Suchergebnisse

As of today, debates over political power are divided between theorists who see empowerment as a shrewd ruse of power, leading to domination (Nietzsche, Foucault 1983) and theorists who consider empowerment as the key to overcoming domination in more or less sophisticated forms (Kant 1781, Lukes 1974). This opposition dictates that power in our understanding of modern society is a domain of apparent antinomies (Gallie 1956; Dean 2012; Forst 2013a). However, it seems that the deeper study of modern society shows that both positions have some truth to it. The main question of this work is "What is legitimate political power? In my Ph.D. dissertation, I have investigated the concepts of political power and rights. I tried to transcend the notion of political power and distinguished it from mere exercise, domination, or subject dispositions. I aimed to criticize authoritarian and totalitarian regimes – monarchies and polyarchies -, their instruments of power: Natural Law, the miranda, and credenda of power (Merriam 1934) and their legal order. I elaborated on the legitimacy of power and principle of democratization to show that it is the right of people to question political power and its instruments to the extent that such critique helps to reach a political equilibrium –in procedural and effectual consequence- in which there is mutual recognition of the right and the authority between those who govern and those who are governed. More importantly, I investigated in the nature of power. This mean, how power restricted itself or empowered itself and with which instruments. This is one of the main theories proposed in my investigation which I called "political consciousness". I will argue that "a consciousness on the government's part that it has a right to govern and with some recognition of that right by the governed" (Ibid) would be one of the essential characters of a legitimate power. The result of this research is to show that the theory of 'political consciousness is one of the important social-political ...

This paper assesses two instruments of power: the miranda and credenda of power. These instruments can be found in different power systems and regimes: in ancient Greece, Islamic medieval states or even in Modern Middle Easter states. The first approach is historical, which helps to understand the origin of the miranda and credenda of power. The second approach is theoretical, which helps to show both the miranda and credenda of power that are used to assess the claims to the justification of power. As a critique, this paper shows that semi-democracies, fascist states, theocracies, and communist regimes use these instruments excessively to justify their power. Abuse of such instrument is only possible by generating "negative political consciousness" of which aim is to make folks to become rightless and powerless. Such trend is a threat to a healthy democracy. The aim of this paper attempts to show the important role of miranda and credenda of power in justification of power.

Abstract
This paper assesses the fundamental relation between the Islamic-political movements and establishment of the Islamic law (Shari'a). I argue against the critiques of western foreign policy and show that the Islamic State (Caliphate) is both a result of the historical process of the people of a region and the extreme interpretation of the text and Sunna which emphasizes on the traditional Sharia law and the concept of Jihad by fortifying political Islam qua militant Islam. I argue that the Islamic revival aims to a certain political order which threatens the world security and peace. Moreover, I argue that the structural violation of Human Rights is rooted in the traditional concept of Islamic law or Sharia, which obtains its immunity by an illegitimate power. This traditional Islamic law is the inalienable character of authoritarian/totalitarian regimes. This paper is based on the assumption that the extreme ideological/theoretical interpretation implies the empirical objectives of Militant Islamic community with or without any external influential elements. In this sense, we can address the question: how different interpretations and traditions in executing the Islamic Sharia give the social and political grounds a seed for the emergence of violence and terrorism. At the end, this paper ends with a propose which emphasizes on the role of international cooperation to find a resolution and also on the education as a long-term plan to defeat extremism and terrorism.

Political theories and ideologies are arguably the foundations of political power relations [1], the process of exercise of power between an authority and subject. Because different political theories apply contrary principles, the legitimacy of political actions, as judged by their norms and effectiveness [2], is an on-going and contentious discussion. The use of different principles leads to different practical exercises such as, acquisition, procedures and the practice of political power. For instance, western political theories take for granted that political legitimacy is based on the principles of human rights, the concept of 'power to' viz. the mutual appreciation of rights, and the rights of citizens and governments which is the concept of 'power of ', viz. the moral significance of claiming to a right. Such principles in nonwestern power relations are not fully appreciate, thus the sovereignty relying merely on one concept of power: the concept of 'power over' which implies domination. The western principles for a legitimate power relation is not only vital for current political relations, including the ability to secure and to develop peace, but also to recognize and address the illegitimate state and their instruments. Given this premise, we can normatively and empirically assess 'political acts of aggression', or state's coercion which are arguably an instrument of every political power. Indeed, such contribution referring mostly to the modern authoritarian/totalitarian states in the Middle East and North Africa which have been used coercion or political aggression in their power relations.1 Moreover, it is important to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate political acts of aggression. The difference will be examined through examples of acts of aggression in politics, carried out especially from top-down approach.

Abstract
Political participation and the public education that have always been deployed to support the incipient progress of the civic life are revived in the modern political discourses. It has been believed that the age of pre-Socrates was the age of the Sophists whose acrid fallacy works occupied the political sphere, a malaise in government. However, speaking non-traditionally in the modern pedagogical system, there were some pre-Socratic thinkers and political philosophers/orators who's works are the backbone of modern discourse on this matter. It will be examined whether any part of the classical rhetoric apparatus can be recovered and put to a good practice in the modern education and modern political participation. This point will be illustrated, furthermore, in this paper by alleging the importance of rhetoric, its role in Ancient Greek Democracy, and its influence on the modern concepts of power and democracy, as a continual element in a historical-political life. The further consideration is whether there was any democratic Polis existed in Ancient Athens and then, if there was, what characteristics it consisted of. Moreover, whether such concept can or should be considered in modern political discourses. In this sense, the liberal, non-dogmatic strain of the sophistry of Isocrates tradition urges us to indicate that the findings of this educational principles are, if not necessary, but adjutant complementary metes to our modern political knowledge of the states. In the end, it is inquired to see comparatively that how the tradition of rhetorical art and the concept of power in the Ancient Greek society have pertained to the modern democratic elements and whether we are able to empower this influential element in modern states.

Political participation and the public education that have always been deployed to support the incipient progress of the civic life are revived in the modern political discourses. It has been believed that the age of pre- Socrates was the age of the Sophists whose acrid fallacy works occupied the political sphere, a malaise in government. However, speaking non-traditionally in the modern pedagogical system, there were some pre-Socratic thinkers and political philosophers/orators who's works are the backbone of modern discourse on this matter. It will be examined whether any part of the classical rhetoric apparatus can be recovered and put to a good practice in the modern education and modern political participation. This point will be illustrated, furthermore, in this paper by alleging the importance of rhetoric, its role in Ancient Greek Democracy, and its influence on the modern concepts of power and democracy, as a continual element in a historical- political life. The further consideration is whether there was any democratic Polis existed in Ancient Athens and then, if there was, what characteristics it consisted of. Moreover, whether such concept can or should be considered in modern political discourses. In this sense, the liberal, non-dogmatic strain of the sophistry of Isocrates tradition urges us to indicate that the findings of this educational principles are, if not necessary, but adjutant complementary metes to our modern political knowledge of the states. In the end, it is inquired to see comparatively that how the tradition of rhetorical art and the concept of power in the Ancient Greek society have pertained to the modern democratic elements and whether we are able to empower this influential element in modern states.

This article considers a difference between Farabi's political views and Strauss political view at one part and showing how Strauss has skillfully diverged from Farabi's path on the other part. For this purpose, and because of the wide range of works from both thinkers, I will consider one work from Farabi under the title of The philosophy of Plato and one work of Strauss under the title of Farabi's Plato which they have already bounded together in a view to the context. It must be discussed and analysis that how and why Strauss took such a view in aforementioned work about Farabi which is not easy to discover. To make the discussion more concrete, I will explain some esoteric notion of Farabi's political view.