Issue on Political Legitimacy--论文代写范文精选

51due论文代写网精选代写范文：“Issue on Political Legitimacy”作者在文章开头，对“drawing our attention to permanent and unchangeable features of the human condition?和how is it related to political legitimacy? 两问题进行解释，用马克思理论来例证观点，并引用两个理论来评估作者对政治合法性的理解。

What does it mean by “drawing our attention to permanent and unchangeable features of the human condition?” and how is it related to political legitimacy? Since the phrase “permanent and unchangeable features of the human condition” have a variety of meanings for different people, at the beginning of the essay, I would give two interpretations of it. Then I step further take Marx case to exemplify theory which invites people to imagine a changeable world. At the last part of this essay, I would give an assessment on those two tendencies and provide my understanding of political legitimacy by quoting two theorists

As far as I am concerned, before going further argument, it is better to answer this two questions. Many political theory draws attention on permanent and unchangeable features of the human condition. For instance, human nature, economic scarcity, and more or less peaceful living conditions are relatively unchangeable features of human condition. Tinder says, “Most political ideas, perhaps all of them, are based on some particular conception of human nature.” (Glenn Tinder). David Hume says it is the combination of the scarcity of resource and the limited benevolence of human nature which causes the issue of justice (legitimacy). Thus, in this sense, permanent human conditions seem to be the preconditions of legitimacy. That’s to say, when they are framing theory of legitimacy, political theorists have no regards to some extremes cases, such as cases in which people are excessively benevolent and altruistic or in which natural resources are superfluous, since in this cases people are self-sufficient and find no need to form regimes, and the issue of legitimacy would not arise. In this sense, political legitimacy does relate to permanent and unchangeable features of the human condition, in which the latter serves as a precondition which make the former possible and necessary.

Nonetheless, by “drawing attention to the permanent and unchangeable features of the human condition”, we do have another understanding—political legitimacy lies in the tendency of the regime to preserve or remain permanent and unchangeable features of the human condition. By “human condition”, they might mean political order of the city-state. In this sense, political legitimacy lies in its tendency to preserve current political order which seem to them permanent and necessary. For, instance, in Plato’s theory, the justice or legitimacy of the city-state lies in how well they would preserve the hierarchy of three classes and how well they would preserve and cultivate people’s virtues.

However, For Marx, legitimacy lies not in how well it preserves the past or the current human conditions, but rather how well it wipe out the past and the current conditions. For him, the society and human being seems to be changeable in all aspects, and the current and the past conditions is too bad. Thus, he advocates people to imagine a society full of freedom, harmony, and prosperity. Therefore, the legitimacy of the current regime lies in the fact that it is instrumental to the realization of the ideal and future political order they presupposed. Then it is reasonable to find that his book was ended with the appeal that “let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win” (Marx, 44)

However, for me, political legitimacy had limited relations with the question of whether the theory of political legitimacy would draw our attention to permanent and unchangeable features of the human condition or would invite us to imagine how human beings might become wholly different than they were in the past (or are in the present). My understanding might have a different landscape about political legitimacy, basing on the liberal tradition of John Locke and Rousseau. Since political community serves for the common good of those living in it, for instance, preservation of their lives, elimination of threats from other nation, and collaboration, political legitimacy lies in how well they achieve those goods. So, what is the best way to guarantee that all of the people living in it are equally and freely enjoying these interests? That is, everybody’s, or most of the people’s consent, reticent or spoken. In another words, political legitimacy lies in the fact that the regime is agreed upon by its citizens. Therefore, I totally agree with Locke’s argument that “men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join an d unite in a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living……” (John Locke, 54)  Just as what has been mentioned above Locke’s theory also assumes a theory about human nature, men in the natural state are independent and equal, which drives him to attribute political legitimacy to people’s will. Similarly, I partly agree with Rousseau’s contract theory which argues for political legitimacy on the basis of general will, he says, “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and in a body we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole” ( Rousseau). Though Rousseau’s theory goes too far create the controversial concept of “general will”, his emphasis on people’s will as the basis of legitimacy still serves as one major theory of political legitimacy.

To sum up, political legitimacy lies neither in how well it preserves the so called unchangeable and permanent human condition nor how far it has gone beyond the past or the current conditions, but rather in how well the regime reflects the willingness of those people living in it. Thus, the answer to the question whether the human conditions would be changed or remain is contingent on the cultural traditions and economic resources of the community. It is possible that people in a community are more likely to well preserve their current conditions and thus, that they might consent to a regime which would preserve their conditions. It is also possible that people living in a community would agree on constitution which would emphasize innovations and reforms-M

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。

更多论文代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有论文代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。