitimate political system for selecting leaders. Since China is typical of the kind of country in which... (shrink)

The notions of freedom and equality in a group are precisely defined in terms of individual exertions of influence or power. Freedom is discussed in the version ‘freedom from’ influence rather than in the version ‘freedom to do’ what one wants. It is shown that at the ideal conceptual level complete freedom implies equality. Given the plausibility of the definitions this shows that political ‘folk rhetorics’ in which freedom and equality often are put in opposition are misled and misleading. (...) Quantitative notions of ‘more freedom’ and ‘more equality’ are introduced and shown to be independent of each other. The bearing of these conceptual exercises on the comparison of political systems is discussed. (shrink)

This paper defines a quantitative model of civilization wisdom potential in terms of its wisdom capacity potential and wisdom activity potential. Four minds such as the Basic, Whole, Global, and Universal ones are defined and their wisdom potential is assessed for eight particular civilizations, such as Western, Eastern, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, and African. In conclusion the study states that civilization wisdom should be applied in almost every facet of civilization and its future depends on civilization wisdom.

One of the unhealthy features of politics in this country is the contempt in which the public hold politicians, especially political parties. I think that this is because of the childish partisanship often shown in Parliamentary debate, which I think is due to the presence of the media and the absence of ordinary people--politicians have to say sensational things to get through to the public. I would like to see a sort of "parliamenary jury"--a randomly selected panel of ordinary (...) people paid to go to Canberra for so-many weeks to take part in parliamentary debate, without right to vote, meeting as a group from time to time to send out a communique to the public. (Perhaps there could also be other groups locally who follow debates in Parliament and pass on their reactions to the "jury" meeting in Canberra.) This arrangment would give the professional politicians some ordinary people to convince, and their behaviour could be expected to become less unattractive to ordinary people. This does not need any constitutional change (since the proposal is not to give the "jury" any power, only to pay them to be present and make their views available to the media). It would amount to Parliamentary sponsorship of "deliberative polling" (see.. (shrink)

The political developments in post-socialist countries are taken as a general frame for discussing rural development in the transition from centrally planned to market economies. Rural communities and agriculture in post-socialist countries are facing major problems related to decollectivization of property, the stimulation of effective private agricultural units, and the building up of integrated rural communities and their local autonomy. After presenting the developments in Slovenia in detail, the author comes to the conclusion that no foreign/western development model can (...) be literally applied to any post-socialist state. These nations must define their own goals and formulate the strategies to reach them based on the analysis of their specific situations, and in doing this they must engage their own scientists/professionals and take foreign experts only as occasional advisors. (shrink)

The notions of freedom and equality in a group are precisely defined in terms of individual exertions of influence or power. Freedom is discussed in the version ‘freedom from’ influence rather than in the version ‘freedom to do’ what one wants. It is shown that at the ideal conceptual level complete freedom implies equality. Given the plausibility of the definitions this shows that political ‘folk rhetorics’ in which freedom and equality often are put in opposition are misled and misleading. (...) Quantitative notions of ‘more freedom’ and ‘more equality’ are introduced and shown to be independent of each other. The bearing of these conceptual exercises on the comparison of political systems is discussed. (shrink)

This paper provides a synopsis of the human rights enforcement in Bangladesh, which marks its 50 years in 2021 since its independence. After a theoretical background on how human rights are perceived as legal and political instruments, it critically discusses human rights provisions and explores the legal and institutional frameworks on human rights enforcement in Bangladesh—(re)construed in 50 years (1971–2021). Finally, it divulges the controversies in human rights enforcement and a roadmap to address them by making some suggestions: multiple (...) legislative, administrative, and judicial reforms are required to tackle human rights abuses to ensure punishment for the abusers and restitution for the victims. The paper concludes with the notion that the positive will of the relevant stakeholders (legislature, executive, and judiciary) is the key to upholding and protecting the human rights of Bangladeshi citizens. The significance of this paper lies in exploring the complexities associated with the laws and insular national politics, which often debars the enforcement of human rights and crucially compromises Bangladesh’s ability to empower its citizens. (shrink)

This is a well-conceived attempt to present a survey of thirteen "classic" political theories, beginning with Thucydides and ending with J. S. Mill, and simultaneously to suggest similarities between each and some contemporary trend in political thought. Bluhm admittedly borrows heavily from earlier commentaries in summarizing and criticizing the classics; his originality lies in his systematic efforts at "bridge building," as he styles it, in a field where an alleged conflict between ancients and moderns has been provoking much (...) unnecessary acerbity. One may criticize Bluhm's fundamental division between "noumenalists" and "naturalists" or his rather unsure handling of Rousseau, but some of his suggested comparisons—e.g., of Lipset with Aristotle or of modern game theory with Hobbes' method—are most illuminating.—W. L. M. (shrink)

This article examines Aristotle’s theory of ‘factional conflict’ in Book 5 of the Politics and claims that it is mainly directed against the a-historical account of constitutional change Plato develops in the Republic. Aristotle’s investigation of the causes of stasis is oriented towards the normative political goal of stabilizing political orders and preventing their ‘change’ into different ones. This article argues that the constitution Aristotle calls ‘polity’ constitutes his solution to the challenge of stabilizing democracies and oligarchies. The (...) paper also aims at elucidating Aristotle’s conception of an empirical political science, his political realism, and the method he applies in conjunction with it in the ‘empirical’ Books of the Politics. (shrink)

This article examines Aristotle’s theory of ‘factional conflict’ (stasis) in Book 5 of the Politics and claims that it is mainly directed against the a-historical account of constitutional change Plato develops in the Republic. Aristotle’s investigation of the causes of stasis is oriented towards the normative political goal of stabilizing political orders and preventing their ‘change’ (metabolê) into different ones. This article argues that the constitution Aristotle calls ‘polity’ (politeia) constitutes his solution to the challenge of stabilizing democracies (...) and oligarchies. The paper also aims at elucidating Aristotle’s conception of an empirical political science, his political realism, and the method he applies in conjunction with it in the ‘empirical’ Books of the Politics (Book 4 through 6). (shrink)

The first question we will try to answer is how did a Communist Party that rejected all forms of a market economy during its first 30 years in power succeed in establishing capitalism in China when so many attempts had failed after the mid-nineteenth century. Instead of relying on the traditional economic explanation based on labor, capital, and productivity that is favored by economists and that has been well discussed in the economic literature, we will focus more on the (...) class='Hi'>political and social factors that explain this acceleration of history.The second question is related to the different problems that the Chinese economy faces today. China has registered one of the fastest economic growth rates in the history of capitalism, but this take-off still appears fragile in many analyses, potentially reversible. Again, if we consider what has been achieved during 25 years of reform, the question we can ask is whether the problems that create the concern with fragility represent a real threat to the economic modernization launched in 1978, and to the definitive establishment of a capitalism system in China.Finally, a third question that has been repeated like a mantra in foreign government circles and by reformers in China: Will the economic transformations that have taken place in the People’s Republic soon lead to the emergence of a democratic regime that will enable China to complete its cycle of modernization? (shrink)

Carl J. Friedrich (1901?1984) defined constitutionalism as something more than can be expressed by the dominant behavioralist paradigm of modern political science and the typical academic focus on law and courts. A leading but now neglected post-WWII authority on constitutionalism, Friedrich argued that it should be understood as an institutionally-based, interactive system for deliberating the meaning and legal application of the norms of a political community. His approach shares much with the contemporary ?historical institutionalist? call to situate law (...) and courts within a broader, more normative, and more interactive conception of constitutionalism. Accordingly, a reconsideration of Friedrich's work may help current efforts to better articulate the full richness and complexity of constitutionalism as a distinctive way of ordering political life. (shrink)

Society's problems cannot be alleviated via mere policy interventions, whether individual- or system-level, when the system is the problem. To bring about true and lasting change to the better, we must replace the present global political-economic system – oligarchic capitalism backed by the power of the state – with one that would let the people take charge of their lives.

Like the American system ours is federal: i.e., there are two levels of government, neither of which can change the powers of the other or make laws within certain fields assigned to the other. The British system is 'unitary': the British parliament can make laws on any matter, local government has whatever powers the national government delegates to it. Like the British, ours is a system of responsible government . The Government (the Prime Minister and cabinet) is 'responsible' to parliament. (...) This means that at any time, simply by vote of no confidence, carried on whatever grounds, the parliament can remove the Government from office or force it to call an election. In the American system the head of the executive Government, the President, cannot be removed by the Congress (except by impeachment, which requires a kind of trial). As in the British system, a general election can be called at any time (by the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister). There is a maximum term by which an election must be called, but an election can be held short of term. This makes the parliament responsible to the electorate -- for example, if Government policy that has general community support is blocked by the opposition or minor parties, the Government can appeal to the electorate. In the American system the terms of office of the House of Representatives, Senate, and President are all 'fixed', so that an early election cannot be held. If a President dies or resigns, the Vice President serves out the remaining part of his term. There are no circumstances in which the American President can dissolve Congress and call an early election. The U.S. constitution has separation of powers , i.e., the members of the Executive (in our terms, the Government) do not have seats in Congress or participate in its sessions, and they are not removable by Congress and cannot dissolve Congress. The Judiciary is also separate from both Executive and Congress (though judges are appointed by the Senate on the nomination of the President, and can in exceptional cases be removed).. (shrink)