Suchergebnisse

International audience ; This article discusses the religious-political rhetoric employed by St. Augustine at the time of crisis produced by the entrance of Christianity, Europe's first major apolitical or trans-political religion, into political life. It argues that Augustine recognized certain dangerous political tendencies in the Christian faith that could be fully avoided only by the study of political philosophy but could also be contained by the judicious use of rhetoric by Christian teachers like himself who had undertaken that study. He shows this by depicting for us a dialogue between himself and a student of his who at first exhibits these dangerous tendencies but, under the guidance of Augustine's rhetoric, is eventually formed into a Christian citizen capable of full participation in a democratic regime. ; L'article discute la rhétorique politico-religieuse que St. Augustin a employé au moment de la crise qui fut produit par l'apparence du Christianisme sur la scène politique, c'est à dire de la première grande religion apolitique ou trans-politique en Europe. Augustin a reconnu quelques tendances politiques dangereuses dans la foi chrétienne et a vu que, alors qu'on ne peut les éviter entièrement que par l'étude de la philosophie politique, le maître chrétien qui l'a ainsi étudié peut freiner ces tendances par l'emploi judicieux de la rhétorique. Augustin nous montre cela en dépeignant un dialogue qui prend place entre lui-même et un de ces étudiants. Cet étudiant montre d'abord ces tendances dangereuses mais, sous la direction de la rhétorique augustinienne, est finalement formé à la citoyenneté chrétienne, citoyenneté qui lui donne accès à une participation pleine et entière à la vie politique, même dans un régime démocratique.

Nearly all twenty-first-century readers of St. Augustine of Hippo become interested in him after reading the story of his Confessions. Yet when nonspecialists want to read more of him, they are directed to the later and more magisterial writings whose author is not immediately recognizable as the young searcher from the Confessions: City of God, On The Trinity, On Christian Doctrine, the scriptural commentaries, the anti-Pelagian tracts. The bishop of Hippo, unlike his younger self—and also unlike his philosophic predecessors, as he well knew—was obligated not to let so much as his word choice cause scandal to pious and uneducated ears.1

What explains variation in the intensity with which armed groups seek to socialise civilians into their ideology? This paper seeks to expand the literature on rebel governance and ideology in war to consider the ideational interaction between armed groups and civilians. A paired comparison examines the Naxalite Rebellion in India (1967-72) and the Shining Path Insurgency in Peru (1980-1992), which exhibited puzzling variation in socialisation intensity despite holding similar ideologies. I argue this variation can be explained by differences in combatant socialisation, how groups value reading- and writing-based education, and whether groups understand civilian participation as crucial for achieving victory.

AbstractWhen discussing the preconditions of liberal Islamic politics, liberal theorists often advocate the reinterpretation of traditional religious texts in light of liberal political theory. Such an interpretive project is worth comparing to a similar project conceived by the medieval Islamic philosopher Alfarabi, whose effort to introduce Greek political philosophy into his political-religious community parallels these efforts to introduce liberal theory into Islamic communities. Alfarabi argued that traditional texts should be reinterpreted in light of a new political science, one based on Greek sources but adapted to the unique needs of a community like his. This article shows how Alfarabi conceived of these adaptations, emphasizing the flexibility that he thought students of Greek political philosophy should adopt in accommodating even Islamic doctrines that they could not fully accept.

It is not hard to find critics of how the U.S. Congress operates today. Two of the most prominent, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, have bemoaned in particular Congress's failure to follow "regular order," which in their 2006 bookThe Broken Branchthey describe as a legislative process that incorporates "discussion, debate, negotiation, and compromise" (Mann and Ornstein 2006, 170).

What explains civilian victimization during civil war? Existing scholarship claims that violence against civilians is driven primarily by competition between armed actors. We argue that this explanation neglects a crucial cause of civilian victimization: in communities they rule, armed groups employ systematic violence against civilians to establish and sustain social order. Drawing on original microlevel quantitative data from Colombia, we show that areas controlled by a sole armed actor experience high levels of victimization, while places where multiple actors jointly govern exhibit significantly less violence. To explain this pattern, we draw on evidence from original interviews, focus groups, and secondary sources. We show that armed groups employ violence to govern areas they control and enact social order. But this violence is checked when multiple groups rule jointly: the factors that sustain pacted rule disincentivize victimization. These results have implications for theories of political order, violence, and governance by non-state actors.

What explains civilian victimization during civil war? Existing scholarship claims that violence against civilians is driven primarily by competition between armed actors. We argue that this explanation neglects a crucial cause of civilian victimization: in communities they rule, armed groups employ systematic violence against civilians to establish and sustain social order. Drawing on original microlevel quantitative data from Colombia, we show that areas controlled by a sole armed actor experience high levels of victimization, while places where multiple actors jointly govern exhibit significantly less violence. To explain this pattern, we draw on evidence from original interviews, focus groups, and secondary sources. We show that armed groups employ violence to govern areas they control and enact social order. But this violence is checked when multiple groups rule jointly: the factors that sustain pacted rule disincentivize victimization. These results have implications for theories of political order, violence, and governance by non-state actors.

This volume provides a fresh perspective on current democratic theory and practice by recovering the rich evaluations of democracy in the history of political thought. Each essay addresses a single thinker's reflections on the virtues and defects of democracy and the relationship between democracy and other regimes.