SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

09/10/2009

F    Course Outline

·                     What is political philosophy?

·                     What is justice?

·                     What is Right, Liberty and Equality?

·                     What is Power, Authority and Legitimacy?

·                     What is democracy?

·                     Rule of law

·                     Plato

·                     Machiavelli

·                     John Locke

15/10/2009.

·                     What is social political philosophy?

·                     What is the basis of cohesive institution?

·                     Why should we have cohesive institution?

·                     What is the meaning of justice?

·                     Why should we have a government?

·                     Who is to rule?

·                     What is the basis of equality?

These and many other political related questions are easy to be raised but not so easy to answer. This is because among political practitioners, there is disagreement as regards what social political philosophy is all about. They define the concept differently.

In order to understand or to give a meaningful definition of social and political philosophy, it might be necessary to make a distinction between political theory and political philosophy.

·                     What is political Theory?

Political theory is an empirical based analysis of human social situations. In political theory or science, political scientists arrive at their theory by making use of actual events in human experiences to their conclusions. At times they make comparative analysis between one society or epoch and another in order to arrive at such theory.

·                     What then is a theory?

A theory should be distinguished from an idea. An idea can be defined as a belief. But what is a belief? A belief is a strong feeling a person has that something is the case. It could be by intuition and may be carried from one generation to the next. A belief therefore arises from intuition or personal convictions. It is a body of beliefs that builds up an idea. A theory is a body of ideas or a body of beliefs. Beliefs make a theory. Political theorists therefore depend on experience in order to arrive at their theories which must be defended by an argument.

Political philosophy is 6 in nature – it depends on values. It does not depend on empirical and comparative analysis to arrive at its conclusion. It is based on human experience and analyses the human nature unlike the political theory that depends on empirical analysis. Based on this Aristotle said that man is basically a political animal. Many political philosophers still depend on empirical facts for non-empirical conclusion like synthetic apriori truths.

Examples of values:

·                     Justice

·                     Peace

·                     Equality

·                     Freedom

·                     Rights

·                     Liberty

This means that political philosophy is dependent on values or is value based. Political philosophers continue to appeal to completely ultimate values. Political theories therefore are meant to aim at a better society.

·                     15/10/2009

Though political theory and political science are used interchangeably, there is a major distinction between the two concepts. The aim of political scientists/theories is the explanation and prediction while the political philosophers aim at justification. The political philosophers are concerned with what ought to be, while the political scientists aims to explain what is.

F    Definitions

Social and political philosophy is a branch of philosophy but not a major branch. By way of definition,

·                     Social and political philosophy can be defined as an attempt by philosophers to set down norms and ideas that would engender a just society.

·                     Political philosophers over the ages have attempted to put forward ideas that would better human society. In order words political philosophy is an application of philosophical thinking or ideas about society and the state.

F    Distinction between political theory and political philosophy

Political Theory                                           Political Philosophy

Empirical	Normative
Explanation	Justification
What is	The ought
Comparative analysis	Clarification of beliefs and critical evaluation of beliefs
Based on behaviour	Based on human nature
Human experience	Intuition
*Political philosophy – Rationality	Political ideology – Sentiment based

v    22/10/2009

Once a philosophical theory is successful, it foresees the future, it envisions possibilities, it transcends epochs and societies. This is not the case with political science. Theories in political is ever green. It tends to be true in many epochs, present, past and the future.

Discourse on politic can be done from two point of views – political philosophy and political science. Indeed theories in political science may not be true in every epoch and society but it will help us to understand the political happenings or phenomena in every epoch and society. The beauty of political philosophy is that it states ‘the ought’. A theory is said to be successful when it has been accepted by intellectuals.

Political ideology is like a movement that people follow blindly without rational arguments or justifications for its acceptance or rejection. In political science however, rational arguments are put forward for its acceptance or not.

·                     Clarification of concepts

·                     Evaluation of political concepts

We need to clarify concepts and evaluate political concepts because people disagree about political concepts and this leads to disagreements as regards how to organize the society. It becomes necessary therefore that the concepts we have needs to be clarified so that all may agree as to what is meant. Critical evaluation of concepts helps us to improve on those concepts.

v    23/10/2009

F    Justice

Social and political philosophy has an aim; namely to better the human society. According to political philosophers, we better the human society by maintaining justice. Philosophers down through the ages have discussed about justice in the context of the state. What then is justice? How can we maintain a just society?

The attempts by philosophers to clarify the concept of justice have led them to propound theories about justice. This is because the concept ‘justice’ is understood and interpreted variously by different philosophers. Among other things, the question philosophers attempt to answer includes:

·                     How do we distribute limited resources among different individuals?

·                     How do we ensure that coercive institutions are just?

·                     Since human beings are said to be equal, how do we in practice, treat people and their interests equally in the state.

v    29/10/2009

F    Theories of Justice.

·                     Utilitarianism

·                     Liberal equality

·                     Libertarianism

·                     Marxism

·                     Communitarianism

·                     Citizenship theory

·                     Multiculturalism

·                     Feminism.

F    Utilitarianism – Happiness for the greatest number of people.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory. The major claim of this theory is that happiness is the ultimate goal of human beings. However, there is no way to ensure that everybody is happy. The best action to take when we are faced with a dilemma in the society is to take the one that will ensure happiness for the majority of the people. For example, if we have the need to build a hospital for pregnant women and at the same time to construct a road for road users, but we have money to carry out only one of these projects.

A utilitarian, using the utilitarian calculus would ask how many pregnant women are there in that community and how many road users are there in the area too. If the numbers of road users are judged to be greater than the pregnant women, the utilitarian would recommend the construction of road because that will bring happiness to the greater number of people.

Without much trouble, we can immediately see that the utilitarian decision undermines minority rights.

·                     Why was utilitarianism taken seriously – (Two merits of Utilitarianism)

Having noticed the fact that utilitarianism undermines minority right, one wonders why the theory was taken serious in the first place. Two reasons accounts for this.

-                    Utilitarianism does not depend on Divine or some dubious metaphysical entity since it explicitly presents as its main purpose the pursuit of human happiness.

-                    Utilitarianism was accepted in the second place because of its dependence on consequentialism. This means that utilitarianism gives reasons why you should reject a moral code by pointing to who is wrong. It is not just about rules but provides a test to ensure that rules serve as useful function. But it is not all utilitarianists that accepts “The greatest happiness for the greatest number principle” but in their desire for the human happiness there are at least four utilitarian positions on human welfare:

·                     Welfare hedonism

Welfare hedonism says that when we have to take a moral decision, we should do the ones that will make people experience pleasure perpetually and less harm.

v    30/10/2009

According to welfare hedonism, the chief human good is happiness. Therefore we should pursue happiness and once this is achieved, the purpose of morality and justice has been achieved.

This concept of welfare hedonism has been disputed on four charges by scholars.

·                     Welfare hedonism

Welfare hedonism is one of the attempts to reconstruct utilitarianism. The central claim of this concept is that once people are perpetually happy, the cause of justice has been achieved. The fact that utilitarianism has been criticized at all simply shows that utilitarianism is not a coherent view as a theory of justice because it has up to four points of criticisms.

Scholars who criticized this theory have pointed out that no one would actually want to be in a state of perpetual happiness. For example, it is doubtful if anyone would accept being fixed to a machine that would provide the person with perpetual happiness if such a machine were invented.

·                     Non-hedonistic mental utility.

This is the second view in attempt to defend utilitarianism as a concept of justice. It denies welfare hedonism by saying that rewarding experiences need not be hedonistic. What matters all the time is your mental state. This theory says that once people’s mental state or sensibilities are not traumatized then, justice has been achieved.

·                     Preference Satisfaction

Another group of utilitarians reject the above two stands points. They argue that people in the society have different preferences and once we are able to identify and satisfy these preferences, then, the cause of morality and justice would have been achieved. The fact remains however, that we cannot satisfy everybody’s preferences.

·                     Informed Preferences.

This group claim that they way to maintain justice is by satisfying people’s rational preferences. The question here is ‘who determines the people’s rational preferences?

F    The politics of Utilitarianism

What are the practical implications of utilitarianism as a political theory? The first problem we find with utilitarianism as a political theory is that it could justify sacrificing the weaker member of a community for the benefit of the rest in the community. We also note that utilitarianism has been used to attack those who hold unjust privileges at the expense of others in the community like feudal England by philosophical radicals.

On the other hand, what we have seen among contemporary utilitarians is that they are conformists who want to maintain the status quo. Utilitarianism, in spite of claims by supporters that it remains a critique of arbitrary and irrational aspect of everyday morality, no longer forms a ‘coherent political movement.’  Utilitarianism is also fading because it has outlived its usefulness; having emerged at a time the British society was arranged to benefit a small, privilege elite, at the expense of the rural working class – the majority. Nowadays on the contrary, the rights of oppressed people are accreted against the majority.

v    5^th November, 2009

-                    To treat people as equals, we must assume they have rights and liberties. But which rights and liberties?

-                    In political theory, there is distinction between right and left-wing politicians.

-                    Right-wing: Capitalism, political conservatives

-                    Left-wing: radical socialism

F    Justice Theory of Libertarianism – a right wing theory of justice.

What does libertarianism say about justice? Libertarianism is an alternative to Rawls liberal equality. It defends market freedom and opposes the use of re-distributive schema to implement a liberal theory of equality. But the free market is not always inherently just. For example, unrestricted capitalism is supported because of its productivity, maximal efficiency, and increase in social wealth. But in the case of natural monopolists, the free market may not be maximal productive – then government may have to place restrictions on property rights.      

v    6^th November, 2009

The problem of justice is on how we can maintain the level of equality and self-respect. According to libertarianism, people have the right to dispose freely of their goods and services, whether or not it is the best means to ensure productivity. Government may not interfere in the free market even to increase efficiency. Individuals have rights and there are things no person or group may do to them – Nozick Robert.

Government interference in how citizens may dispose their goods and services is tantamount to forced labour and a violation of their basic moral right.

F    Nozick Entitlement Theory – historical concept of Justice.

If we assume that people are entitled to goods that they currently posses (their ‘holdings’), then a just distribution is simply whatever distribution results from peoples free exchange. Any distribution that arises from free transfer from a just situation is itself just. According to libertarians, taxation is then wrong even when the government uses if to compensate for the extra cost of some one’s undeserved natural handicap. Taxation can only be legitimate if it is used to raise revenues for maintaining background institutions needed to protect the system of free exchange; example, the police and install justice system needed to enforce people’s free exchange.

F    Nozick’s Three Main Principles.

·                     A principle of transfer: Whatever is justly acquired can be freely transferred

·                     A principle of just initial acquisition: an account of how people come to initially own the things which can be transferred in accordance with the first principle.

·                     A principle of rectification of justice: how to deal with holdings if they are unjustly acquired or transferred.

The above principles simply imply that if people’s holdings are justly acquired, then the formula for a just distribution is “from each as they choose to each as they are chosen.” So a minimal stat for Nozick should narrow its functions to protection against force, theft, fraud.

Forcing people to do anything will be unjustified. So there is no such thing as public transport, public roads, public path, public education, public health-care etc. in general, we can say that libertarianism is a theory which says that people are entitled to everything they justly acquired.

v    November 12, 2009.

·                     Recapitulation:

According to libertarianism, as human beings, we are ends in ourselves and we have right to our talents and properties. Justice is therefore maintained if the process through which we acquire our property is just and we have the right/freedom to transfer it as we choose

F    The Self-ownership Argument

Nozik presents the principle of “Self-ownership” as an interpretation of the principle of treating people as ends in themselves as formulated by Kant and invoked by Rawls and the utilitarians as well.  According to Nozik, “individuals have right and there are things which no individual or group can do to them without violating these rights.” Rights affirm our separate existences. Individuals are distinct and not resources for others. As distinct persons with distinct claims, there are limits to the sacrifices that can be asked of one person for the benefit of others, limits that are expressed by a theory of rights.

Nozik rejects utilitarianism for failing to recognize this (personal rights). People should be treated as ends in themselves, and as possessing dignity and self-respect. We should then further our interest only by voluntary co-operation between others who possess the same dignity. There is a limit, for Rawls as for Nozik to which individuals may be used for the benefit of others or the society – and society must respect this.

But Rawls and Nozik differ on which rights that are most important. For Rawls, it is right to a certain share of society’s resources (the most important right), for Nozik, it is the right over oneself. But what exactly does this mean? For Nozik, owning myself means that I own my talents and what it produces – redistribution therefore violates self-ownership. From there, Nozik makes two important claims:

1. Rawlsian re-distribution or other (cohesive government interventions in market exchange) is incompatible with recognizing people as self-owners. Only unrestricted capitalism recognizes peoples as self-owners.

2. Recognising people as self-owners is crucial in treating people as equals

F  Self-ownership and property ownership:

·                     Two main objections against Nozik

1. Self-ownership does not necessarily yield property right. It is true that we may own ourselves but virtually all things we may come to own have some elements of nature in it – which no one owns.

2. Self-ownership is inadequate account of treating people as equals – even on Nozik’s own view of what is important in our life. If we try to re-interpret self-ownership to make it an adequate conception of equality, and select ad economic regime on that basis, we would be led towards rather than away from the liberal view of justice.

F    Initial Acquisition.

The historical answer towards initial acquisition is that natural resources come to someone’s property by force. If force was initially used for acquisition, then it is illegitimate or the use of force does not necessarily make acquisition illegitimate. But in either case, there is no moral reason why government may not confiscate such wealth and re-distribute but Nozik’s theory cannot therefore be used to perpetuate current inequality. Nozik says that initial forceful acquisition illegitimatises current holdings.

v    November, 13^th 2009

For Nozik, property should be returned to those from whom they were taken if we know them or a one-time redistribution should take place in Rawlsian model, before the libertarian principle of transfer takes place.

A historical conception of justice like Nozik’s cannot appeal to the common sense view, which is that people should be allowed to keep what they have once there is a just redistribution, because indeed, for Nozik, it is his historical acquisition that justifies a holding.

Locke, another defender of property right argued that we are entitled to appropriate bits of the external world is we “leave enough and as good” for others but this is scarcely the case. Yet in order to avoid a ruinous over-exploitation, we may need to enclose people. But no one’s condition must be worsened by virtue of deprivation of following the Lockean proviso, says Nozik. But what exactly does it mean to make someone worse off? According to Lockean proviso:

·                     People own themselves

·                     The world is initially un-owned

·                     You can acquire absolute rights over a disproportionate share of the world, if you do not worsen the condition of others

·                     It is relatively easy to acquire absolute right over a disproportionate share of the world, therefore

·                     Once people have appropriated private property, a free market in capital and labour is morally required.

F    The Politics of Libertarianism.

Libertarianism shares with liberals equality a commitment to the principles of respect for people’s choices. However, libertarianism rejects the principle of rectifying unequal circumstances. But the libertarian denial that underserved inequality give rise to moral claims suggests a failure to recognise the profound consequences of circumstance on people’s capacities for choices, agencies and dignity.

v    November 19, 2009

However, the concern for both liberals and libertarians is that if we have to equalise social disadvantages, we may also have to rectify social interventions, centralised planning and even human engineering – leading down to serfdom where the principle of respect gets swallowed up by the requirement to equalise circumstances.

Liberals hope to balance the twin demands of respecting choices and rectifying circumstances. This is easy in terms of education for example, for both blacks (poor) and white (rich). But disparate circumstances exist between groups and individuals and it is less obvious to determine those that are due to choice or circumstances.

In the real world, there are always some differences in people’s background which could be said to be the cause of their different choices. Differences in efforts are sometimes related to differences in self-respect, which are in turn often related to differences in people’s social environment. Until we can find a line between choice and circumstance, we cannot always find enforceable moral ground to equalise differential circumstances. Libertarianism capitalises on this discomfort to say that we can avoid having to draw that line. The state should do nothing to equalise the inequalities in the society.

v    November 20, 2009

F    John Rawls: Liberal equality or Justice as fairness.

There is a limit to which individuals may be taxed or be legitimately expected to make sacrifices for the benefit of others. If we are to treat people as equals, we must protect their rights and liberties – both liberals and Libertarians will affirm this statement. But which rights and liberties? To provide answer to this question, Rawls had first to reject intuitionalism and utilitarianism as they do not present coherent and or acceptable political theory.

Rawls’ general conception of justice consists of one central idea: “All social primary goods – liberty and opportunities, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect – are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favoured” (Rawls 1973: 303).

Although, Rawls ties the idea of justice to an unequal share of social justice, he has a vital twist. We treat people as equals not by removing all inequalities, but only those which disadvantaged someone. Inequalities which draw out socially useful talents and energies are to the benefit of everyone, and therefore need not be removed. If giving someone else more money that I have promotes my interest in the end, then a consideration of equal concern for my interest should allow the inequality. Inequalities are allowed if they improve my initially equal share, but are not allowed if, as in utilitarianism, they invade my fair-share. The simple idea at the hearts of Rawls’ theory is his claim, that, we should think of his principle as giving the less well-off a kind of veto over any inequality which sacrifices, rather than promote, their self-interest.

v    November 26, 2009.

F    Liberal Equality – John Rawl’s: Justice and Fairness.

But the various goods being distributed under that principle may conflict. For example, we may be able to increase someone’s income by depriving them of one of their basic liberties – in Nigerian election for example. The least well off may be favoured in one way (income) but not in another (liberty). The question is, do improvements in income outweigh advantages in liberty or opportunity?

Rawls provides a system of “lexical priority” to solve this problem:

·                     First Principle:

Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

·                     Second Principle:

Social and economic equalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit to the least advantaged, and (b) attached to offices and positions opened to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

F    First Priority Rule (The Priority of Liberty)

The principle of justice is to be ranked in lexical order and therefore liberty can be restricted only for the sake of liberty.

F    Second Priority Rule (The Priority of Justice over Efficiency and Welfare)

The second principle of justice is lexically prior to the principle of efficiency and that of maximising the sum of advantages; and fair opportunity is prior to the difference principle (Rawls 1971:302 -3).

According to these principles, some social goods are more important than others, and therefore cannot be sacrificed for improvement in others. Equal liberty takes precedence over equal opportunity which takes precedence over equal resources. But within each category, Rawls’ simple idea remains: an inequality is only allowed if it benefits the least well off (the poor people).

v    What is liberal equality?

Liberal equality is a political theory that aims at rectifying inequalities in the society. Put differently, it aims at protecting people’s rights and liberties as a way of balancing out inequalities.

v    November 28, 2009.

A theory of justice can also be called a political theory. An acceptable political theory, theory of justice, philosophical theory, must have to take and piece from existing theory.

Left Wing: Emphasise                             Right Wing: Emphasise

Equality	Freedom
Socialism	Free market
	Capitalism

Liberalism is an attempt to bridge the gap between the left and the right wings in politics. The liberals would therefore accept from both the left and right wing principles.

F    The Intuitive Equality of Opportunity Argument

Under the prevailing order, inequalities of income and privilege are assumed to be justified if and only if everyone was offered equal opportunity to compete and acquire such offices and benefits.

Contrary to the existing theory, Rawls says that justice is maintained only when the least standard is set in such a way that the least advantaged are given better opportunity.

F    Social Contract Argument.

According to Rawls, if we are to have a hypothetical original position and under the veil of ignorance and we are to decide what the principle of justice will be, we are going to accept his own laid down principle, namely, hat inequalities should not be allowed at all. If it is to be allowed, it must be in order that the least advantaged are given better opportunity.

Philosophical Inquiry                               Scientific/Social science/Political Inquiry

Open	Closed
No clear cut method	There is a method
No standard	There are standards
Involves rigor	Looks for facts.

v    December 4, 2009

F    Assignment.

In the ethical dilemma that arises in the article, how would justice be arrived at in the view of:

(a) The libertarians

(b) The liberals

(c) In your own view.

1½ foolscap pages – handwritten

Submit on January 21, 2010

5 marks

F    Power, Authority and Legitimacy.

Critical conceptual correlates in political discourse.

“In such a condition, there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the Commodities that may be imported by Sea; no Commodious Building, no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; And which is worst of all continual fear of violent death; And the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. Thomas Hobbes

F    Power

Political power can be defined as the authority and control by those in government over the people and their actions. It is the ability of those in authority to make the people obey them.

F    Authority

Authority can be defined as the right to command; the right or power to enforce rules or give orders. It is a form of rule that is seen as legitimate.

F    Legitimacy

Legitimacy implies something that complies with the law, or having official status defined by the law.

This is the commodity that flows from the ruled to the ruler. It is something that the people bestow on the ruler. It describes the degree of support bestowed on the ruler by the ruled.

F    Sovereignty

Sovereignty means overriding or supreme authority. This claim to supreme authority is usually made by the state, usually on legal grounds, but then other persons or bodies sometimes lay claim to sovereignty. So the state has somehow justified its claim to apex authority. Can the state’s claim to sovereignty be justified on political (power) or legal (law) ground?

 

-                    Political concepts assist us to have a firm grasp of the nature of social theories.

-                    Concepts – encapsulates ideas

-                    Theory – explains ideas beyond common sense experience/ideas

-                    Issues – these are problems we have recognised and seek ways of solving them.

-                    Power turns to authority once there is legitimacy.

Power                                and                         Authority.

Power implies	Authority implies
Constraint	Consent
Force	Morality
Subordination	Will
Dependence	Autonomy

v    14/01/10

F    Power, Authority and Legitimacy

Power and authority are basic political concepts but they are unique because an indissoluble link exists between them in spite of the sharply contrasting nature of their contents. While power implies constraint, force, subordination and dependence, authority on the other hand implies consent, morality, will and autonomy.

The problem is that power and authority appear to exclude one another but they are never found apart. Why exactly is this so?

Now, it may be possible to point two different states, one seemingly run on power and the other seemingly based on authority. But the discovery scholars have made is that authority could never exist in its “pure” form”: there is always an element of coercion – moral coercion for example in the case of certain social relationship, say between parents and children, doctors and patients. Power can be conceived as either positive or negative. Negative power relates to one’s ability to act freely or the capacity to compel others to do one’s will. It refers to potestas; i.e., control, supremacy, domination and potential i.e., ability, efficacy and potency especially that which is unofficial and sinister.

Positive power has to do with empowerment, the capacity to, rather than dominion or rule over but then, the two are not really mutually exclusive. The one gives rise to the other.

v    15/01/10

It has been argued that power is about decision making. Power according to this view resides with those who take decisions, even when it appears that the people’s consent has been obtained before such decisions are eventually made. This is because people could be under-informed o deceived; sometimes unintentionally.

Authority is when people have been properly informed about the points at issue but this does not solve the problem completely. This is because there is no society where there is an absence of constraint, at least from natural forces and inequalities. So we can never really divulge power form authority.

There is an indissoluble link between power and authority if we look at it from the angle of legitimacy. Even in a master/slave relationship, the slave has to recognise or acknowledge or legitimatise the relationship even though this may be done with reluctance. If not, the slave will have to die or escape. So even in this extreme case of raw power, there is minimal authority. The slave master could be said to exercise much power and little authority. Also, even when authority is elevated to its utmost, power is implied. Authority is to be measured by the degree of acceptance displayed by the person(s) who authority is exercised on. Even when legitimacy is at it peak, power is always lurking around.

v    21, 22/01/2010

F    Democracy – A modern notion of majority government

Modern democracy is a system that allows for a periodic free and fair election that enables peaceful and orderly change of government. It assumes that all citizens are entitled to a say in the affairs that concerns them, hence the emphasis in the rule of law and constitutional government in a democracy. It is the rule of the majority in the pursuit of the common good. Democracy further assumes that:

·                     No person is naturally superior to another. So any relations of authority between them stood in need of justification – in other words, each person should enjoy equality of political rights unless it could be shown that everyone gained from having inequality.

·                     The people are made the final repository of political authority to ensure their interests are completely safeguarded.

However, in practice, democracy faces several challenges including the fact that only a few people eventually enjoy real political power.

F    Ideals of democracy – Norms and standards

-                    Voting.

In a democracy, citizens should participate in the decision making of the government by voting. In our electronic age, it wouldn’t be difficult for citizens to vote in making general policy whose detailed implementation would be left to ministers and others. But an oft sighted reason against this is that it is imply impractical for millions of ordinary citizens to be involved in making large numbers of governmental decisions as this would paralyse such government.

According to Schumpeter…. “The typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyses in a way in which he would readily recognise as infantile within the sphere of his real interest. He becomes a primitive again.”

 Schumpeter endorses ‘elective aristocracy’, a situation the ordinary citizen can at best: only hope that his elected representative would be competent in making the right decisions on his behalf, and vote them out if they fail.

-                    Voting

-                    Rule of law

-                    Constitutional government

-                    Citizenship

-                    Equality/political rights

-                    Sovereign authority belong to the people

-                    Referendum

-                    Economic empowerment.

F    Democracy and the Nigerian State

-                    Free and fair election. Free and free election is one of the components of democracy. In the Nigerian elections, free and fair practice in our elections is far from being the case. We have evidence of massive elections malpractices in this country.

-                    Constitutional government. In a democracy, the constitution should be observed. In Nigeria however, the constitutions are sometimes neglected especially when it does not favour the interest of the concerned party.

-                    Accountability. This virtue remains one of the greatest problems facing our governmental representatives.