Conflict and Political Order - Essay Example

Conflict and Political Order Political philosophy has continued to evolve throughout the ages. The modern concept of political order is characterized by deliberative and liberal theories of democracy that draws from the rule of law, equality, and rational deliberation. In addition, agonistic theories have been used to shape politics in the modern context. Both of these theories have foundations of democracy. Conflict is found at the centre stage of politics because of the struggle for power between individuals. Up to the modern concept of political order, conflict remains contentious when it comes to politics. These concepts have drawn from the ancient view of politics advanced by individuals such as Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and Aquinas among others. Some of their concepts and propositions have been dispelled while others have influenced the philosophy of politics for centuries. Conflict among human beings is as old as history itself. War is found to have begun very long time ago because of the desire to control resources. Conflict has been founded on religious differences, ethnic differences, differing political ideologies, and social motivations. Politics is a broad subject that has influence over all humans directly or indirectly. According to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, political science has massive influence over all other things, he mentions about its authority and the control it has over humans under his theory of natural slavery. His assertions that humans are naturally political present a situation that depicts them as differing in opinions and thoughts. His view was that humans are unique, with each playing a specific role just like the way organs functions in a body. The aggregation of communities together is a natural affair because it achieves self-sufficiency among the individuals. The political nature of persons induces them to engage in conflicts between one another. The conflicts may not be based on any personal view but the political affiliations. According to the arguments presented by Aristotle in the Book V the affiliations that appears between individuals creates factions based on common interests. In the first place, the mindset of an individual prompts them to affiliate to a certain group and will tend to have disparity in opinion and behaviour with the other factions. Secondly, factions are developed depending on the benefits that are derived from them, it is also possible that some things are lost in joining the groupings thereby some resentment to the differing groupings is experienced. Finally, political disputes are potential sources of factions where there are ideological differences between groups. The traditional approach of conflict seems to have been avoided since its focus was mainly on functionalism. The approach gives weight to the fact that each individual in an organization or community is designated from a specific role in the community. This is contrary to the modern conflict theory where the opinion shapers are the elite in the society. However, to the modern theorists there is consensus with Aristotle’s point of view that all humans are wired to be political. The modern view presents a situation where social classes arise hence creating a huge disparity and dispelling the functionality notion that humans have a specific role that each is supposed to play. Conflict is very much associated with rise to power. According to Machiavelli use of force is one the strategies that power can be obtained, these results in conflict that results to loss of lives and betrayal. These individuals kill the people they want to lead and the existing leaders in order to find their way to power. A situation that does not involve much conflict happens when power is obtained through the favour of the people. In such a situation the conflict arises between the common people and the nobles, however, the funny thing is that the nobles have much influence over the common people such that they are capable of manipulating them to have one of them as the leader. The fact that the facilitation of the nobles made one of them the prince, their reign is short-lived because they view him as their equals. This demonstrates that conflict is inherent in all levels despite the status of the people. The modern conflict theory has relied upon some basic assumptions. Firstly, there is experienced competition due to the scarce and the increasing number of human wants. The second assumption is that there arises social groupings that creates structural inequalities among humans that catalyzes the third assumption that involves a revolutionary change that can result into war or other forms of conflicts. The effects of war are two way, it may foster unity among people like what was evident during the American Civil War, or it can promote division in the society. Therefore, the effects of the inherent political nature of humans present them opportunities for conflict. A supernatural view of conflicts was demonstrated by Aquinas who mentioned that the best way to solve disputes is through forgives. His view is very religious, based on the need to obey God and have respect for him; Aquinas requires that individuals should live in harmony just as God requires them to be. His philosophical argument is that God is capable to control and watch over all things even in the absence of human understanding. Property has featured widely across many philosophers and thinkers as the source of conflict. Phaleas has noted that for harmony all humans should have equal possessions. However, the mere equitable distribution of resources cannot be the ultimate solution to the problem of conflicts that arises between individuals and groups. Poverty is not the only driver to acquisition of property but also the need to advance in lifestyle and for power. In bringing another point of view that Phaleaus’ argument lack is that even the equalization of property itself can be a source of conflict because of the inherent political personality in people will make them to believe that they are being exploited because of their big input. This brings the aspect of injustice that has been known for centuries to be a source of conflict and activism. Changes in constitution and political orders are brought about by suspicions based on inequality and injustice. This creates a rift between the rich and the poor who are in constant battle to win the laws to their advantage. The conflict in the position taken by the different social groups of people promotes varying interests. Justice is an aspect that is viewed from the personal as well as group view, most of the times the group view is stronger than the individual perspective. The eleven bases of constitutional changes that bring constitutional conflicts between the individuals and groups are identified in Aristotle’s arguments. Faction conflicts are a type of conflict where individuals categorize themselves in their groups that are geared to fighting for their interests. The varied views of equality brings about differences, the most prevalent group in engaging in conflict are those that lack virtues at the expense of those who have. The objective and the motivation of faction are to have an overhaul change to the entire regime or an aspect of the regime that they do not like. The factions work to safeguard their interests and promote their ideology. These factions bring different point of views that are very instrumental in promoting conflicts. Not only are the interests of the faction important but also the need for accomplishment, profit and honour are important drivers. It is also apparent that negative factors such as fear, contempt and dissimilarity can influence the existence conflicts. Above all, the regime in place should be capable of promoting the interests of the factions in order to prevent the possibility of a conflict. Revolutions are a characteristic type of conflicts that are aggravated by injustices especially by lack of responsibility by the leadership of the day. Aristotle has asserted that the leadership of a country that is under a general the chances of the democracy being a tyranny are very high. Injustice on the side of the governed is a major cause of revolution for oligarchies. This revolution can emanate even from the high-ranking personalities who feel sidelined in the political leadership and the running of the regime. A popular leader may also stir a revolution through the influence that they have on the masses. It is also possible that a revolution can be catalyzed by an oppressive and aristocratic rule. The basis of revolution in an aristocratic regime can result from few individuals being involved in leadership, a situation that causes a rise of movements that stir a revolution. The view that Aristotle demonstrated of what a revolution entails has differed greatly with the modern view. In the modern setup, revolution does not come with any type of retrogression, as it was the traditional view. Through the ancient view, revolution was viewed in very basic terms as a change in regime. The modern view presents a broad way of thinking that considers a revolution as a complete change in ideologies and enhancement of democracy. Education can be a facilitator of a revolution by promoting the awareness of people on various issues that touches on their welfare. Education brings about elements of justice that are vital for the citizens to be aware of. Depending on the type of conflict and its magnitude then it is a collective responsibility for the most appropriate party to address it. Some conflicts will require the input of statesmen, others that of the clerics, philosophers and rarely will the citizens be involved unless on a very democratic situation. Any conflict should be addressed to attain a common consensus between the warring parties and taking the interest of the situation in contention on the forefront. This means that one party can be advantaged. This may be a source of further conflict hence justifying Aristotle’s proposition that humans are naturally political. In conclusion, conflicts have a philosophical basis derived from the political nature of man. It is apparent that the early philosophers’ point of view made a lot of sense even the modern set up of political events. However, some of the arguments that they put across have been dispelled. Conflicts and the various political orders have been demonstrated as dynamic hence presenting changes in the way politics are carried out. Works cited Aquinas’ Summa Theologica Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics Larmore, Charles. What is political philosophy? Journal of moral Philosophy. 2012. Web 10 Dec 2013. http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Philosophy/onlinepapers/larmore/WhatIsPoliticalPhilosophy.pdf Machiaveloi’s Prince Read More