Politics and government

Politics and disposalPolitics is synonymic with establishment and governing body al whizz. Discuss.Political analysts harbor long since been obsessed with the compend of political science in order to understand governance and veritable(a) that policy-making science is political science. convert admits, policy-making science is the rigorous and dispassionate science of disposal. (Hay, 2005) I believe that although in that respect is obviously a strong connective amongst political science and authorities they make up been pushed furthermost too close together in their understanding, to the consummation that some decl be them as one and the similar, or synonymic. As Leftwich and Held put in it, By heightening on governmental institutions, the discipline of Politics marginalizes and provides myopic basis for understanding the very stuff of government, that is, those deep-rooted problems that actu every last(predicate)y depend us all daily as citizens. (Lef twich and Held, 1984)There ar an long number of expositions and variations on those renderings for the marchess governing and government. Depending on which are taken there plenty be arguments for and once once against political science being synonymous with government. For exemplar Leftwich secerns that government activity dirty dog be seen as, the process of governing (Leftwich, 2004) and Heywood says, It is possible to fool governance with bulge out government. (Heywood, 2000) In light of this I feel it is necessary to lift off the discussion by pinning down a relevant interpretation for both terms and investigating how these terms interact with each other. succeeding(a) with a grammatical aspect at how politics arsehole constitute in the globe and private spheres as well as within well-bred society whereas government is confined to the public sphere and banished from civil society. I shall then turn my attention to the claim that politics is synonymous with government alone. I will explore the idea that a government washstand outlast without politics, that politics rotter exist out spatial relation(a) the go along of a government and even that politics is the seed from which government grows. From here I will move on to analyse the consumption of the word synonymous in the given landment. I will argue that to pronounce politics as synonymous with government, which is to say it is interchangeable or even one and the same as government, is to use the wrong terminology. I will use the global issue of the environment to support why the word synonymous is inappropriate and suggest to a greater extent appropriate language to describe the relationship amid the two concepts.In order to analyse the connection betwixt politics and government it is first vital to have an agreed definition of both concepts. St crafting with the concept of government Crick offers us a broad definition, Government The organization of a group of men i n a given community for survival. (Crick, 2005) We find a more open definition from Heywood, Government is commonly understood to refer to the formal and institutional processes which operate at the national level to maintain order and ease collective action. The core functions of government are thus to make practice of law (legislation), implement law (execution) and interpret law (adjudication). (Heywood, 2000) From this we can take that there are some central elements that a government requires such as, a governing body some source of income (taxation) a currency, i.e. a exchequer and banking system courts and a legal system to see that the laws are utilize a method of enforcing laws (police) and a military cart to defend the interests of the government. If we kick in these fundamental criteria of government to politics we can see that none of them are crucial for the existence of politics, therefore politics can non be synonymous with, or one and the same as, government. F ollowing on from this the question arises, if politics doesnt want these criteria to exist then what does it encompass?In its broadest sense Heywood describes politics as, The bodily process through which nation make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live. (Heywood, 2005)Hay (2005) gives a list, albeit non-exhaustive by his own admission, of twelve contrary senses of the term politics. He notes that some of these define politics as narrow and some as broad he also draws a distinction among politics as a function, process or arena. I will notion at four of these definitions and apply them to the relationship between government and politics. In the first sense politics is seen as Any and all societal interaction occurring within the sphere of government. (Hay, 2005) This is a very narrow definition and defines politics independently of field and only as the arena in which it occurs in this sense politics and government are indeed synonymous. This has been a popular way of defining politics as it had, the appeal of identifying unequivocally a set of political issues and a set of non-political issues. (Hay, 2005) It also helped in defining political science as a, field of scientific doubt (Hay, 2005) However arena definitions of politics have become unpopular as they fail to acknowledge political issues that have to that degree to register on legislative agendas, Hay gives the slip of, the feminist concern with the patriarchal theatrical routine of the nu assoil family. Hay, 2005) The fourth sense is, Politics as the noble art of preserving a community of citizens (the republic) through the construction, pursuit and defence of the common or public interest. (Hay, 2005) and is an example of politics as a function in which it specifically ensures, The common or collective interest of the community. (Hay, 2005) It could also be said for this definition of politics that it is also narrow notwithstanding again provides a close synony mity with government. The third sense provides us with a view of politics as a process, Politics as a public and formal set of processes and rituals through which the citizens of a state whitethorn participate, often at arms length, in the process of government. (Hay, 2005) Yet again this is a narrow explanation of politics and once more runs, more or less, parallel with the idea of government. It is towards the broader end of Hays list where we eventually find sufficiently broad in context, but narrow in content, definitions of politics which allow a presentation of the disparity between politics and government. The Political as an adjective to describe the motivations of participants and non-participants in a take to the woods of both formal and informal, public and private, processes where such motivations are political to the bound to which they reflect or express a view as to the authenticity of the process. (Hay, 2007) This brings to light how politics can exist in both t he public and private spheres whereas government can only be located in the public sphere. Mnookin differentiates between what encompasses each sphere, Activities that are presumptively outside the ordered bounds of government coercion and regulation (the private sphere) and those where government has a legitimate role (the public sphere). (Mnookin, 1982) And then as Hay and fenland note when defining politics as a process, The political may occur in any institutional and kindly environment, even so mundane, however parochial. (Hay and Marsh, 1999) This then touches on another area in which politics exists and government does not, civil society. Civil society is made up of civic and social organizations and institutions, Grugel cites Walzer as defining civil society as referring, to the quadriceps femoris between the singular and the state. (Grugel, 2002) and furthers this by adding, Civil society is crucial for democracy because it is the space between the public and private spheres where civic action takes place. (Grugel, 2002) The main role of civil society is to hold the state, or government, accountable and to promote individual interest which may be seen as apolitical, pre-political or just alone overlooked by the state. Here we find our first indication that although per se linked politics and government are also very often quantify separate.Perhaps it can be said that if not synonymous with government politics could be synonymous with something else. The most likely candidate may well be that of power, which can be broadly defined as, The mogul to achieve a desired outcome. (Heywood, 2000) This, it could be said, is the end goal of politics, as Leftwich and Held say, politics is close to power about the forces which influence and reflect its dissemination and use and about the effect of this on resource use and distribution it is about the transformative capacity of social agents, agencies and institutions it is not about Government or gov ernment alone. (Leftwich and Held, 1984)If we look now at how politics can exist exclusively of government we first turn to Heywoods fourth notion of politics in which politics is about power the ability to achieve a desired outcome, through whatever means. (Heywood, 2005) From this we can identify that there are certain activities in the world that can lend themselves to the debate on the relationship between government and politics. On the contemporary world stage, specially since the terror attacks in 2001 and 2005 in the U.S, and U.K. respectively, there has been a great focus on terrorism and its related activities. Terrorism can be set as a political tactic and in recent times has become a tool used by political groups all over the world. Many acts of terrorism have a political purpose, for example the attacks on the World Trade Centre in both 1993 and 2001 were political attacks on the part of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda. This has particular relevance to the relatio nship between politics and government as al-Qaeda openly have a political agenda yet crucially are not committed to any government. This would indicate that politics and political activity can, and do, exist outside of government. Consequently if politics exists separately outside of government then logically it cannot be synonymous with government.There can also be differentiate for the existence of government without politics. As Crick writes, Aristotle believes that when a polis, which can be defined in modern terms as a community, becomes structured it ceases to be a political community. Crick supports this by stating, Politics arises from judge the fact of the simultaneous existence of different groups, hence different interests and different traditions. (Crick, 2005) If we scan for a unified community that has a government we can find examples in dictatorships a dictator makes the decisions and everyone else agrees or is made to agree. As U.S. General George Patton once sai d, When everyone agrees, someone is not thinking. So in a dictatorship there is no politics, as there is no affect for conciliation between groups, but a government does exist. This adds more reason to the case that politics is not synonymous with government otherwise politics would have to exist within a dictatorship where it simply does not.So if it cannot be said that politics is totally synonymous with government yet there is clearly a high degree of interconnectedness between them, what is the best way to conceptualise their relationship? I suggest that the connection they share is that of logical progression. We have seen, with the example of terrorism, how politics can exist without government, we have also seen how government can exist without politics using dictatorships as an example and we can take it as read that they can exist together given the numerous examples worldwide such as the U.K. or U.S. It is this cohabitation though that I will use to show that the term s ynonymous is an inaccurate way to describe the relationship between politics and government. In most, if not all, cases of politics and government existing in the same state or community, it seems that politics came first and laid the seeds for government to cost and not vice versa . I will take the issues of the environment to look closer at this claim. The heavily amplified focus on all things environmental e.g. carbon footprints and global warming, over the past few years has been clear for everyone to see. One of the interesting things this has thrown into the political arena is global communities lobbying round political issues and the resulting effects on governance around the world. Some, including Clark et al (1998), say that a global civil society is slowly emerging through the increasing size, diversity and networking of world-wideistic non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) We do find evidence that the construction of a global society is under way but is far from compl ete. (Clark et al (1998).The most recent boom of environmental lobbying, it can be said, has come about due to the effects of globalization, as Eigen states, Thinking in historic dimensions, civil society is a fairly new force on the global landscape. (Eigen, 1998) Issues that were previously thought of as local are becoming far more easily identifiable as spanning regions, countries and even the globe. The size, cause and effect of these environmental issues is also far more truthful than ever before, this has come through the addition in technologies, not to the lowest degree the internet, and their power to shrink the world. More people can interact with a larger number of people and have more access to a greater amount of information than ever before. nary(prenominal) that small groups of people can be members of political communities or NGOs that span countries, continents and the globe, there became a requirement for some sort of increased governance above the state in rea ction to the pressure of the lobbyists. One of the main organizations to deal with foreign governance is the United Nations (U.N.) and so it is them who have been at much of the caput of interaction with, and the progression of, worldwide NGOs. Along with governmental changes at the international level, such as, New rules facilitating NGO access and participation at U.N. conferences (Clark et al 1998) international NGOs have affected changes at a domestic level also. In October 2008 the U.K. government created a new department entitled The Department of heftiness and Climate Change in order to address the energy and environmental issues being raised by the global community. One of their three overall objectives is to, achieve an international agreement on climate change at Copenhagen in December 2009. This refers to the U.N. Copenhagen Climate Conference at which world leaders will gather to discuss and, hopefully, come to some decisions on the actions that can realistically be taken to combat global climate change. This shows that international NGOs and international communities have caused a rise in the level of governance and government activity on the domestic and world stage. Thus an increase in politics has led to the growing and even emergence of government activity. This supports the theory that politics comes before, or at least progresses, government when they co-exist in a community. Government is the logical progression of politics.As I have tried to show it can be claimed that politics is synonymous with government, but only if particular definitions are used, definitions that many would argue to be out of date and largely unattached to the contemporary way of thinking about real world politics. After this I very briefly fey on the concept of power and how it is possibly a more desirable candidate to be described as synonymous with politics. I have also demonstrated how politics can exist separately to government using the example of terror ism and specifically the terrorist group al-Qaeda. Along side this I explained how, in certain situations such as dictatorships, government can be present without politics by its side. This was followed closely by a look at how the term synonymous fails to wholly capture the part of relationship that exists between the concepts of government and politics. There was then a prompt of an alternative term, logical progression, which attempts to unravel the complicated links between politics and government. I think it would be detrimental to politics to couple it so closely with government that they become all but interchangeable terms. This is not a slight on all things governmental but quite a recognition that the disillusioned public can only become more disenchanted and cynical towards politics if a clear distinction is not made between it and the seemingly ever more untrustworthy and selected world of The Government.BibliographyClark, A.M. et al (1998) The Sovereign Limits of Gl obal Civil Society A Comparison of NGO Participation in UN World Conferences on the Environment, human Rights, and Women, World Politics, Vol. 51, No. 1, 1-35.Crick, B. (2005) In Defence of Politics (Fifth Edition), Continuum.Department of strength and Climate Change (2008) About Us online Available http//www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/about/about.aspx accessed 14 November 2009Eigen, P. (1998) The Role of Civil Society, in UNDP, Corruption and oneness Improvement Initiatives in Developing Countries, 83-89.Gamble, A. (1990) Theories of British Politics, Political Studies, Vol. 38, 404-420.Gibbs, J. (1989) Conceptualization of Terrorism, American Sociological Review, Vol. 54, No. 3, 329-340.Grugel, J. (2002) Democratization A Critical creation, Palgrave Macmillan.Hay, C. (2002) Political analysis A Critical Introduction, Palgrave.Hay, C. (2007) Politics, Participation and Politicization, Why We Hate Politics, 61-85, 165-166, Polity Press.Hay, C. and Marsh, D. (1999) Introduction T owards a new (international) political economy? New Political Economy, Vol. 4, No. 1, 5 22.Heywood, A. (2000) Key Concepts in Politics, Palgrave Macmillan.Leftwich, A (2004) Thinking Politically On the Politics of Politics, What is politics? The activity and its study, 1-22, Polity Press.Leftwich, A. and Held, D. (1984) A discipline of politics? What is Politics? the Activity and its Study, 139-159, W. Heffer Sons.Mnookin, R. (1982) The Public/Private Dichotomy Political unlikeness and Academic Repudiation, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 130, No. 6, 1429-1440.Saurin, J. (1996) International relations, social bionomics and the globalisation of environmental change, The environment and international relations, Vogler, J. Imber, M. (eds.), 77-98, RoutledgeSteinberger, P. (1999) Public and Private, Political Studies, Vol. 47, 292-313.von Blow, M. (2009) World leaders Legally binding treaty out of reach in Copenhagen online Available http//en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?new sid=2599 accessed 16 November 2009von Blow, M. (2009) The essentials in Copenhagen online Available http//en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=876 accessed 16 November 2009