Order vs. Freedom in Political Systems
Order and freedom are both necessary and beneficial towards the citizens and society with the aim to promote harmony, yet they both contradict each other. This contradiction has existed throughout many years and it is still hard to decide which one is ideal for the society. This essay will discuss and analyze if order or freedom is more important for political systems.
Many believe that order should be applied by the government; though it should be allowed to a certain limit and should not interfere in a citizen’s personal life. However others believe that full freedom should be given to individuals and that nothing should be enforced as it brings ...view middle of the document...
Therefore, he believed that to enforce order and ensure the equality of citizens, the use of power and violence can be necessary at times:
“Freedom can, he said, be restored either gradually or by violence ... by violence, when the change is made all at once and the opponents of democracy are ruthlessly cut down” (Plamenatz, 1963, p.39)
Hence this shows that Machiavelli was a strong believer of imposing order amongst citizens to assure the harmony within society. Additionally, Machiavelli rejected the idea of natural law; he criticized Rousseau and alleged that if humans were given complete freedom, then there would be a lot of contradiction amongst each other which will lead to an unequal society (Plamenatz, 1963, p.4). However, people have criticized Machiavelli’s approach and said that bringing cruelty and violence into society to enforce order is exceedingly controlling citizens and this behaviour cannot be justified in any way (Plamenatz, 1963, p.36). Conversely, supporters of this policy say that enforcing strict rules with the consequences of violence in certain situations could help improve societies and promote equality as people would think thoroughly before committing crime.
Another philosopher who supported the idea of order in society was Plato. Plato had very distinct views from other philosophers; he believed that in order to have equality and justice within society, only kings and philosophers should rule the government and make political decisions. Plato alleged that only educated citizens of the society should rule the government because they would be able to make better decisions than those who are uneducated or who are unaware of any politics. Plato highly apposed democracy and freedom; he criticized Athenian democracy by saying that it was unsuccessful to defend the expert roles required for Justice and it was only based on what the individuals wanted. However, critics argued that no one can distinguish which philosopher or citizen is more educated and knowledgeable than others, therefore it is wrong to say that only certain individuals can be rulers. Furthermore, it is also been questioned that how can educated men criticize and undervalue those who have been a victim of poverty or harsh upbringing which has affected their education when it is truly not their fault. Furthermore critics have argued on how it can be determined that kings and philosophers are not ruling in their self interest and in which way their power should be tested.
Furthermore, another aspect which has been greatly supported and criticized by many great philosophers is freedom. Freedom is where there is no power or control over the citizen’s decisions. Every citizen is entitled to free speech and their right to interfere in political decision making. Additionally, the Athenian democracy ideology supports the freedom theory. The main aim of this democratic thinking was to give the power to the majority rather than the minority as this would...