Search results
In liberal democracies there is a belief that citizens ought to take an active interest in what is happening in the political world. Political debate in modern Western democracies is a complex and often rowdy affair. There are three fundamental political issues: 'politics', 'power' and 'justice', which feature in almost all political discussions and conflicts. The book assesses the degree to which the state and state sovereignty are disappearing in the modern world of 'globalised' politics, economics and culture and new international institutions. The main features of the nation and the problems of defining it are outlined: population, culture, history, language, religion, and race. Different types of democracy and their most important features are discussed. 'Freedom' is usually claimed to be the prime objective of political activity. The book discusses equality of human rights, distributional equality, equality before the law, the claims for group equality on the grounds of race, gender, class. Rights, obligations and citizenship are closely associated. Ideology is the driving force of political discourse. The book also discusses nationalism's growth and development over the last two centuries with particular reference to its main features and assumptions. It outlines the development of conservatism as a political ideology and movement in Britain during the last two centuries. An overview of liberalism, socialism, Marxism, anarchism, and Fascism follows. Environmentalism and feminism are also discussed. Finally, the book talks about how ideological change occurs and stresses the importance of rationality in politics.
We now explore the term ‘equality’, defined in two ways: first, that which concerns equality as a starting point to life; second, equality as an outcome. We also consider equality before the law, equal political rights and equal social rights. After that we examine individual and group equality, and equality in terms of the class structure and international relations. Finally
dealing with vulnerable groups on the other. To add more empirical flesh to the bones of our archival research results presented in Chapter 4 and to better visualize the trends related to the inclusiveness dimension, we refer here to some V-Dem measurements dealing with vulnerable groups in the region as well: the egalitarian democracy index, the exclusion of social groups index, and the indicator for social group equality in
element in modern political discourse. We discuss equality and its value in politics: equality of human rights, distributional equality, equality before the law, the claims for group equality on the grounds of race, gender, class. It is important to be aware of the challenges to equality as a principle, especially when it is seen to conflict with a greater value, liberty. 6 Rights, obligations and citizenship
group, rather than on common needs and issues. For advocates of Community Cohesion, this policy direction cast aside the parallel priority of early race relations approaches, that of ‘promoting good relations’ between different groups: ‘equality’ for each group was prioritised over unity and commonality (Cantle, 2005 ). Whilst some would see this as
act alike. It means that ‘if I am concerned solely about your rights, I will treat you like a generic person, not as the warm and colorful individual you are, caught up in a tightly knit web of social relations’ ( ibid .: 229). What, then, of the claim that equality and neutrality are themselves cultural values that may not be valued by nonliberal ethnic groups? Equality is
– he was sincerely intent on dismantling the discriminatory edifice. The politics of domination could only survive in the absence of large-scale mobilisation of the marginalised nationalist minority. During his last year in office, O’Neill had come under relentless attack from civil rights activists and the right wing of his own party. The demands of these two groups – equality versus supremacy – were mutually exclusive and O’Neill ultimately found himself unable to satisfy the claims of either section. Ultimately, O’Neill’s reluctance to antagonise his own