Suchergebnisse

Few political theorists today try to show how the principles of theory should guide our judgments of policy. Theorists think that their job is done when they have explained the principles, or (more commonly) when they have interpreted the principles of other theorists. The connection between the principles and the policies of governments is left for citizens themselves to make. Yet making that connection—exercising political judgment—is an essential part of citizenship, and should have a prominent place in the education of citizens.Political theorists have not always neglected the making of judgments about particular policies. The disdain of the particular that marks much contemporary theorizing was not shared by the great theorists of the past. The tradition of theory begins (or at least the curriculum traditionally begins) with the greatest case study of all—Socrates' trial. Although later theorists usually settled for less exalted examples, they continued to see their vocation as calling for comment on the actual policies of rulers and their rivals. Recall Aristotle's letters to Alexander, Augustine's criticism of the Donatists, Machiavelli's commentary on the corruption of Florentine rulers, Hobbes' analysis of the Long Parliament, Locke's advice to the Board of Trade, or Rousseau's critique of the government of Poland.

Few political theorists today try to show how the principles of theory should guide our judgments of policy. Theorists think that their job is done when they have explained the principles, or (more commonly) when they have interpreted the principles of other theorists. The connection between the principles and the policies of governments is left for citizens themselves to make. Yet making that connection—exercising political judgment—is an essential part of citizenship, and should have a prominent place in the education of citizens.Political theorists have not always neglected the making of judgments about particular policies. The disdain of the particular that marks much contemporary theorizing was not shared by the great theorists of the past. The tradition of theory begins (or at least the curriculum traditionally begins) with the greatest case study of all—Socrates' trial. Although later theorists usually settled for less exalted examples, they continued to see their vocation as calling for comment on the actual policies of rulers and their rivals. Recall Aristotle's letters to Alexander, Augustine's criticism of the Donatists, Machiavelli's commentary on the corruption of Florentine rulers, Hobbes' analysis of the Long Parliament, Locke's advice to the Board of Trade, or Rousseau's critique of the government of Poland.

Examination of some general and particular issues that can arise in the development and operation of worker's organisations in the rural areas, using as a basis information obtained during an ILO study of the National Union of Cameroon Workers undertaken in 1982 by B.E.D. Komba Kono. (DSE)

That many different officials contribute in many different ways to decisions and policies in the modern state makes it difficult to ascribe moral responsibility to any official. The usual responses to this problem—based on concepts of hierarchical and collective responsibility—distort the notion of responsibility. The idea of personal responsibility—based on causal and volitional criteria—constitutes a better approach to the problem of ascribing responsibility to public officials. Corresponding to each of these criteria are types of excuses that officials use in defending the decisions they make. An analysis of the conditions under which the excuses eliminate or mitigate responsibility provides a foundation for accountability in a democracy.

This article argues that although the case for popular participation in university government is not the same as the case for participation in a democratic state, some of the principles and structures of representative democracy can contribute to furthering the traditional purposes of the uni versity. The institution of the university council or senate is examined, and the role of students in decisions on academic matters is discussed. Finally, the growing external pressures on the university and the reluctance of students and faculty to participate in university politics are cited as factors affect ing the prospects of university governance.

It is argued that although the case for popular participation in U gov is not the same as the case for participation in a democratic state, some of the principles & structures of representative democracy can contribute to furthering the traditional purposes of the U. The instit of the U council of senate is examined, & the role of students in decisions on academic matters is discussed. Finally, the growing external pressures on the U & the reluctance of students & faculty to participate in U pol are cited as factors affecting the prospects of U governance. Modified HA.