Editing Politics (section)

== Political values ==
{{main|Political philosophy}}

=== Democracy ===
{{Democracy sidebar}}{{main|Democracy}}
Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes. The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy. Democracy makes all forces struggle repeatedly to realize their interests and devolves power from groups of people to sets of rules.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Przeworski |first1=Adam |url=https://archive.org/details/democracymarket00prze |title=Democracy and the Market |date=1991 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |pages=[https://archive.org/details/democracymarket00prze/page/10 10–14] |url-access=registration}}</ref>

Among modern political theorists, there are three contending conceptions of democracy: ''aggregative'', ''[[deliberative democracy|deliberative]]'', and ''[[radical democracy|radical]]''.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Springer |first1=Simon |year=2011 |title=Public Space as Emancipation: Meditations on Anarchism, Radical Democracy, Neoliberalism and Violence |url=https://www.academia.edu/354048 |journal=Antipode |volume=43 |issue=2 |pages=525–562 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00827.x |bibcode=2011Antip..43..525S |access-date=14 June 2020 |archive-date=18 August 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210818002746/https://www.academia.edu/354048 |url-status=live | issn=0066-4812}}</ref>

==== Aggregation ====
{{Main|Aggregative democracy}}
The theory of ''aggregative democracy'' claims that the aim of the democratic processes is to solicit the preferences of citizens, and aggregate them together to determine what social policies the society should adopt. Therefore, proponents of this view hold that democratic participation should primarily focus on [[voting]], where the policy with the most votes gets implemented.

Different variants of aggregative democracy exist. Under ''minimalism'', democracy is a system of government in which citizens have given teams of political leaders the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist conception, citizens cannot and should not "rule" because, for example, on most issues, most of the time, they have no clear views or their views are not well-founded. [[Joseph Schumpeter]] articulated this view most famously in his book ''[[Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy|Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy]]''.<ref>[[Joseph Schumpeter]], (1950). ''Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy''. Harper Perennial. {{ISBN|0-06-133008-6}}.</ref> Contemporary proponents of minimalism include [[William H. Riker]], [[Adam Przeworski]], and [[Richard Posner]].

According to the theory of ''[[direct democracy]]'', on the other hand, citizens should vote directly, not through their representatives, on legislative proposals. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socialises and educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.

Governments will tend to produce laws and policies that are close to the views of the median voter—with half to their left and the other half to their right. This is not a desirable outcome as it represents the action of self-interested and somewhat unaccountable political elites competing for votes. [[Anthony Downs]] suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individual and governments. Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book ''[[An Economic Theory of Democracy]]''.<ref>{{harvnb|Downs|1957}}.</ref>

====Polyarchy====
[[Robert A. Dahl]] argues that the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his/her interests be given equal consideration (not necessarily that all people are equally satisfied by the collective decision). He uses the term [[polyarchy]] to refer to societies in which there exists a certain set of institutions and procedures which are perceived as leading to such democracy. First and foremost among these institutions is the regular occurrence of free and open [[elections]] which are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society. However, these polyarchic procedures may not create a full democracy if, for example, poverty prevents political participation.<ref>{{harvnb|Dahl|1989}}.</ref> Similarly, [[Ronald Dworkin]] argues that "democracy is a substantive, not a merely procedural, ideal".<ref>[[Ronald Dworkin|Dworkin, Ronald]]. 2006. ''Is Democracy Possible Here?'' Princeton: [[Princeton University Press]]. {{ISBN|978-0-691-13872-5}}. p. 134.</ref>

==== Deliberation ====
[[Deliberative democracy]] is based on the notion that democracy is government by [[deliberation]]. Unlike aggregative democracy, deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting. ''Authentic deliberation'' is deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-maker obtained through economic wealth or the support of interest groups.<ref>[[Amy Gutman|Gutmann, Amy]], and Dennis Thompson. 2002. ''Why Deliberative Democracy?'' [[Princeton University Press]]. {{ISBN|978-0-691-12019-5}}</ref><ref>Cohen, Joshua. 1997. "Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy." In ''Essays on Reason and Politics: Deliberative Democracy'', edited by J. Bohman and W. Rehg. Cambridge: [[The MIT Press]]. pp. 72–73.</ref><ref>Ethan J. 2006. "Can Direct Democracy Be Made Deliberative?" ''[[Buffalo Law Review]]'' 54.</ref> If the decision-makers cannot reach [[Consensus decision-making|consensus]] after authentically deliberating on a proposal, then they vote on the proposal using a form of majority rule.

=== Equality ===
{{main|Social equality}}
[[File:Political Compass standard model.svg|thumb|Two-axis [[political compass]] chart with a horizontal socio-economic axis and a vertical socio-cultural axis and ideologically representative [[political colour]]s, an example for a frequently used model of the political spectrum<ref name=":02">{{harvnb|Heywood|2017|pp=14–17}}.</ref><ref name=":32">{{harvnb|Love|2006|p=16}}.</ref><ref name=":52">{{harvnb|Petrik|2010|p=4}}.</ref><ref name=":62">{{harvnb|Sznajd-Weron|Sznajd|2005|pp=593–604}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Forman |first1=F. N. |title=Mastering British Politics |last2=Baldwin |first2=N. D. J. |date=1999 |publisher=Macmillan Education UK |isbn=978-0-333-76548-7 |location=London |pages=8 f |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-1-349-15045-8}}</ref><ref name=":42">{{cite book |last1=Fenna |first1=Alan |title=Government Politics in Australia |last2=Robbins |first2=Jane |last3=Summers |first3=John |publisher=Pearson Higher Education AU |others=Robbins, Jane., Summers, John. |year=2013 |isbn=978-1-4860-0138-5 |edition=10th |location=Melbourne |pages=126 f |oclc=1021804010}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Jones|Kavanagh|2003|p=259}}.</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Körösényi |first1=András |title=Government and Politics in Hungary |publisher=Central European University Press |year=1999 |isbn=963-9116-76-9 |location=Budapest, Hungary |page=54 |oclc=51478878}}</ref>]]
[[File:3-axis-model-of-political-ideologies-with-both-moderate-and-radical-versions-and-policies-goals.png|thumb|Three axis model of political ideologies with both moderate and radical versions and the goals of their policies]]
Equality is a state of affairs in which all people within a specific [[society]] or isolated group have the same [[social status]], especially [[socioeconomic status]], including protection of [[human rights]] and [[dignity]], as well as access to certain [[social goods]] and [[social services]]. Furthermore, it may also include [[health equality]], [[Equality (economics)|economic equality]] and other [[Social security|social securities]]. Social equality requires the absence of legally enforced [[social class]] or [[caste]] boundaries and the absence of [[discrimination]] based on by an inalienable aspect of a person's identity. To this end, there must be [[equal justice under law]], and [[equal opportunity]] regardless of,  sex, gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, origin, [[caste]] or class, income or property, language, [[religion]], convictions, opinions, health or disability.

==== Left–right spectrum ====
{{Main|Left–right political spectrum}}
A common way of understanding politics is through the [[left–right political spectrum]], which ranges from [[left-wing politics]] via [[centrism]] to [[right-wing politics]]. This classification is comparatively recent and dates from the [[French Revolution]], when those members of the [[National Assembly]] who supported the [[republic]], the common people and a [[secular society]] sat on the left and supporters of the [[monarchy]], [[aristocracy (class)|aristocratic]] privilege and the Church sat on the right.<ref name="Knapp">{{cite book |last1=Knapp |first1=Andrew |title=The Government and Politics of France |last2=Wright |first2=Vincent |publisher=Routledge |year=2006 |location=London}}</ref>

Today, the left is generally [[Progressivism|progressivist]], seeking social [[progress]] in [[society]]. The more extreme elements of the left, named the [[Far-left politics|far-left]], tend to support [[revolution]]ary means for achieving this. This includes ideologies such as [[Communism]] and [[Marxism]]. The [[Centre-left politics|center-left]], on the other hand, advocates for more [[Reformism|reformist]] approaches, for example that of [[social democracy]].

In contrast, the right is generally motivated by [[conservatism]], which seeks to conserve what it sees as the important elements of society such as law and order, limited government and preserving individual freedoms. The [[Far-right politics|far-right]] goes beyond this, and often represents a [[reactionary]] turn against progress, seeking to undo it. Examples of such ideologies have included [[Fascism]] and [[Nazism]]. The [[Centre-right politics|center-right]] may be less clear-cut and more mixed in this regard, with [[Neoconservatism|neoconservatives]] supporting the spread of [[free market]]s and [[capitalism]], and [[One-nation conservatism|one-nation conservatives]] more open to social welfare programs.

According to [[Norberto Bobbio]], one of the major exponents of this distinction, the left believes in attempting to eradicate social inequality—believing it to be unethical or unnatural,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gelderloos |first1=Peter |title=Anarchy Works |year=2010}}</ref> while the right regards most social inequality as the result of ineradicable natural inequalities, and sees attempts to enforce social equality as utopian or authoritarian.<ref name="Bobbio">{{harvnb|Bobbio|1997}}.</ref>
Some ideologies, notably [[Christian Democracy]], claim to combine left and right-wing politics; according to Geoffrey K. Roberts and Patricia Hogwood, "In terms of ideology, Christian Democracy has incorporated many of the views held by liberals, conservatives and socialists within a wider framework of moral and Christian principles."<ref>{{harvnb|Roberts|Hogwood|1997}}.</ref> Movements which claim or formerly claimed to be above the left-right divide include Fascist [[Terza Posizione]] economic politics in Italy and [[Peronism]] in Argentina.<ref>{{harvnb|Tore|2014}}.</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=bale p.40 |url=https://www.miis.edu/media/view/18971/original/balenouvelleresarticle.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170330043520/https://www.miis.edu/media/view/18971/original/balenouvelleresarticle.pdf |archive-date=30 March 2017 |access-date=25 February 2018}}</ref>

=== Freedom ===
{{main|Political freedom}}
Political freedom (also known as '''political liberty''' or '''autonomy''') is a central [[concept]] in political thought and one of the most important features of [[Democracy|democratic]] societies. [[Negative liberty]] has been described as freedom from oppression or coercion and unreasonable external constraints on action, often enacted through [[civil and political rights]], while [[positive liberty]] is the absence of disabling conditions for an individual and the fulfillment of enabling conditions, e.g. economic compulsion, in a society. This [[capability approach]] to freedom requires [[economic, social and cultural rights]] in order to be realized.

==== Authoritarianism and libertarianism ====
[[Authoritarianism]] and [[civil libertarianism|libertarianism]] disagree the amount of individual [[Freedom (political)|freedom]] each person possesses in that society relative to the state. One author describes authoritarian political systems as those where "individual [[rights]] and goals are subjugated to group goals, expectations and conformities",<ref>{{harvnb|Kemmelmeier|Burnstein|Krumov|Genkova|Kanagawa|Hirshberg|Erb|Wieczorkowska|Noels|2003|pp=304–322}}</ref> while libertarians generally oppose the [[Sovereign state|state]] and hold the [[individual]] as sovereign. In their purest form, libertarians are [[anarchism|anarchists]],<ref>{{cite web |title=An Anarchist FAQ: 150 years of Libertarian |url=http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/150-years-of-libertarian |website=Anarchists Writers |date=April 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180925141951/http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/150-years-of-libertarian |archive-date=25 September 2018 |access-date=25 September 2018}}</ref> who argue for the total abolition of the state, of [[political parties]] and of [[Political organisation|other political entities]], while the purest authoritarians are, by definition, [[totalitarianism|totalitarians]] who support state control over all aspects of society.<ref>{{cite Dictionary.com|totalitarian|access-date=25 September 2018}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20180925142146/https://www.dictionary.com/browse/totalitarian?s=t Archived] from the original on 25 September 2018.</ref>

For instance, [[classical liberalism]] (also known as ''[[laissez-faire]] liberalism'')<ref name="Adams">Adams, Ian. 2001. ''Political Ideology Today''. Manchester: [[Manchester University Press]]. p. 20.</ref> is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and [[limited government]]. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual [[property rights]], [[free market]]s, [[natural rights]], the protection of [[civil liberties]], constitutional limitation of government, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of [[John Locke]], [[Adam Smith]], [[David Hume]], [[David Ricardo]], [[Voltaire]], [[Montesquieu]] and others. According to the libertarian [[Institute for Humane Studies]], "the libertarian, or 'classical liberal', perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by 'as much liberty as possible' and 'as little government as necessary'."<ref>IHS. 2019. "[http://www.theihs.org/about/id.1084/default.asp What Is Libertarian?]." ''Institute for Humane Studies''. [[George Mason University]]. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070324231417/http://www.theihs.org/about/id.1084/default.asp|date=24 March 2007}}</ref> For anarchist political philosopher [[L. Susan Brown]] (1993), "liberalism and [[anarchism]] are two political philosophies that are fundamentally concerned with individual [[Freedom of will|freedom]] yet differ from one another in very distinct ways. Anarchism shares with liberalism a radical commitment to individual freedom while rejecting liberalism's competitive property relations."<ref name="ReferenceA">[[L. Susan Brown|Brown, L. Susan]]. 1993. ''[[The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism, and Anarchism]]''. [[Black Rose Books]].</ref>