Question

Trace the growth and evolution of political theory

Answer 1

we didn't understand the question

Answer 2

Most universities offer courses of lectures in what is called the History of Political Thought. The nature of these courses is fairly reflected in the books compiled on this subject; books written or edited by the lecturers and recommended without hesitation to their pupils. While the titles catalogued are numerous and varied, the books themselves are not dissimilar in content. Fluttering the pages of any volume, chosen at random, the reader will not fail to glimpse successively the names of Plato, Aristotle, Dante, Machiavelli, Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Bentham and Mill. On adjacent shelves he will find editions of the works from which the compiler has drawn -- More's Utopia, Machiavelli's Prince, Bacon in person and Halifax himself. A study of these books, both texts and commentary, is held to constitute a sufficient grounding in political theory, useful to the student of history and of interest indeed to anyone.

While the value of these works (or, at any rate, of some of them) is beyond question, their general tendency is not without its dangers. The reader is left with fallacies as well as facts. These fallacies are neither stated nor upheld nor even perhaps deliberately implied. They arise indeed less from the study of any given work than, as a general impression, from all. They are none the less fallacious for that and their refutation is more than overdue.

First of these implicit fallacies is the idea that political thought is confined to authors and denied to everyone else. By this reasoning we must learn the ideas of Plato and Laski and can safely ignore those of Pericles and Churchill. This is surely to give an absurd weight to the accident of authorship. The idea expressed verbally or in action may be at least as novel and potent as the idea expressed with pen and ink. Closely connected with this fallacy is the idea that political theory has its origin in ancient Greece. The classically-educated historian has rarely thought it necessary to go either further back or further afield. He may have been misled by the derivation of the words in use; and yet the absurdity of this would seem obvious enough. To deny that there were politics before the Greeks invented the word is no more reasonable than to assume that the Greeks were uncivilised until the Romans had taught them Latin.

If it is wrong to conclude that all political theory began with Plato, it is at least equally wrong to suppose that all political thinking has been done in Europe and America. Of nearly every basic political concept it is true to say that the Greeks had a word for it and often the word that is still in use. That is not to say, however, that there is no Chinese word with a similar meaning. Still less need we assume that the Chinese and Indians have had no ideas of their own. There are books purporting to summarise the history of political thought of which it can truly be said that they do nothing of the kind. Candid at least are the book titles in which 'Western' political thought is specified and more candid still those which define their even narrower scope 'From Bacon to Halifax'. But while there is reason to commend the honesty of those who profess to do no more than they have done, there is less to be said for their originality and courage. Too many have followed each other along the same well-trodden track. Too few have seen that a history of political thought must be world-wide if it is not to be fallacious.

Another impression which the reader may gain from reading the current books on political thought is that the development of political institutions has progressed steadily from the days of Lycurgus or Solon down to the present day; the ultimate achievement being Britisn Parliamentary Democracy or else perhaps the American Way of Life. There are here two separate fallacies involved. The first lies in the assumption that all history illustrates a story of betterment or progress with ourselves as the final product. The second lies in the assumption that such progress as there has been is a western achievement in which no oriental can claim even the smallest share. History records no such monopoly and no such unbroken progression. What the historian does find, however, is a recurrence of the belief that perfection has been reached and that a given constitution (like that of the United States) represents finality. There is, in fact, no historical reason for supposing that our present systems of governance are other than quite temporary expedients. To demonstrate, therefore, that all progress leads upwards to these pinnacles of wisdom is peculiarly needless. In such an attempt one ignores half the work that has already been done and all the work that is still to do.

Read more on Brainly.in - https://brainly.in/question/2313865#readmore