Liberalism

“France made its revolutions and gave them their ideas, to the point where a tricolor of some kind became the emblem of virtually every emerging nation, and European (or indeed world) politics between 1789 and 1917 were largely the struggle for and against the principles of 1789, or the even more incendiary ones of 1793. ” The principles of the French revolution lived on in every European continent; the French Revolution poured out its ideas and sent shock waves throughout Europe.

Therefore this phenomenon together with the period of enlightenment, contributed to the rise of consciousness and of antagonism against the “Ancien Regime” (a general term for ‘The Old Order’ in Europe before the French Revolution of 1789, when most countries were ruled by absolute monarchs and the aristocracy were the dominant class). The Bourgeoisie class took full advantage of this period to bring across their needs and Ideologies but was rarely at the forefront of the revolution as the peasants were usually causing the riots. The Bourgeoisie played a more underlying role in this revolution.

The people within the perimeters of the European wanted nationalism and liberalism. Napoleon Bonaparte also known as the “little corporal” came and restored stability and glory to France , “He was the man of the Revolution, and the man who brought stability. ” Napoleon brought the French Revolution to its conclusion when he entered the French arena to restore peace by putting an end to the “Reign of Terror “and extinguishing the fire of the Bourgeoisie . His megalomaniac personality and ambitious thirst for battles made France a great power in Europe.

This was illustrated in the series of battles he won, “Napoleon fought about sixty battles in his career and won all but a few of them, he rose to power because of his victories and fell because of his defeats. ” Metternich’s influence came about before the end of Napoleon’s regime. “Metternich was first appointed foreign minister in 1809 the Habsburg Empire was at its lowest point in its struggle against Napoleon. The French leader had forced the Empire out of its northern Italian territories, taken over the Austrian Netherlands and subsumed the Habsburg parts of Poland into the Duchy of Warsaw.

Habsburg domination of Germany had also been smashed as a result of the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire. This was a particularly powerful psychological blow to the dynasty’s sense of self worth: the Habsburgs had been Holy Roman Emperors for almost all of the previous 400 years and suddenly it no longer existed. To add insult to injury, this particular act of Napoleonic modernisation changed the title of the Habsburg Emperor from Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor, to Francis I, Emperor of the remaining Habsburg dominions. One of the few times in history that a monarch has been devalued. Napoleon was defeated in 1815, after which the initiative was taken through the employment of the Vienna Congress of 1814-1815, to restore political stability to the fragile European which Napoleon had compromised. The Vienna Congress was chaired by Klemens Wenzel von Metternich, its objective was to address issues which arose out of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. This settlement lead to the redrawing of the continental map, in so doing establishing new boundaries of France, the Netherlands, Germany, Italian territories and Napoleon’s duchy of Warsaw.

In 1815 when Napoleon failed to reassert his influence over Europe, the Congress of Vienna to all intensive purposes coped well with this problem. The Second Treaty of Paris further punished the French by reducing her borders to that of 1790, enforcing a large indemnity on her as well as forcing her to give back the stolen art pillaged from European Cities. This was a just punishment for France who had supported and welcomed Napoleon’s return. Additionally the Congress was against liberalism and nationalism which infiltrated into other European states from the French Revolution which they felt would disrupt their conservatism. First, it was necessary to build a security ring around the recent aggressor, France, and second, to provide the customary cartographical compensation for all the allied partners. ” The Congress of Vienna also had to deal with the key matters of containing France, which was accomplished by strengthening those countries on the French border. The Austrian Netherlands was incorporated into Holland, and on France’s southern borders, Piedmont, Nice and Savoy became one state.

Of course these new single states, not one could contain France by physical presence alone and so the Quadruple Alliance was signed by the major powers for a further 20 years should France rise up again the Congress was very “lenient” towards France despite the fact that they had just been defeated. Their main purpose was to restore the “status quo” and by doing this, they were able to ignore the demands for democracy and nationalism by the French people. Metternich made every effort to remove political or administrative power from local or subordinate levels and oncentrate it in a central authority was illustrated through his opposition of conservatism. He was of the opinion that that social mobility should be based on ascription not on achievement. Metternich was known for his advocation of strong, administratively efficient governmental organization which he felt was successfully portrayed by his ideal form of government the monarchs. This is captured when he said he opposed any other type of government and constitutional change which he felt would inevitably lead to chaos and revolutions.

Metternich was aware that all of Europe was conscientious and was aroused easily by the ever present spirit of nationalism and liberalism inherited from the French Revolution. Consequently this is the sole reason for his objection of liberalism and nationalism becoming operational. “Metternich therefore set his face against any constitutional change. Comparing revolution in turn to a hydra ready to swallow everthing up, to a fire, to a flood, and later to the cholera, hostile to the sovereignty of the people and constitutional government. As such Metternich’s principles opposed the ideology of liberty, equality and fraternity. The spread of Metternich’s ideology throughout Europe he tried to ensure that this objective was not materialized. Another great political idea development by Metternich was the Holy Alliance in 1815; this alliance was created by Tsar Alexander I, members of this alliance included Russia, Austria, and Prussia. The Holy Alliance was implemented to maintain the status quo so that the bourgeoisie were hindered from infiltrating into the upper class.

Additionally the Quadruple Alliance of April 22, 1834 formed between Spain, France, Britian and Portugal, was aimed at ensuring the victory of liberalism, at accomplishing a collective security and protecting the existing peace and balance of power. Social factors is seem as a factor that resulted in the revolutions. The 1820’s revolution damages were widespread as the first bout of unrest was experienced. Revolutionary upheavals began in the Italian states of Naples,Piedmont and Sicily.

These revolutions “occurred because the political systems reimposed on Europe were profoundly, and in a period of rapid social change increasinglyinadequate for the political conditions of the Continent, and because of economic and social discontents were acute as to …outbreaks virtually inevitable. ” They felt that the Metternich system disregarded their desire for liberalism and nationalism. In 1818, the church was restored to supremacy, regaining its influencial power in Naples this angered the people and the resentment against the leadership grew.

The liberals were inciting members of society to stage revolutions in efforts to gain freedom and oppose the leadership of the Kings whose rulings reflected the ideologies of the Metternich system. A proletarian and socialist revolutionary movement “was chiefly visible in the countries of the dual revolutions, Britian and France. ” The most notably results of 1830’s revolution was the “modifications of left-wing politics. They split moderates from radicals and they created a new international situation. In doing so they helped to split the movement not only into different social but into different national segments. The 1820’s and the 1830’s revolution both failed miserably because of little cooperation among the revolutionary movement and due to isolation of territories which preferred to stay alienated instead of forming union between the territories. The economic factors must now be considered, Metternich’s system amended the administration throughout Europe. As such the changes fostered by the Vienna Congress in particular was a major handicap for some countries. The Vienna Congress rulings were catastrophic to France who had to repatriate seven million francs and relinquish some colonies from the Italian providences to Austria.

Primarily because of the personal interest Metternich had in Austria such drastic effects were taken, therefore it can be stated that the major powers of the Vienna Congress made decisions to their individual advantage. Germany was another state who suffered immense losses just as France in efforts to settle international disputes. The territories bought economic stability as it increased the size of their purses and their power on the international arena. The Metternich system assisted in the financial prosperity of some nations while it crippled the acquisition of economic stability of other imperial powers.

Metternich fetish of restoring the monarchy of many countries was a financial burden on many countries whose desire was to be included in this grand change. The economic hardships were responsible for many of the revolutions in Europe both before and after the Metternich’s rule. The congress of Aix-La Chapelle in 1818 had a major concern about what should be done with France in terms of allowing them to attend future congress meetings and more importantly if they should relieve them of their military occupation.

The congress came to a unanimous decision on both issues where they allowed France to return to future meetings and the military occupation would end. “Metternich also frustrated Russian hopes of facilitating a Franco-Russian alliance as a counter to the Austrian-British alignment. He achieved this by sowing the seeds of mistrust between the two powers. The Congress of Aix-La-Chapelle therefore coped well with the problem facing it in 1818. ” There was another meeting in 1820 that took place in Troppau which was convened to discuss the matters about the uprising In Spain and Naples.

Each of the main powers at the congress had a different view about how the matter should be handled. Metternich made the decision to take action in Naples as it posed a great threat to Austrian influence in Italy. Alexander who represented Russia at the congress wanted to send troops into Spain to restore the monarchy (Ferdinand) while Casltereagh (Britain) thought that Naples and Spain were continental problems and as a result were not a concern of the British.

The end result was the signing of the Troppau protocol which was a great success for Metternich as he gained the support of Russia and isolated France. As Metternich gained the support of Russia, he somewhat lost the support of the British. “However on the whole the congress system itself had failed to cope with the problems of Spain and Naples. The question of Spain would remain a problem even after the Congress of Verona in 1822, and the Troppau agreement had split the major powers in two. The system could not cope without a general agreement by all the major powers.

The main problem was, all the major powers had differing opinions and interests, which made certain a general agreement on a course of action was unlikely. Without such an agreement time would run out on the lifeline of the system. ” The Congress met for the last time in Verona, 1822 to discuss the fact that Spain was still facing problems and there was a revolution that was taking place in Greece as well. “It might seem as though the Congress had coped well with the problems it faced but this is misleading.

The Spanish problem, had been a problem since 1820 and was still not solved. Metternich who had pressed for the signing of the Troppau protocol would still not summon action to be taken. ” The congress system finally met its end in 1822. Some historians have argued that the system itself was a failure, however in my opinion this was not the case. Metternich accomplished a lot during his time such as his defeat of Napoleon and the formation of the Vienna Congress. “The Congresses stretching from Vienna to Verona had to contend with a number of issues and t was not surprising given the nature of the system itself that certain problems would split the powers in attendance. After all the motivation behind the creation of the Congress Meeting was to deal with France, and not to deal with revolutionary uprisings. How could the Congress system deals with problems it was not designed to face. ” There were multiple views on all of issues which arose after 1818 and up to 1822 could not be accommodated. At Vienna and Aix La Chappelle the powers in attendance came to a general agreement, but there would be a time when no such agreement would be possible.

This can be seen with the Troppau protocol which split the powers in two. “After the congress of Troppau time was effectively running out on the life line of the congress system. Britain no longer wanted to be involved in continental affairs that did not concern her directly and the other European powers had a mutual suspicion of one another’s ambitions and interests. Forces of political intrigue were working behind the scenes to isolate powers and force an agreement on a certain course of action. ”

This essay shall critically comment on two quotations. The first quote is by Margaret Thatcher who said: “There is no such thing as society, only individuals and their families” and the second quote is by David Cameron who said: “There is such thing as society: it’s just not the same as the state” To critically comment on these quotes that were stated in a political setting, references shall be made to the political ideologies the subjects held and the context they appeared in will be analyzed.

Additionally different political basic ideologies will be named and outlined to give a broader understanding and contrast in the analysis. Furthermore, Plato’s The Republic (360BC) and existentialist Jose Ortega’s Man and People, (1957), shall attempt to lend their wisdom from their philosophical works, to shed some light and give meaning on the complexity of these two quotes. For clarity British conservatism’s history will be looked at closely. Terms Individual, Society and State are briefly defined now. An individual is generally speaking a person separate from others, with his/her own needs, values and desires.

The word originates from Latin in-dividuus, meaning indivisible, referring to a single human being, separate from a group. A society is made up by a collection of individuals. The etymology of the word originates in Latin societas, derived from socius which translates as comrade, friend or ally, indicating relations. It can for instance be such as a group of people, subject to law and political authority, or a group of like-minded people, sharing the same norms and values. Often, therefore, societies are formed, such as medical-, esoteric- or literary- for example.

The word society always refers to relations between people – they may share a certain culture, territory, economic, political or social structure. The state can be called an organized, a political community under government: a sovereign state is a public, political entity, recognized in national law. Other words associated with state are machinery, a system, imposition/obligation and polity. Named and outlined below are various different political and social philosophies and ideologies: Communism Is a Latin word derived from communis and means -shared or -belonging to all.

The terms communism and socialism are somewhat inter-changeable. These political ideologies followed communist philosopher Karl Marx’s 10-point communist Manifesto from 1845, he was quoted in saying; “Workers of the world, unite, you have nothing to loose, but your chains. ” Marx was interested in building a free society without division or alienation. He believed this could only be achieved by a revolution seeking to overthrow capitalism and to have state ownership by the means of production –this in short meant the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The aim in mind was for the working class to replace the exploiter class and to create equality, a no-class system, abolishing privatization, with re-distribution of land and production. A good example of the workings of Communism, as efforts in co-operation, would be a Kibbutz, mirroring a microcosm of this ideology. Well known communist leaders and dictators of a serious nature and totalitarians, were Mao Zedong and Stalin for instance. Socialism Latin in origin, sociare translates as -to share.

The older view of communism and socialism was built on 5 tenets: Stress on community, cooperation, equality, social class and common ownership. Marx had ideas about balancing the material and the moral and also said: “From each according to his ability to each according to his need. ” Socialists are reformers and believe if the structure of society changes, things will change, similar to the beliefs held by Marxist Terry Eaglton. Socialism is about the group, having a collective, a solidarity and brotherhood, with no individual advantage.

An evil in society to a socialist goes back to the structure of the society, rather than an individual. Socialists’ ideologies are concerned with outcome and what we can become, a somewhat utopian idea. Socialism and communism collapsed between 1989 and 1991. Nowadays socialism is democratic labourism; often associated with trade unions – seen defending workers’ rights. Liberalism Etymologically speaking the term derives from Latin liber- translating as -free. Liberals, next to favoring free market trade, also believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all.

As an enlightenment movement it started in Europe with Gladstone in 1868 (first lib. PM) leading the revolution, seeking to reform and change, arguing we can all get to the top, by basing your conviction on your own reason. Liberals challenged the Monarchy holding all powers and money and this time became known as the age of reason, associated with the slogan “ Don’t behold to class. ” On the political ideology’s spectrum liberalism is somewhere in the middle between left, communism, and right, fascism.

This ideology grew out of the collapse of communism and socialism, belonging to the post-modern (industrialist) era and is also known as Anarcho–Capitalism, marking middle ground between authority and liberty. Thereafter the middle-class was born. Democratic liberals stand for government action to achieve equal opportunity and support democracy. They maintain it is the government’s duty to alleviate social dysfunction and to protect civil liberties including individual and human rights.

The liberal government’s policy should ideally ensure that no individual is in need and also if problems arise theirs is the duty to solve problems. Somewhat opposing this concept is their own policy that the state should not interfere in personal lives, as it needs to be a policy of individualism. Justice for a liberal means equal opportunity, like health-care for instance. Additionally liberals are also committed to pluralism and multi-culturalism. Ideally tolerant, a liberal’s motto is; “ I detest what you’re saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Liberals prime motivator is the pleasure of profit and the gathering of one’s own self-interest. Unlike Socialist, liberals see themselves separate from the state and are not primarily concerned with the common good or society. F. F. Y. said: “You can’t be a liberalist without being a capitalist. ” John Locke defined 3 fundamental rights of Liberalism which are: Life, liberty and property and Stuart Mill remarked that this idea can become a license and that it can only be restrained if someone’s liberty is threatened.

Hence Liberalism can easily dissolve into Egoism and severe greed, on a positive note, it may encourage the flourishing of an individual, though. Negative liberty, as reflected in European austerity measures presently or Ireland’s Budget 2012 for example, would be freedom from the constraints of freedom. Here a list close to the values of a liberalism’s vision: Capitalism, no intervention/regulation in economy, anti-racism, anti-capital punishment, anti-weapon bearing, pro-environment, pro-euthanasia, pro- abortion, pro-immigration, pro U.

N. , pro-War on Terror, pro-welfare. Fascism (is here listed before Conservatism, but follows Conservatism on the political spectrum from extreme left to extreme right) facses derives from Latin and means -bundle of rods, and symbolically speaking it depicts strengths of unity. Fascism is an anti-democratic, political system with a supreme leader exercising dictatorship. Hitler and Mussolini are examples of fascist leadership. Their ideologies are radical, authoritarian and nationalist in nature.

The community is viewed as an organic entity and bonded by nationality, ancestry, culture and blood. As a state it is totalitarian, with only one party ruling. The leader holds sole power and oversees the fascist movement, government and other state institutions. Opposition is not tolerated and always suppressed. Fascists, in order to keep their ideologies running, anything out of their norm, such as ideas, people and systems undermining the norm or become, as they view it, the cause of decadence or degeneration, are purged and gotten rid off.

Fascism promotes violence and war to overthrow other political systems, thus is militarism in nature. It’s almost anti everything, it opposes class based identity and society, is anti-bourgeois, anti-proletarian and anti- individualist based identity and society. In Nazi Germany, for instance, this system became known as “The Third Way”. Economically speaking, it therefore contests capitalism and socialism and is in policy a state directed-regulated economy against the power of money. Social welfare is not tolerated, as it would support “ the weak”, as Hitler believed.

Generally fascism holds dark, radical ideas on culture, sex and sexuality, also concerning abortion, eugenics and euthanasia. Virtues valued by fascists are action, discipline, hierarchy, spirit and will. It claims to seek positive transformation in society believes in education, spiritual renovation (anti-clerical) and fosters the will to dominate in a united national identity. (*Although a general outline of fascism was given, fascism’s ideology can be hard to define, as it mixes doctrines of left and right) Conservatism The term originates from the Latin word conservare, meaning -to preserve.

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy with a belief that it is generally considered best practice in keeping traditional institutions and advocates changes in society in a gradual and slow manner. As Conservatives value stability and continuity by preserving things as they are, they tend to oppose modernism. Conservatism, though, can differ in policies depending which country or continent it is practiced in or on. Largely speaking, Conservatives support personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, and empowerment of the individual to solve problems to pursue their own goals.

A list of their general policies looks like this: Anti-abortion, education according to ability, anti-racism, pro capital punishment, free market economy, privatization, school vouchers, support nuclear power and oil-drilling, prohibit euthanasia, non-belief in climate changes, pro-arm bearers, private healthcare, pro-homeland security screening, anti-immigration (only legal), pro-private property rights, oppose long-term welfare. For simplicity and relevance this essay shall stick with, and outline British Conservatism, as our quoted subjects in this essay, Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron, both belong to this party.

Development of British Conservatism was as follows: Irishman Edmund Burke, a Wig at source (opposed to Monarchism) became known as the father of Conservatism (Tory Party – a hierarchal society/ ruling by divine right). The British Conservatives of the early 19th century were rural landowners of Anglican confession; they were royals by association, possessed property and adhered to their beliefs that were to follow an established social order and the existing conventions.

However, a little time later the aristocracy’s belief-system was challenged, as the industrial elite, consisting of rich businessmen, called for revolution, sought power and thereby threatened the established social order. Negotiations followed and Robert Peel reconciled the two opposing parties in 1846 with the “Corn-law” repeal. The aristocrats, longing to return to their medieval ideas and the business class, favoring laissez-faire capitalism, managed to form a coalition, meaning the prior kept their status quo and the latter got their free trade policies.

Now the Conservative party was made up of Royals, traditional landowners and industrialists. Prime, Benjamin Disraeli, a medieval romantic at heart, foresaw an alienated industrial proletariat with this new coalition and formed a new political ideology in form of the “One Nation” policy, which is still in practice today and supported numerous social reforms since. The idea behind the new policy was to return to an organic society whereby each and everyone should have duties towards other people or groups.

Remarkably, Disraeli, who was a conservative, not a Marxist, aimed to unite the aristocracy, the middle and the working class, the latter he tried to shield from being exploited. The 1920’s saw the liberal movement collapse, as labour ascended. During WW2 the conservatives aligned with labour, however, it was more a pragmatic move to fight the war, than a love affair. From the 1950s to the mid 1970s in usage were progressive broadly pro-labour and semi- socialistic policies by successive British governments, including conservative ones.

Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister of the Conservative Party in 1979 and remained in office until 1990. With her leading the party, a dramatic shift occurred in British conservatism with a big movement towards free market economic policies. Privatization of state owned industries became commonplace during her time. She was described as a classical- radical- liberalist, inconsistent with the concept of conservatism in the U. K. – it is often believed her policies challenged and confronted traditional institutions and rocked philosophies of the elite and the old British, established social order in general.

Her politics became known as Thatcherism, termed by Stuart Mill. Thatcher’s policies largely remained as they are until today and anti-trade union legalization is still in place. After various Prime Minister’s in the U. K. , David Cameron, known to be a neo-liberalist, heading the Conservative Party, is now Prime Minister and his party is in coalition with liberal-democrat’s Nick Clegg. Looking back, in terms of supply-side economics and many countries copying Thatcher’s then successful model of free market policies, Margaret Thatcher’s Thatcherism has its critics.

On another note, some disagree strongly with the idea that she was a radical neo-liberalist, opposing the established, for they argued that she didn’t challenge the monarchy, but only recent additions to British politics instead, which were the trade unions. The mentioning of her name nowadays still remains in people’s minds with strong associations of this bit, “standing up to the trade unions. ” Her opponents would comment she was a monetarist, controlling inflation, not unemployment – the latter doubled during her first 2 years in office.

A possibly strong argument, as, during her term as prime minister, she ran a stern government/state, restraining labour movement, local authorities and trade unions. Thatcher also joined the House of Lords and was rather conservative regarding morality, as an anti-gay supporter, she was also known to have defended capitalism and free market policies by saying that we all had a choice and was once heard to have given a rather unsympathetic theological address at a religious ceremony where she cited St Paul by saying, ‘if a man will not work, he shall not eat’.

At the end of her term, 30% of children were regarded as living below the poverty line. As prime Minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher received many labels during her time but of all, she was never labeled something as sweet as “Queen of Hearts”, the title people loving, tragic Diana received for instance, and this following quote may explain why, as Mrs. Thatcher said: “There is no such thing as society, only individuals and their families” Unemployment in the U. K. post Thatcher had minimized for a while and more han 20 years later with David Cameron leading the conservatives as their Prime Minister nothing much has changed in political ideologies of the conservative party. While it was trade-union issues then, it’s become the middle-class issues now. Britain presently faces various issues it tries to tackle, such as stronger tax increases on the middle-class, over-dependency on the public sector, mass-unemployment and welfare concerns, budget deficits and the European crisis.

However their likeable, observant new leader David Cameron, a Tory, is reputed to be much more of a people’s person than Thatcher was, delivering rhetorically fine and caring speeches for all. During the recent riots in London, Mr. Cameron commented in a news report that society was in trouble, by saying there were pockets of society not only broken, but sick and he further elaborated and explained that causes for the riots, as he saw it, were a complete lack of responsibility in our society and that he felt, people felt they are owed something.

Some are impressed by and praise Mr. Cameron’s passionate and determined involvement, despite being a Tory leader, on social issues, such as his recent project Big Society bank and others feel his recent proposal to privatize and save the NHS, by opening it up for private scientific investors to carry out patient research within, doesn’t add up, regarding his general display of sensitivity, warmth and care for pressing societal issues.

This apparent division in policy and inconsistency in his actions, is also reflected in his speech when he said: “There is such thing as society: it’s just not the same as the state. ” 20th century liberalist, existentialist philosopher and journalist Ortega might have had a minute of sympathy for Margaret Thatcher’s somewhat heartless, “-individuals-” remark and also for receiving such public criticism regarding the trade union issues, as he said in his Man and People, (1957): ‘There is strive and struggle at the heart of all social relationships. Aristotle would have argued this and would have accused Mrs. Thatcher of acting unjust and unfairly regarding her single-minded political ideology, by trying to reason and appeal to her higher, contemplative nature, he might have attempted to convince her that man is a social animal and needs others. Ortega partly agreeing on contemplation, would have possibly come to Mrs. Thatcher’s defense by saying: “Man is naturally unsociable, man wants to leave, flee from it. ” Plato would have grilled Mr. Cameron on the danger of having charitable Big Society ideas.

Plato might have attempted to curb big-hearted, spirited Mr. Cameron a little, by indicating that heroism and self-sacrifice are dual and could lead to tyranny and anger at the sight of injustice. Ortega, regarding the incident with the rioters, which had upset Mr. Cameron in terms of lack of responsibility people nowadays have, would have maybe offered another existentialist interpretation concerning irresponsible rioters, by suggesting that we all lived in our own world and wanted freedom from responsibility.

Plato, the philosopher king and Socrates’s friend and pupil, wrote his own intellectual autobiography The Republic 2025 years ago. The booklet, written by Plato in disillusionment, after Athenian democracy failed, was to be the ideal blueprint for society, in the text Plato holds dialogues in form of Socrates with the sophists. The aim of Plato’s dialogues was to harmonize individual and city. The main themes occupying the dialogues are the questions: What is justice and how can we achieve happiness (eudaimonia) in the city.

Plato was the first person in history to set up an academy in 386BC, as he was passionate teaching philosophy to statesmen, educating them. Surely Plato would not have been happy with Mrs. Thatcher’s and Mr. Cameron’s quotes. Had he been around, he might have helped them descend from their Toryian thrones and lead them down, down, down to the the low, low, low and mean streets of East London, to face their own daemons, in order to order their souls!

As Plato in his dialogues argued that in order to give a transcendent vision, and he gave an analogy for this in The Republic symbolically speaking -from the Acropolis (heaven) to Piraeus (seedy harbor district of Athens’s), one needs to go down and descend into their dark, murky waters of the psyche to face and confront their own inner hell first and remove shackles of the past, as it is only then that one can ascend with a transcended vision to lead a polis (society). According to Plato, and psychoanalyst Freud (descend) and Franklin (ascend) would have agreed with him, only souls (individuals) that had gone through this particular ransformation process first, would make up a well functioning society – based on good mental health, consisting of truth, goodness and beauty. Regarding Mr. Cameron and Mrs. Thatcher’s quotes then, instead of rhetoric (sophistry) Plato would have expected wisdom (sophia) and an ability to articulate a transcendent vision from the rulers of Britain’s Conservative party, as he may have otherwise suspected their political system to fail, just like the sophists Athenian democracy did, 2025 years ago.

In The Republic, which he wrote in homage to Socrates, who died for truth and justice, Plato maintained that there is no justice to be expected, unless rulers become philosophers and philosophers become statesman. This essay attempted to critically comment on two quotes made by two of Britain’s Prime Ministers. An analysis of British conservatism’s ideology and their party’s history was drawn up and explained, and possible views to the meaning and interpretations of these two quotes, in the light of philosophy and politics, were offered. Terms and different political ideologies in general were also outlined. .

Every country worldwide is ruled with certain rules and regulations which whether accepted or not by the preponderance, are still accepted as right. Thus, the aim of this essay is to elaborate on the various forms of liberalism, discuss on each of them, and explain while giving clear examples which one of them has been prominent in Zambia from 1991 to present day. It will begin by defining the main concepts; then the forms of liberalism shall be presented and discussed.

Thereafter an analysis of which form of liberalism has been pursued by the Movement for Multiparty democracy and the Patriotic Front in the ruling of the country of Zambia shall follow. A conclusion will then be drawn from the main body. Liberalism has been explained or defined in many ways. It comes from the word liberal, which implies freedom. Therefore if incorporated in the aspect of human life, liberalism means an ideology that advocates for gradual reform in the different aspects of a human life, for instance, social, political and economic aspects.

According to Doyle (1986:2), “liberal resembles a family portrait of principles and institutions, recognizable by certain characteristics, for example, individual freedom, political participation, private property, and equality of opportunity. ” From generation to generation, different forms of liberalism have emerged due to various reasons. Classical liberalism is said to be perhaps the oldest form of liberalism, which according to historians, emerged in the 16th, and 17th century though became prominent in the late 19th century.

Some of the major pioneers of this type of liberalism were John Locke, David Ricardo and Adam Smith. Classical liberalism hence is said to uphold a French ideology laissez-faire which literally means “to allow. ” When applied to classical liberalism it advocates for non-state participation in the affairs of its citizens, (www. cambridge. org). To sum it up, classical liberalism advocates for “limited government, protection of personal freedoms, and free markets, they rely on rules of thumb derived from experience,” the Policy (2009:15). Classical liberalism has been criticized heavily that it only benefits the few elite.

This led to the emergence of Social liberalism in the mid 19th century. The word in the center of social liberalism is “equity”. This is where each individual has equal opportunities in society and benefits equally from the economic activities of the state. There is common ownership of means of production and goods are produced not for private profit making but for the benefit of society. Thus, in summary, Social liberalism advocates for equal opportunity, for self realization by the citizens and improvement in social status of everyone with the state as the major player.

It is said to be “committed to individualism but includes protecting individuals from acts of omission as well as commission,” the Policy (2009:16). Another type of liberalism is Political liberalism which focuses on the freedom of citizens in the participation of political activities without interference or hindrance by the state. This type of liberalism was mainly pioneered by John Harsanyi and John Rawls, (Policy, 2009). According to the Policy (2009:4), political liberalism emphasizes that “everyone has an equal opportunity to hold political office and to influence the decisions made in the political sphere. Green liberalism is liberalism with a notion of sustainable growth. It focuses on preserving the environment even in the midst of growth. Steinberg (2012:1) emphasizes that “green liberalism is the idea that market forces combined with individuals all doing their part can save the planet. ” Though supported by many, this type of liberalism has been criticized that it is not logical in that for development through liberalism to occur, nature or primary goods are involved hence their exhaustion is inevitable.

Neo-liberalism, another form of liberalism, is regarded as a re-introduction of liberalism. Various proponents and scholars have alluded that Neo-liberalism was first coined by the German economists who were trying to compare it with classical liberalism. Boas and Gans-Morse (2009), clearly state that neo-liberalism is both in rejection of laissez-faire policies and emphasizes on humanistic values. Neo-liberalism supports free market trade, private capitalism and private property while it reproves government intervention or interference.

This type of liberalism is likened to classical liberalism though it “ goes even further than classical liberalism in that its ultimate goal is to create a world where political action is governed entirely by the free market, so that all decisions are unbiased and fair,” (www. ehow. com). The Neo-liberal policies were and still are widely advocated by International Monetary Fund and World Bank, (struggle. ws). The policies advocated by Neo-liberalism have been criticized in that there is usually unequal distribution of development within a country.

Privatization measures are said to benefit the foreigners more than the local people. Even though the IMF and World Bank emphasize that these measures would help improve the welfare of the vast majority, it has been argued that privatisation is characterised with corruption, trade is controlled by the super powers which has seen to the market being populated with cheap imported goods and hence discouraging local producers. These policies are said to only benefit the few elite, (Simutanyi, 2009). Zambia is a landlocked country in the southern part of Africa which after being colonized by the British, gained its independence in 1964.

After independence the country had its first president Dr Kenneth Kaunda, leader of the United National Independence Party who according to scholars saw to the rise of autocracy in the country. Thus the country was turned into a one-party state where the state controlled a major part of the economy. Some of the characteristics of Kaunda’s rule include “a system of terroristic police control; control of all means of effective mass communication, control of all means of effective armed combat,” (Phiri: 2001,2).

Since the main aim of the government was to ensure equity, therefore it can be right to say that during that time, Zambia was under Social liberalism, (Simutanyi, 2006). Due to the many shortcomings of the UNIP government for instance the food riots, foreign debt, economic decline and social disintegration, the Multi-Party Movement for Democracy which was headed by Fredrick Chiluba took over leadership and adopted the Neo-liberal policies. There was “independent rational attitude, free expression and the promotion of private self-interest over general system,” (www. ambiastruggle. com). Sorabjee and Bourne (1996:27), stated that when MMD was elected, there were major changes in the country such as “privatisation or liquidation of state enterprises, the relaxing of import controls and of investment regulations and barriers, removal of subsidies and other protections, and freer regime in agriculture and manufacturing. ” These policies were “implemented largely at the insistance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank,” House (1991:2).

Since the economy was and still is mainly dependant on the mining sector, many mines were privatized so as they can be more productive and efficient. According to Simpere (2010:7) “under the influence of its lenders especially the World Bank and following the election of a new government in 1991, Zambia decided to dismantle and privatize its mines. ” The mines were not the only state-owned enterprises privatized but many other companies, approximately two-hundred and sixty three (263) companies were taken over by foreigners.

This happened between 1994 and 2004, which was predominantly during the reign of the MMD precisely Chiluba and Levy Mwanawasa, (Simutanyi,2006). There was also the liberalization of foreign exchange and import. “Since late 1991, Zambia has fundamentally changed its trade and economic policy. The trade regime has been considerably liberalized and there has been substantial decentralization and deregulation in other spheres of economic activity,” (www. wto. com).

The dominance of neo-liberal economic programs in Zambia promised fast and sustainable economic growth, where Adam Smith’s invisible hand comes in play that the majority of the poor would benefit, (Zambian Economist, 2007). Thus the MMD fully adopted the Neo-liberal policies and the government enacted economic and political liberalism in the country. The Patriotic Front led by President Michael Sata is the current party in government in Zambia. It was elected into power in 2011 during the tripartite elections held in Zambia.

It is not clear whether the state under the current government is undertaking a neo-liberal type of governance or a socialist. Some spectators have argued that due to the move of the Patriotic Front to join the Socialist International, the country seems to be heading into the direction of a socialist state, (www. zambia. com). Even though this is so, the Patriotic Front government has corrected the misunderstanding that they shall continue to advocate for socio-economic liberalism spearheaded by neo-liberal policies as was stated in their manifesto, (m. lusakatimes. om). Nothing much has, in reality changed during the past twelve months of the Patriotic Front’s rule as compared to the twenty year rule of the MMD. Companies are still privatized, trade liberalism still exists, democracy still prevails and the existence of property rights exists as well. The country of Zambia still values the foreign investors and their relationship with other capitalist societies with whom they enjoy the benefits of trade liberalism. Therefore, neo-liberalism as proven above has been the dominant type of liberalism in Zambia from 1991 to present day.

Even with the consequences of neo-liberalism such as increase in the poverty level, increased debt, uneven development, Zambia continues to boast of being one of the most liberalized states in Southern Africa. In conclusion, liberalism has been a major player in determining the role of the state in Zambia, hence among the many types of liberalism Neo-liberalism has been adopted by the country of Zambia to spear-head its development. What is not certain is, if it were not for the government being pressured by the IMF and the World Bank, would it have, on its own adopted the neo-liberal policies or it would have continued as a social state?