Moderation and “Neutral Power”

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurelian Craiutu
Keyword(s):  
Political Thought ◽  
The State ◽  
Representative Government ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Middle Way ◽  
First Empire ◽  
Bourbon Restoration

This chapter examines political moderation in Benjamin Constant's political thought, with particular emphasis on his search for a “neutral power” that would function as a moderating device, keeping the ship of the state on an even keel. It begins with a commentary on Constant's enigmatic personality before turning to his lesser-known political writings from 1795 to 1799 as well as his better-known works written during the First Empire and the Bourbon Restoration. It then considers the rhetoric of an “extreme center” in the context of moderation as well as Constant's notion of the middle way during the Directory. It also explores Constant's ideas on limited sovereignty and individual liberty, along with his theory of representative government based on the concept of pouvoir modérateur.

scholarly journals Islam and the State in the Indonesian Experience

ICR Journal ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 126-144
Author(s):  
Bahtiar Effendy
Keyword(s):  
Political Thought ◽  
The State ◽  
Viable Option ◽  
Middle Way ◽  
Muslim Countries ◽  
Islamic Political Thought ◽  
State Relations ◽  
Secular State

This article analyses the source and nature of Islam-state relations, and the efforts made to find a viable synthesis between them. Like many other Muslim countries, Indonesia encountered difficulties in the attempt to establish a synthesis between Islamic political thought and the notion of a secular state. The author makes an important yet often neglected observation, that not all Indonesian Muslims support the politicisation of Islam and that the level and magnitude of support for ideological and symbolical Islam is relatively low in Indonesia. In order to find a middle way for the Indonesian setting in the post-Soeharto period, he argues in favour of a ‘partial accommodation’ of moderate Muslim concerns as a viable option for a more enduring relationship between Islam and the state.  

A Virtue for Courageous Minds

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurelian Craiutu
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
French Revolution ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Moral Virtue ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
History Of Political Thought ◽  
Common Notion ◽  
History Of ◽  
Benjamin Constant ◽  
Intellectual Foundations

Political moderation is the touchstone of democracy, which could not function without compromise and bargaining, yet it is one of the most understudied concepts in political theory. How can we explain this striking paradox? Why do we often underestimate the virtue of moderation? Seeking to answer these questions, this book examines moderation in modern French political thought and sheds light on the French Revolution and its legacy. The book begins with classical thinkers who extolled the virtues of a moderate approach to politics, such as Aristotle and Cicero. It then shows how Montesquieu inaugurated the modern rebirth of this tradition by laying the intellectual foundations for moderate government. The book looks at important figures such as Jacques Necker, Germaine de Staël, and Benjamin Constant, not only in the context of revolutionary France but throughout Europe. It traces how moderation evolves from an individual moral virtue into a set of institutional arrangements calculated to protect individual liberty, and explores the deep affinity between political moderation and constitutional complexity. The book demonstrates how moderation navigates between political extremes, and it challenges the common notion that moderation is an essentially conservative virtue, stressing instead its eclectic nature. Drawing on a broad range of writings in political theory, the history of political thought, philosophy, and law, the book reveals how the virtue of political moderation can address the profound complexities of the world today.

Byzantine Traditions of the Sublime Porte: the Title qayṣar-i Rūm in the Ottoman Political Thought

Istoriya ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (5 (103)) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Dmitry Korobeynikov
Keyword(s):  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Political Culture ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
The State ◽  
Great Power ◽  
The Sublime

The article is focused on the problem of the title qayṣar-i Rūm, “Caesar of Rome”, which was a traditional title of the Byzantine emperors in Arabic and Persian sources. It is believed that the title was accepted by Mehmed II Fatih after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It seems that the Ottoman chancery began to use the title only during the reign of Suleyman the Magnificent. The first evidence thereof was the famous inscription of Suleyman in the fortress of Bender (Bendery, in Moldavia/Moldova) in 1538—1539. The Ottomans recognized themselves as a new Rome only after they went into conflict with a great power in Persia, the state of the Aq-Qoyunlu and the Safawi Empire at the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century. They did so, however, in the categories of their Persianate political culture, and the title qayṣar-i Rūm was believed to have been an equivalent of the title padishah.

Leviathan on a Leash

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Fleming
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Sovereign Debt ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Modern Politics ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The World

States are commonly blamed for wars, called on to apologize, held liable for debts and reparations, bound by treaties, and punished with sanctions. But what does it mean to hold a state responsible as opposed to a government, a nation, or an individual leader? Under what circumstances should we assign responsibility to states rather than individuals? This book demystifies the phenomenon of state responsibility and explains why it is a challenging yet indispensable part of modern politics. Taking Thomas Hobbes' theory of the state as a starting point, the book presents a theory of state responsibility that sheds new light on sovereign debt, historical reparations, treaty obligations, and economic sanctions. Along the way, it overturns longstanding interpretations of Hobbes' political thought, explores how new technologies will alter the practice of state responsibility as we know it, and develops new accounts of political authority, representation, and legitimacy. The book argues that Hobbes' idea of the state offers a far richer and more realistic conception of state responsibility than the theories prevalent today and demonstrates that Hobbes' Leviathan is much more than an anthropomorphic “artificial man.” The book is essential reading for political theorists, scholars of international relations, international lawyers, and philosophers. It recovers a forgotten understanding of state personality in Hobbes' thought and shows how to apply it to the world of imperfect states in which we live.

At the Origins of Neo-Liberalism: The Free Economy and the Strong State, 1930–1947

2010 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
BEN JACKSON
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
State Regulation ◽  
Free Society ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Public Controversy ◽  
Strong State ◽  
Middle Way ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Market Liberalism ◽  
The Welfare State

ABSTRACTIt is often suggested that the earliest theorists of neo-liberalism first entered public controversy in the 1930s and 1940s to dispel the illusion that the welfare state represented a stable middle way between capitalism and socialism. This article argues that this is an anachronistic account of the origins of neo-liberalism, since the earliest exponents of neo-liberal doctrine focused on socialist central planning rather than the welfare state as their chief adversary and even sought to accommodate certain elements of the welfare state agenda within their market liberalism. In their early work, neo-liberal theorists were suspicious of nineteenth-century liberalism and capitalism; emphasized the value commitments that they shared with progressive liberals and socialists; and endorsed significant state regulation and redistribution as essential to the maintenance of a free society. Neo-liberals of the 1930s and 1940s therefore believed that the legitimation of the market, and the individual liberty best secured by the market, had to be accomplished via an expansion of state capacity and a clear admission that earlier market liberals had been wrong to advocate laissez-faire.

The Hostile Family and the Purpose of the “Natural Kingdom” in Hobbes's Political Thought

2015 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 377-398
Author(s):  
Rita Koganzon
Keyword(s):  
Political Thought ◽  
The State ◽  
Parents And Children ◽  
The Family ◽  
Personal Rule

AbstractIn his political writings, Hobbes consistently distinguishes between “natural” and “artificial” commonwealths—those that arise from the family, and those created by mutual covenants. Although he insists that “both have the same right of government,” closer examination of Hobbes's accounts of the family reveals that it is a radically deficient model for the state, and that Hobbes was engaged in a polemic against both republicans and absolutists who claimed that parental power was natural, prior to, and even a model for the power of civil sovereigns. For Hobbes, a state based on parental rule is dangerously unstable, exacerbating the mutual fears of parents and children. The “office of the sovereign representative” defuses this conflict, and within the commonwealth, the family is denaturalized and reconstituted as an educative institution whose purpose is to reinforce the artificial sovereign by schooling both parents and children in the miseries of personal rule.

The Political Culture of Emancipation: Morality, Politics, and the State in Garrisonian Abolitionism, 1854–1863

1995 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-184
Author(s):  
Mark Voss-Hubbard
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Political Culture ◽  
National Government ◽  
The State ◽  
The Political ◽  
Moral Purpose ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Federal Authority ◽  
Emancipation Proclamation

Historians have long recognized the unprecedented expansion of federal power during the Civil War. Moreover most scholars agree that the expansion of federal power manifested itself most immediately and profoundly in the abolition of slavery. In a sense, through the Emancipation Proclamation, the Republican administration injected the national government into the domain of civil rights, and by doing so imbued federal power with a distinct moral purpose. The passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments codified this expression of federal authority, rejecting the bedrock tenet in American republican thought that centralized power constituted the primary threat to individual liberty.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document