Justus Lipsius and the Post-Machiavellian Prince

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Brooke
Keyword(s):  
Political Thought ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Political Action ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Historical Significance ◽  
Philosophical Dialogue ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
Political Thinker

This chapter studies the political thought of Justus Lipsius, a moral and political thinker as well as the author of the two-volume philosophical dialogue De constantia (1583) and the six-volume Politica (1589). The chapter explores the scholarship surrounding Lipsius and the historical significance of his works and investigates his connections to Neostoicism. It then embarks on a discussion of the connection between Lipsius's political thought and that of Machiavelli, particularly as revealed in the latter's The Prince (1532). The chapter argues that Machiavelli and Lipsius disagree on the ends of political action: Lipsius's prince aims at serving the common good, understood in terms of the security and welfare of the subject population; Machiavelli's prince acts to secure his own glory.

Speaking for Islam

2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 110-127
Author(s):  
Abdoulaye Sounaye
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
The State ◽  
Institutional Transformation ◽  
The Political ◽  
Religious Authority ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Common ◽  
Religion And State ◽  
Islamic Values ◽  
French Model

Unexpectedly, one of the marking features of democratization in Niger has been the rise of a variety of Islamic discourses. They focus on the separation between religion and the state and, more precisely, the way it is manifested through the French model of laïcité, which democratization has adopted in Niger. For many Muslim actors, laïcité amounts to a marginalization of Islamic values and a negation of Islam. This article present three voices: the Collaborators, the Moderates, and the Despisers. Each represents a trend that seeks to influence the state’s political and ideological makeup. Although the ulama in general remain critical vis-à-vis the state’s political and institutional transformation, not all of them reject the principle of the separation between religion and state. The Collaborators suggest cooperation between the religious authority and the political one, the Moderates insist on the necessity for governance to accommodate the people’s will and visions, and the Despisers reject the underpinning liberalism that voids religious authority and demand a total re-Islamization. I argue that what is at stake here is less the separation between state and religion than the modality of this separation and its impact on religious authority. The targets, tones, and justifications of the discourses I explore are evidence of the limitations of a democratization project grounded in laïcité. Thus in place of a secular democratization, they propose a conservative democracy based on Islam and its demands for the realization of the common good.

Maṣlaḥa as Sovereignty: Fadlallah and Khomeini Compared

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-112
Author(s):  
Nachman Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Political Thought ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Islamic History ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Islamic Political Thought ◽  
Popular Movement ◽  
The Common ◽  
Definition Of

This article examines how Fadlallah and Khomeini’s respective quests for sovereignty are reflected in their political thought, particularly vis-a-vis their notions of maṣlaḥa, which I define as the “common good.” I argue that if, to an extent, Islamic political thought seeks to maximise maṣlaḥa, then this can also constitute a claim to sovereignty, the definition of which remains multidimensional and contentious. By closely examining Fadlallah and Khomeini’s writings and pronouncements on governance, popular movement, and state, I attempt to reveal how discussions regarding Islamic governance demonstrate a broader claim to authority in Islamic history.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document