المساواة
المساواة، مثل الحرية هي واحدة من الركائز الأساسية للديمقراطية. الإعلان الأمريكي
الاستقلال في عام 1776 ينص على أن "ونحن نحمل هذه الحقائق لتكون -evident النفس أن جميع الرجال
وهو مخلوق على قدم المساواة ". كما يؤكد الإعلان الفرنسي لحقوق الإنسان (1789)" الرجال
ولد، وتستمر دائما، أحرارا ومتساوين في احترام حقوقهم ".
ميثاق الأمم المتحدة يقر أيضا المساواة في المجال الدولي عندما يقول:
"تقوم المنظمة على مبادئ المساواة في السيادة بين جميع أعضائها".
المساواة تعني أن جميع الناس متساوون ويجب أن يكون من حق متساوية الفرص والمعاملة.
وكان نمو النزعة الفردية، التي هي المسؤولة عن مصلحة جديدة في قضية
المساواة. في البداية، كان محط اهتمام المساواة من خلال ولادة أي المساواة الطبيعية و
المساواة أمام القانون المساواة القانونية أي. في الليبرالية القرن 18'Th أن يؤدي إلى اجتماعي قانوني
المساواة والمساواة الاقتصادية والسياسية القرن 19'Th، اكتسبت زخما.
تعريفات
1. "المساواة لا تعني هوية العلاج أو التشابه من مكافأة إذا لبنة -
طبقة يحصل على نفس أجر الرياضيات أو عالما، فإن الغرض من المجتمع أن يكون
هزم. المساواة، لذلك، يعني أولا وقبل كل غياب الامتيازات الاجتماعية. في المركز الثاني
وهو ما يعني أن وضعت فرص كافية مفتوحة للجميع "-LASKI
2. "مشتق المساواة من القيمة العليا للتطوير في كل مثل وعلى قدم المساواة،
ولكن كل على طول وقته الخاص المختلف وحركة منفصلة خاصة بها. "- باركر
أنواع المساواة
1. المساواة الاجتماعية:
المساواة الاجتماعية تعني أن جميع المواطنين لهم الحق في التمتع بوضع متساو في المجتمع، وليس هناك من هو
يحق لها امتيازات خاصة. قد يكون هناك تمييز العقلاني في المجتمع فيما يتعلق
يجب أن لا تكون محجوزة الاحتلال والمهن، ولكن الشعور بالنقص والتفوق
لهذه. لأنها تقف ينبغي أن يعامل الجميع على قدم المساواة في نظر القانون، دون تمييز على
بسبب اللون أو الطائفة أو العقيدة أو الجنس أو الدين الخ، وإزالة الوصمات الاجتماعية مثل النبذ.
على 10'th ديسمبر 1948. UNO، أعلن ميثاق حقوق الإنسان الذي التشديد على
المساواة الاجتماعية.
2. المساواة السياسية
المساواة السياسية تعني أن كل شخص لديه المساواة في الوصول إلى سبل للسلطة. جميع المواطنين
أيا خلافاتهم في وضع والتعليم والثروة يجب أن يكون لها صوت على قدم المساواة
في إدارة الشؤون العامة وفي تولي المناصب العامة. امتياز للراشدين هو
التعبير عن المساواة السياسية. وتستند جميع الدول الديمقراطية مبدأ "واحد
رجل، صوت واحد، واعتمدت بإخلاص قيمة واحدة ". تكافؤ الفرص في الحصول على المنتخبين و
في تولي المناصب العامة، وحرية التعبير وتكوين الجمعيات والحق في السعي تقويمه لل
المظالم العامة هي الركائز المهمة المساواة السياسية.
3. المساواة الاقتصادية:
وتشمل المساواة الاقتصادية على مستوى معين من الدخل وإزالة الفوارق الصارخة ل
الثروة. المساواة الاقتصادية هي شرط أساسي لوجود والتمتع السياسية والاجتماعية
والمساواة القانونية. وهذا لا يعني المساواة في توزيع الثروة، وهو غير عملي، ولكن
منع تركيز الثروة في أيدي قلة من الناس. الوضع الاقتصادي للفرد
يؤثر أساسا حالة سياسية له.
4. المساواة القانونية:
المساواة القانونية أو المساواة أمام القانون هي الأساسية للعدالة القانونية. تعني المساواة القانونية التي
كلها على حد سواء في عين القانون والتي يحق لها وحمايتها من متساوية. الأغنياء والفقراء،
ينبغي معاملتها على ارتفاع منخفض وعلى حد سواء. ينبغي أن يكون هناك أي تمييز بين الرجل و
رجل على الأرض من الوضع الاجتماعي، والإيمان الديني أو الرأي السياسي. في المساواة قصيرة، القانونية أو
المساواة أمام القانون تعني عدم وجود تمييز. يمارس سيادة القانون في الكبير
بريطانيا والعديد من دول العالم الأخرى.
الشروط اللازمة لادراك المساواة
ويتحقق 1. المساواة عندما يتم القضاء على مزايا عرضي الميلاد والثروة و
يتم النجاح أو الفشل على قدرة وشخصية الأفراد.
2. أدرك عندما يزيل القانون كل تمييز على أساس الطائفة والطبقة والمجتمع،
الدين أو العرق أو الجنس.
ويتحقق 3. المساواة عندما يتم التعرف على المطالبات متساوية للفرص كافية وليس لأحد
وضحى شخص أو فئة أو مجتمع من أجل آخر.
4. وأخيرا، وتحقيق المساواة عندما المطالبات جميعا إلى الحد الأدنى من مستوى التعليم والإسكان،
يتم التعرف على المواد الغذائية وهناك ضمانة ضد انعدام الأمن الاقتصادي.
الحرية والمساواة في الولايات المتحدة
في معظم المجتمعات، وتتميز الناس التي ولدوا فيها، والتراث العرقي أو
قناعة دينية. في الولايات المتحدة، وهذه هي الثانوية. الأميركيين الينابيع الهوية الذاتية
من المعتقدات التي تأسست هذا البلد، بما في ذلك الاعتقاد بأن لا أحد
أفضل تلقائيا من أي شخص آخر ببساطة بحكم الولادة.
لدينا تقديس هذه المثل يبقى المحك. وقبل بضع سنوات، وقدم لي صديق نسخة
من "ذا ناشيونال باليد كتاب
EQUALITY
Equality, like liberty is one of the fundamental pillars of democracy. The American Declaration
of Independence in 1776 proclaims that “We hold these truths to be self –evident that all men
are created equal “. The French Declaration of Rights of Man (1789) also emphasizes "Men are
born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights".
The Charter of United Nations also recognizes equality in international sphere when it says:
"The organization is based on the principles of sovereign equality of all its members".
Equality means that all men are equal and should be entitled equal, opportunity and treatment.
It was the growth of individualism, which is responsible for the fresh interest in the issue of
equality. In the beginning, the focus of attention was equality by birth i.e. natural equality and
equality before law i.e. legal equality. In the 18’Th century liberalism that leads to socio- legal
equality and in the 19’Th century economic and political equality, gained momentum.
Definitions
1. " Equality does not mean the identity of treatment or the sameness of reward. If a brick -
layer gets the same reward as a mathematician or a scientist, the purpose of society will be
defeated. Equality, therefore, means first of all absence of social privileges. In the second place
it means that adequate opportunities are laid open to all" -LASKI
2. " Equality is derived from the supreme value of the development of in each like and equally,
but each along its own different time and its own separate motion". - BARKER
Kinds of Equality
1. Social equality:
Social equality means that all citizens are entitled to enjoy equal status in society and no one is
entitled to special privileges. There may be rational distinction in the society with regard to
occupation and professions, but the feeling of inferiority and superiority should not be attached
to these. It stands for all should be treated equally in the eyes of law, no discrimination on
grounds of color, caste, creed, sex, religion etc., removal of social stigmas like untouchability.
On the 10'th December,1948. UNO, declared the charter of Human Rights which laid stress on
social equality.
2. Political Equality
Political Equality implies that everyone has equal access to the avenues of power. All citizens
whatever may be their differences in status , education and wealth should have an equal voice
in the management of public affairs and in holding public offices. Universal adult franchise is
the expression of political equality. All democratic countries are based the principle of "one
man , one vote , one value" is faithfully adopted. Equality of opportunity in getting elected and
in holding public offices , freedom of expression and association and rights to seek redressal of
public grievances are the important pillars of political equality.
3. Economic Equality:
Economic equality involves a certain level of income and removal of gross inequalities of
wealth. Economic equality is the prerequisite for the existence and enjoyment of political, social
and legal equality. It does not mean equal distribution of wealth, which is not practical, but
prevent the concentration of wealth in a few hands. Economic condition of an individual
essentially influences his political condition.
4. Legal Equality:
Legal equality or equality before law is fundamental to legal justice. Legal equality implies that
all are alike in the eye of law and that are entitled to its equal protection. The rich and poor ,
the high and low should all be treated alike. No distinction should be made between man and
man on the ground of social status , religious faith or political opinion. In short, Legal equality or
equality before law implies absence of discrimination. The Rule of Law is practiced in the Great
Britain and many other countries of the world.
Conditions Necessary for Realising Equality
1. Equality is attained when accidental advantages of birth and wealth are eliminated and
success or failure is made upon ability and character of individuals.
2. It is realised when the law removes all discrimination based on caste, class, community,
religion, race or sex.
3. Equality is achieved when equal claims for adequate opportunities are recognised and no one
person , or class or community is sacrificed for the sake of another .
4. Lastly ,equality is attained when the claims all to a minimum standard of education, housing ,
food are recognised and there is guarantee against economic insecurity.
Liberty and equality in the US
In most societies, people are marked by where they were born, their ethnic heritage or
religious conviction. In the United States, these are secondary. Americans’ self-identity springs
from the beliefs on which this country was founded, including the belief that no one is
automatically better than anyone else simply by virtue of birth.
Our reverence for these ideals remains a touchstone. A few years ago, a friend gave me a copy
of “The National Hand-Book of American Progress,” published in 1876 and edited by Erastus
Otis Haven, a bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church and the second president of the
University of Michigan. Haven does laud economic achievements. The telegraph network,
introduced in 1844, had grown to 75,137 miles. But mostly, Haven celebrates our ideals and
political institutions, which — with the tragic exception of the Civil War — had settled conflicts
peacefully. His collected documents were mostly political: the Declaration of Independence; the
Constitution; Washington’s Farewell Address; Lincoln’s two inaugural addresses and the
Emancipation Proclamation.
This intense love of country defines Americans and, compared to many, sets us apart. A 2004
study of 33 countries by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago
ranked the United States first in national pride. You might think that this powerful allegiance --
what I and no doubt millions of others call a religion — would bring us together. Often it does.
But on this July Fourth, we face a disturbing paradox: Our love of country increasingly divides
us.
Our national debates now transcend disputes over this or that spending program or tax and
have become — in the minds of the combatants — a climactic struggle for the nature and soul
of America. One side is allegedly bent on inserting government into every aspect of our lives
and suffocating individual responsibility and effort. The other is supposedly beholden to the
rich, committed to “survival of the fittest” and indifferent to everyone else.
If you believe these are the stakes — and that defeat would extinguish America’s most valuable
and virtuous aspects — then the other side is to be despised and demolished. Your very love of
country impels you to extremes of rhetoric and belief. It nudges you, increasingly, to hate the
other side.
The backdrop to this struggle is long-standing. As Alexis de Tocqueville noted, Americans
venerate both liberty and equality. Our entire history involves this tension between preserving
freedom and promoting equality. If you are defending either, you naturally think that you are
the legitimate heir of the country’s core beliefs.
In a democracy, de Tocqueville argued, Americans would ultimately favor equality over
freedom, because its material benefits are more immediate and tangible. Not so, countered the
late political scientist James Q. Wilson. Americans strongly value freedom, far more than do
citizens of any other democratic country, he argued.
There’s plenty of evidence he is right. A recent Pew poll asked people to pick between
“freedom to pursue life’s goals without state interference” and the “state guarantees nobody is
in need.” Americans selected freedom 58 percent to 35 percent. European responses were
reversed: Germany’s 36 percent to 62 percent was typical. By wide margins compared with
Europeans, Americans believe that “success in life” is determined by individual effort and not
by outside forces. Yet, in their voting habits, Americans often prefer security.
The inconsistencies and contradictions won’t soon vanish. But in today’s politically poisoned
climate, righteousness is at a premium and historical reality at a discount. Each side, whether
“liberal” or “conservative,” Republican or Democrat, behaves as if it has a monopoly on
historical truth. The fear that the existence of their version of America is threatened sows
discord and explains why love of country has become a double-edged sword, dividing us when
it might unite.
The Political Role of Freedom and Equality as Human Values in New Zealand (NZ)
The first two studies provide support for Rokeach‟s contention that followers of different
political viewpoints may be differentiated by their relative endorsements of the values of
freedom and equality. These studies were conducted in NZ which, thanks to a change of
electoral system, displays a degree of political heterogeneity absent from earlier tests of the
hypothesis. Study one describes the result of content analysis of parliamentary speeches by
representatives of five ideologically distinct political parties. Contrary to previous local findings
(but consistent with overseas research) the parties were classifiable in their differential
endorsement of the target values. The classification related systematically to the parties‟
positions in NZ political climate, with leftwing parties endorsing equality over freedom while
the reverse was increasingly true of parties of the right. The second study shows that political
preference may be predicted from respondents‟ responses to the Schwartz values inventory, ii
with particular importance attributed to the values of “universalism” and “self-direction”. In
both studies, “equality” is more important in predicting political affiliation, while limited, the
studies suggest that the two-factor model does successfully differentiate parties and their
supporters in a multi-party context. Finally, we present a scale summarising the central and
core elements of a social representation of individual versus group-based entitlement to
resource-allocations in NZ, drawn from qualitative analyses of the discourses of NZ‟s citizens,
its political elites, and the media. People who positioned equality as group-based tended to
support the Labour and Green parties and those who positioned equality as meritocracy tended
to support the National and NZ First parties. Taken together, these findings indicate that the
Equality Positioning Scale provides a valid and reliable measure that contributes to models of
the psychological and ideological bases of voting behaviour in NZ. Moreover, our findings
suggest that the positioning of equality provided an axis of meaning that aided in the creation
and mobilisation of public opinion regarding resource-allocations, land claims, affirmative
action programs, and a host of other material issues in the months leading up to the 2005 NZ
election.
Values & Value-Systems
Perhaps the most frequently cited definition of what constitutes a human value is offered by
Rokeach as an „enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is 1
The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable funding for this study provided by the Victoria
University of Wellington Internal Grants Committee. Study one has been previously published
in a different form as Wilson (2004) while study three has previously been published as Sibley
and Wilson (2007, study two).
The Political Role of Freedom and Equality as Human Values
Personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of
existence.‟iii Rokeach argued that, considered together, values form values systems, where a
value system is „an enduring organisation of beliefs concerning preferable modes of conduct or
end-states of existence along a continuum of importance.‟ iv Thus the importance of different
values should co-vary with the importance of others in the value system. Human values are
strongly prescriptive in nature and form the core around which other less enduring beliefs are
organised. As such they are important in a range of other processes. For example, the
formation of specific attitudes is presumed to be predicated upon more general values.
If attitudes are predicated upon value systems then by extension political attitudes are also
predicated upon values. Indeed, Rokeach contended that the traditional left-right
(liberalconservative) continuum was not sufficient to differentiate (or make comparisons)
between all the varieties of political ideologies active at the time. In its place, Rokeach
proposed that the minimum dimensions necessary to describe different ideologies was two,
and outlined a programme of research intended to show that proponents of different political
philosophies differ in their relative support for the two values of freedom and equality. For
example, adherents of liberal democratic or socialist doctrine should endorse both values
equally highly while the reverse is true of Nazist or fascist sympathisers, who should endorse
neither.
Differential endorsement of the two values is illustrated by Republican or right-wing supporters
valuing freedom over equality and communists favouring equality over freedom.
Rokeach found support for the two-value hypothesis in content analyses of the written works
of idealogues commonly accepted as typifying different political persuasions.vi Rokeach and his
colleagues selected as representative of communist, capitalist, fascist, and socialist orientations
the writings of Lenin, Goldwater, Hitler, and a number of socialist writers (the argument being
that no one individual was sufficiently prototypal). A number of raters content analysed the
four 25,000 word excerpts, making frequency counts of the occurrence of sentences containing
synonyms for all of Rokeach‟s terminal and instrumental values. The final analysis compared
the relative frequency rankings of all the values for each of the exemplars. The overall
importance of freedom and equality was illustrated by the finding that they accounted for 45%
of all terminal value occurrences. The relative frequencies seemed to support Rokeach‟s twovalue
model, with “freedom” and “equality” being ranked first and second (out of seventeen
terminal values) most frequent respectively in the socialist excerpts, sixteenth and seventeenth
for the Hitler (fascist) excerpts, first and sixteenth for Goldwater (capitalist), and seventeenth
and first for Lenin (communist). Later studies by Rous and Lee, using samples of American
ideologues, and Mahoney, Coogle, and Banks, using American presidential inaugural addresses,
were consistent with the contention that freedom and equality defined two basic dimensions
underlying the themes of the presenters.
Levine applied the two-value model in a content analysis of a selection of New Zealand political
party programmes. ix Simple frequency counts of the eighteen terminal values, including
freedom and equality, specified by Rokeachx were calculated.
Liberty and equality
These words represent basic values of democratic political systems, including that of the United
States. Rule by absolute monarchs and emperors has often brought peace and order, but at the
cost of personal freedoms. Democratic values support the belief that an orderly society can
exist in which freedom is preserved. But order and freedom must be balanced.
The Tennis-Court Oath
In the early days of the French revolution, the members of the third estate agreed to stick
together in the face of opposition from the king and nobles. The "Tennis Court Oath" became
the first step towards representative democracy in France.
The Influence of the Enlightenment
The American government has its roots in the seventeenth and eighteenth century
ENLIGHTENMENT in Europe, a movement that questioned the traditional authority of the
monarch to rule. What gives one person the right to rule another? Enlightenment philosophes
answered the question by acknowledging the importance of establishing order. They were
influenced by the chaos of medieval times, when a lack of CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT brought
widespread death and destruction. Havens from invaders and attackers were necessary for
survival, so weaker people allied themselves with stronger ones, and kings came to rule who
provided protection in return for work and allegiance from their subjects.
John Locke
John Locke was the English philosopher who theorized that government was the manifestation
of a general will of "the governed" that allowed the governed to change their governors at will.
His book, Treatises on Civil Government, was very influential in the American revolution.
As order was established and new economic patterns emerged, people began to question the
king's right to rule. For example, JOHN LOCKE, an eighteenth century English philosopher,
theorized that the right to rule came from the "CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED." MONTESQUIEU
wrote with admiration about three "branches" of government that checked one another's
power. ROUSSEAU believed that communities were most justly governed by the "GENERAL
WILL" or MAJORITY RULE of their citizens. Though the philosophes believed that rulers were
important for maintaining order, they questioned the sacrifice of individual freedom that they
saw under European monarchs.
Two Kinds of Balance
Imagine a society in which everyone was perfectly free to do as he or she pleased. How long
would it take for chaos to set in? Order implies a necessary loss of freedom if people are to
survive. However, how far can order go? Democratic countries cherish INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM
and generally believe that laws should not be REPRESSIVE; a little order can be sacrificed in the
name of LIBERTY. So one kind of balance is between order and liberty.
Democratic societies also expect another kind of balance: a compromise between liberty and
equality. Complete liberty logically leads to inequality. A strong or ambitious person might
acquire more goods and property than another, and someone is bound to dominate. But the
line has to be drawn before an individual seizes power that greatly restricts the liberties of
others.
Liberty Leading the People
The ideals of the first French revolution also inspired the 1830 revolution in Paris. The ideas of
"Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity" were immortalized in the three colors of the French flag. In
Delacroix's painting, Liberty is seen leading the people toward these ideals.
Shouldn't governments help preserve some degree of equality for their citizens? But if they
overemphasize equality, won't they restrict their citizens' liberty? For example, governments
can bring about more equality by taxing rich citizens more than the poor, but if they carry their
policies too far, won't they restrict the individual's freedom to strive for economic success? The
balance between liberty and equality is an important cornerstone of democratic government.
In the late 18th century the Founders created the blueprints for the United States government
in an effort to achieve these delicate balances — between liberty and order, and between
liberty and equality. Their success is reflected in the continuing efforts to refine them. The
formula has changed with time, but the framework provided by the Constitution and the values
expressed by the Declaration of Independence remain the same.
المساواة، مثل الحرية هي واحدة من الركائز الأساسية للديمقراطية. الإعلان الأمريكي
الاستقلال في عام 1776 ينص على أن "ونحن نحمل هذه الحقائق لتكون -evident النفس أن جميع الرجال
وهو مخلوق على قدم المساواة ". كما يؤكد الإعلان الفرنسي لحقوق الإنسان (1789)" الرجال
ولد، وتستمر دائما، أحرارا ومتساوين في احترام حقوقهم ".
ميثاق الأمم المتحدة يقر أيضا المساواة في المجال الدولي عندما يقول:
"تقوم المنظمة على مبادئ المساواة في السيادة بين جميع أعضائها".
المساواة تعني أن جميع الناس متساوون ويجب أن يكون من حق متساوية الفرص والمعاملة.
وكان نمو النزعة الفردية، التي هي المسؤولة عن مصلحة جديدة في قضية
المساواة. في البداية، كان محط اهتمام المساواة من خلال ولادة أي المساواة الطبيعية و
المساواة أمام القانون المساواة القانونية أي. في الليبرالية القرن 18'Th أن يؤدي إلى اجتماعي قانوني
المساواة والمساواة الاقتصادية والسياسية القرن 19'Th، اكتسبت زخما.
تعريفات
1. "المساواة لا تعني هوية العلاج أو التشابه من مكافأة إذا لبنة -
طبقة يحصل على نفس أجر الرياضيات أو عالما، فإن الغرض من المجتمع أن يكون
هزم. المساواة، لذلك، يعني أولا وقبل كل غياب الامتيازات الاجتماعية. في المركز الثاني
وهو ما يعني أن وضعت فرص كافية مفتوحة للجميع "-LASKI
2. "مشتق المساواة من القيمة العليا للتطوير في كل مثل وعلى قدم المساواة،
ولكن كل على طول وقته الخاص المختلف وحركة منفصلة خاصة بها. "- باركر
أنواع المساواة
1. المساواة الاجتماعية:
المساواة الاجتماعية تعني أن جميع المواطنين لهم الحق في التمتع بوضع متساو في المجتمع، وليس هناك من هو
يحق لها امتيازات خاصة. قد يكون هناك تمييز العقلاني في المجتمع فيما يتعلق
يجب أن لا تكون محجوزة الاحتلال والمهن، ولكن الشعور بالنقص والتفوق
لهذه. لأنها تقف ينبغي أن يعامل الجميع على قدم المساواة في نظر القانون، دون تمييز على
بسبب اللون أو الطائفة أو العقيدة أو الجنس أو الدين الخ، وإزالة الوصمات الاجتماعية مثل النبذ.
على 10'th ديسمبر 1948. UNO، أعلن ميثاق حقوق الإنسان الذي التشديد على
المساواة الاجتماعية.
2. المساواة السياسية
المساواة السياسية تعني أن كل شخص لديه المساواة في الوصول إلى سبل للسلطة. جميع المواطنين
أيا خلافاتهم في وضع والتعليم والثروة يجب أن يكون لها صوت على قدم المساواة
في إدارة الشؤون العامة وفي تولي المناصب العامة. امتياز للراشدين هو
التعبير عن المساواة السياسية. وتستند جميع الدول الديمقراطية مبدأ "واحد
رجل، صوت واحد، واعتمدت بإخلاص قيمة واحدة ". تكافؤ الفرص في الحصول على المنتخبين و
في تولي المناصب العامة، وحرية التعبير وتكوين الجمعيات والحق في السعي تقويمه لل
المظالم العامة هي الركائز المهمة المساواة السياسية.
3. المساواة الاقتصادية:
وتشمل المساواة الاقتصادية على مستوى معين من الدخل وإزالة الفوارق الصارخة ل
الثروة. المساواة الاقتصادية هي شرط أساسي لوجود والتمتع السياسية والاجتماعية
والمساواة القانونية. وهذا لا يعني المساواة في توزيع الثروة، وهو غير عملي، ولكن
منع تركيز الثروة في أيدي قلة من الناس. الوضع الاقتصادي للفرد
يؤثر أساسا حالة سياسية له.
4. المساواة القانونية:
المساواة القانونية أو المساواة أمام القانون هي الأساسية للعدالة القانونية. تعني المساواة القانونية التي
كلها على حد سواء في عين القانون والتي يحق لها وحمايتها من متساوية. الأغنياء والفقراء،
ينبغي معاملتها على ارتفاع منخفض وعلى حد سواء. ينبغي أن يكون هناك أي تمييز بين الرجل و
رجل على الأرض من الوضع الاجتماعي، والإيمان الديني أو الرأي السياسي. في المساواة قصيرة، القانونية أو
المساواة أمام القانون تعني عدم وجود تمييز. يمارس سيادة القانون في الكبير
بريطانيا والعديد من دول العالم الأخرى.
الشروط اللازمة لادراك المساواة
ويتحقق 1. المساواة عندما يتم القضاء على مزايا عرضي الميلاد والثروة و
يتم النجاح أو الفشل على قدرة وشخصية الأفراد.
2. أدرك عندما يزيل القانون كل تمييز على أساس الطائفة والطبقة والمجتمع،
الدين أو العرق أو الجنس.
ويتحقق 3. المساواة عندما يتم التعرف على المطالبات متساوية للفرص كافية وليس لأحد
وضحى شخص أو فئة أو مجتمع من أجل آخر.
4. وأخيرا، وتحقيق المساواة عندما المطالبات جميعا إلى الحد الأدنى من مستوى التعليم والإسكان،
يتم التعرف على المواد الغذائية وهناك ضمانة ضد انعدام الأمن الاقتصادي.
الحرية والمساواة في الولايات المتحدة
في معظم المجتمعات، وتتميز الناس التي ولدوا فيها، والتراث العرقي أو
قناعة دينية. في الولايات المتحدة، وهذه هي الثانوية. الأميركيين الينابيع الهوية الذاتية
من المعتقدات التي تأسست هذا البلد، بما في ذلك الاعتقاد بأن لا أحد
أفضل تلقائيا من أي شخص آخر ببساطة بحكم الولادة.
لدينا تقديس هذه المثل يبقى المحك. وقبل بضع سنوات، وقدم لي صديق نسخة
من "ذا ناشيونال باليد كتاب
EQUALITY
Equality, like liberty is one of the fundamental pillars of democracy. The American Declaration
of Independence in 1776 proclaims that “We hold these truths to be self –evident that all men
are created equal “. The French Declaration of Rights of Man (1789) also emphasizes "Men are
born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights".
The Charter of United Nations also recognizes equality in international sphere when it says:
"The organization is based on the principles of sovereign equality of all its members".
Equality means that all men are equal and should be entitled equal, opportunity and treatment.
It was the growth of individualism, which is responsible for the fresh interest in the issue of
equality. In the beginning, the focus of attention was equality by birth i.e. natural equality and
equality before law i.e. legal equality. In the 18’Th century liberalism that leads to socio- legal
equality and in the 19’Th century economic and political equality, gained momentum.
Definitions
1. " Equality does not mean the identity of treatment or the sameness of reward. If a brick -
layer gets the same reward as a mathematician or a scientist, the purpose of society will be
defeated. Equality, therefore, means first of all absence of social privileges. In the second place
it means that adequate opportunities are laid open to all" -LASKI
2. " Equality is derived from the supreme value of the development of in each like and equally,
but each along its own different time and its own separate motion". - BARKER
Kinds of Equality
1. Social equality:
Social equality means that all citizens are entitled to enjoy equal status in society and no one is
entitled to special privileges. There may be rational distinction in the society with regard to
occupation and professions, but the feeling of inferiority and superiority should not be attached
to these. It stands for all should be treated equally in the eyes of law, no discrimination on
grounds of color, caste, creed, sex, religion etc., removal of social stigmas like untouchability.
On the 10'th December,1948. UNO, declared the charter of Human Rights which laid stress on
social equality.
2. Political Equality
Political Equality implies that everyone has equal access to the avenues of power. All citizens
whatever may be their differences in status , education and wealth should have an equal voice
in the management of public affairs and in holding public offices. Universal adult franchise is
the expression of political equality. All democratic countries are based the principle of "one
man , one vote , one value" is faithfully adopted. Equality of opportunity in getting elected and
in holding public offices , freedom of expression and association and rights to seek redressal of
public grievances are the important pillars of political equality.
3. Economic Equality:
Economic equality involves a certain level of income and removal of gross inequalities of
wealth. Economic equality is the prerequisite for the existence and enjoyment of political, social
and legal equality. It does not mean equal distribution of wealth, which is not practical, but
prevent the concentration of wealth in a few hands. Economic condition of an individual
essentially influences his political condition.
4. Legal Equality:
Legal equality or equality before law is fundamental to legal justice. Legal equality implies that
all are alike in the eye of law and that are entitled to its equal protection. The rich and poor ,
the high and low should all be treated alike. No distinction should be made between man and
man on the ground of social status , religious faith or political opinion. In short, Legal equality or
equality before law implies absence of discrimination. The Rule of Law is practiced in the Great
Britain and many other countries of the world.
Conditions Necessary for Realising Equality
1. Equality is attained when accidental advantages of birth and wealth are eliminated and
success or failure is made upon ability and character of individuals.
2. It is realised when the law removes all discrimination based on caste, class, community,
religion, race or sex.
3. Equality is achieved when equal claims for adequate opportunities are recognised and no one
person , or class or community is sacrificed for the sake of another .
4. Lastly ,equality is attained when the claims all to a minimum standard of education, housing ,
food are recognised and there is guarantee against economic insecurity.
Liberty and equality in the US
In most societies, people are marked by where they were born, their ethnic heritage or
religious conviction. In the United States, these are secondary. Americans’ self-identity springs
from the beliefs on which this country was founded, including the belief that no one is
automatically better than anyone else simply by virtue of birth.
Our reverence for these ideals remains a touchstone. A few years ago, a friend gave me a copy
of “The National Hand-Book of American Progress,” published in 1876 and edited by Erastus
Otis Haven, a bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church and the second president of the
University of Michigan. Haven does laud economic achievements. The telegraph network,
introduced in 1844, had grown to 75,137 miles. But mostly, Haven celebrates our ideals and
political institutions, which — with the tragic exception of the Civil War — had settled conflicts
peacefully. His collected documents were mostly political: the Declaration of Independence; the
Constitution; Washington’s Farewell Address; Lincoln’s two inaugural addresses and the
Emancipation Proclamation.
This intense love of country defines Americans and, compared to many, sets us apart. A 2004
study of 33 countries by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago
ranked the United States first in national pride. You might think that this powerful allegiance --
what I and no doubt millions of others call a religion — would bring us together. Often it does.
But on this July Fourth, we face a disturbing paradox: Our love of country increasingly divides
us.
Our national debates now transcend disputes over this or that spending program or tax and
have become — in the minds of the combatants — a climactic struggle for the nature and soul
of America. One side is allegedly bent on inserting government into every aspect of our lives
and suffocating individual responsibility and effort. The other is supposedly beholden to the
rich, committed to “survival of the fittest” and indifferent to everyone else.
If you believe these are the stakes — and that defeat would extinguish America’s most valuable
and virtuous aspects — then the other side is to be despised and demolished. Your very love of
country impels you to extremes of rhetoric and belief. It nudges you, increasingly, to hate the
other side.
The backdrop to this struggle is long-standing. As Alexis de Tocqueville noted, Americans
venerate both liberty and equality. Our entire history involves this tension between preserving
freedom and promoting equality. If you are defending either, you naturally think that you are
the legitimate heir of the country’s core beliefs.
In a democracy, de Tocqueville argued, Americans would ultimately favor equality over
freedom, because its material benefits are more immediate and tangible. Not so, countered the
late political scientist James Q. Wilson. Americans strongly value freedom, far more than do
citizens of any other democratic country, he argued.
There’s plenty of evidence he is right. A recent Pew poll asked people to pick between
“freedom to pursue life’s goals without state interference” and the “state guarantees nobody is
in need.” Americans selected freedom 58 percent to 35 percent. European responses were
reversed: Germany’s 36 percent to 62 percent was typical. By wide margins compared with
Europeans, Americans believe that “success in life” is determined by individual effort and not
by outside forces. Yet, in their voting habits, Americans often prefer security.
The inconsistencies and contradictions won’t soon vanish. But in today’s politically poisoned
climate, righteousness is at a premium and historical reality at a discount. Each side, whether
“liberal” or “conservative,” Republican or Democrat, behaves as if it has a monopoly on
historical truth. The fear that the existence of their version of America is threatened sows
discord and explains why love of country has become a double-edged sword, dividing us when
it might unite.
The Political Role of Freedom and Equality as Human Values in New Zealand (NZ)
The first two studies provide support for Rokeach‟s contention that followers of different
political viewpoints may be differentiated by their relative endorsements of the values of
freedom and equality. These studies were conducted in NZ which, thanks to a change of
electoral system, displays a degree of political heterogeneity absent from earlier tests of the
hypothesis. Study one describes the result of content analysis of parliamentary speeches by
representatives of five ideologically distinct political parties. Contrary to previous local findings
(but consistent with overseas research) the parties were classifiable in their differential
endorsement of the target values. The classification related systematically to the parties‟
positions in NZ political climate, with leftwing parties endorsing equality over freedom while
the reverse was increasingly true of parties of the right. The second study shows that political
preference may be predicted from respondents‟ responses to the Schwartz values inventory, ii
with particular importance attributed to the values of “universalism” and “self-direction”. In
both studies, “equality” is more important in predicting political affiliation, while limited, the
studies suggest that the two-factor model does successfully differentiate parties and their
supporters in a multi-party context. Finally, we present a scale summarising the central and
core elements of a social representation of individual versus group-based entitlement to
resource-allocations in NZ, drawn from qualitative analyses of the discourses of NZ‟s citizens,
its political elites, and the media. People who positioned equality as group-based tended to
support the Labour and Green parties and those who positioned equality as meritocracy tended
to support the National and NZ First parties. Taken together, these findings indicate that the
Equality Positioning Scale provides a valid and reliable measure that contributes to models of
the psychological and ideological bases of voting behaviour in NZ. Moreover, our findings
suggest that the positioning of equality provided an axis of meaning that aided in the creation
and mobilisation of public opinion regarding resource-allocations, land claims, affirmative
action programs, and a host of other material issues in the months leading up to the 2005 NZ
election.
Values & Value-Systems
Perhaps the most frequently cited definition of what constitutes a human value is offered by
Rokeach as an „enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is 1
The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable funding for this study provided by the Victoria
University of Wellington Internal Grants Committee. Study one has been previously published
in a different form as Wilson (2004) while study three has previously been published as Sibley
and Wilson (2007, study two).
The Political Role of Freedom and Equality as Human Values
Personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of
existence.‟iii Rokeach argued that, considered together, values form values systems, where a
value system is „an enduring organisation of beliefs concerning preferable modes of conduct or
end-states of existence along a continuum of importance.‟ iv Thus the importance of different
values should co-vary with the importance of others in the value system. Human values are
strongly prescriptive in nature and form the core around which other less enduring beliefs are
organised. As such they are important in a range of other processes. For example, the
formation of specific attitudes is presumed to be predicated upon more general values.
If attitudes are predicated upon value systems then by extension political attitudes are also
predicated upon values. Indeed, Rokeach contended that the traditional left-right
(liberalconservative) continuum was not sufficient to differentiate (or make comparisons)
between all the varieties of political ideologies active at the time. In its place, Rokeach
proposed that the minimum dimensions necessary to describe different ideologies was two,
and outlined a programme of research intended to show that proponents of different political
philosophies differ in their relative support for the two values of freedom and equality. For
example, adherents of liberal democratic or socialist doctrine should endorse both values
equally highly while the reverse is true of Nazist or fascist sympathisers, who should endorse
neither.
Differential endorsement of the two values is illustrated by Republican or right-wing supporters
valuing freedom over equality and communists favouring equality over freedom.
Rokeach found support for the two-value hypothesis in content analyses of the written works
of idealogues commonly accepted as typifying different political persuasions.vi Rokeach and his
colleagues selected as representative of communist, capitalist, fascist, and socialist orientations
the writings of Lenin, Goldwater, Hitler, and a number of socialist writers (the argument being
that no one individual was sufficiently prototypal). A number of raters content analysed the
four 25,000 word excerpts, making frequency counts of the occurrence of sentences containing
synonyms for all of Rokeach‟s terminal and instrumental values. The final analysis compared
the relative frequency rankings of all the values for each of the exemplars. The overall
importance of freedom and equality was illustrated by the finding that they accounted for 45%
of all terminal value occurrences. The relative frequencies seemed to support Rokeach‟s twovalue
model, with “freedom” and “equality” being ranked first and second (out of seventeen
terminal values) most frequent respectively in the socialist excerpts, sixteenth and seventeenth
for the Hitler (fascist) excerpts, first and sixteenth for Goldwater (capitalist), and seventeenth
and first for Lenin (communist). Later studies by Rous and Lee, using samples of American
ideologues, and Mahoney, Coogle, and Banks, using American presidential inaugural addresses,
were consistent with the contention that freedom and equality defined two basic dimensions
underlying the themes of the presenters.
Levine applied the two-value model in a content analysis of a selection of New Zealand political
party programmes. ix Simple frequency counts of the eighteen terminal values, including
freedom and equality, specified by Rokeachx were calculated.
Liberty and equality
These words represent basic values of democratic political systems, including that of the United
States. Rule by absolute monarchs and emperors has often brought peace and order, but at the
cost of personal freedoms. Democratic values support the belief that an orderly society can
exist in which freedom is preserved. But order and freedom must be balanced.
The Tennis-Court Oath
In the early days of the French revolution, the members of the third estate agreed to stick
together in the face of opposition from the king and nobles. The "Tennis Court Oath" became
the first step towards representative democracy in France.
The Influence of the Enlightenment
The American government has its roots in the seventeenth and eighteenth century
ENLIGHTENMENT in Europe, a movement that questioned the traditional authority of the
monarch to rule. What gives one person the right to rule another? Enlightenment philosophes
answered the question by acknowledging the importance of establishing order. They were
influenced by the chaos of medieval times, when a lack of CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT brought
widespread death and destruction. Havens from invaders and attackers were necessary for
survival, so weaker people allied themselves with stronger ones, and kings came to rule who
provided protection in return for work and allegiance from their subjects.
John Locke
John Locke was the English philosopher who theorized that government was the manifestation
of a general will of "the governed" that allowed the governed to change their governors at will.
His book, Treatises on Civil Government, was very influential in the American revolution.
As order was established and new economic patterns emerged, people began to question the
king's right to rule. For example, JOHN LOCKE, an eighteenth century English philosopher,
theorized that the right to rule came from the "CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED." MONTESQUIEU
wrote with admiration about three "branches" of government that checked one another's
power. ROUSSEAU believed that communities were most justly governed by the "GENERAL
WILL" or MAJORITY RULE of their citizens. Though the philosophes believed that rulers were
important for maintaining order, they questioned the sacrifice of individual freedom that they
saw under European monarchs.
Two Kinds of Balance
Imagine a society in which everyone was perfectly free to do as he or she pleased. How long
would it take for chaos to set in? Order implies a necessary loss of freedom if people are to
survive. However, how far can order go? Democratic countries cherish INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM
and generally believe that laws should not be REPRESSIVE; a little order can be sacrificed in the
name of LIBERTY. So one kind of balance is between order and liberty.
Democratic societies also expect another kind of balance: a compromise between liberty and
equality. Complete liberty logically leads to inequality. A strong or ambitious person might
acquire more goods and property than another, and someone is bound to dominate. But the
line has to be drawn before an individual seizes power that greatly restricts the liberties of
others.
Liberty Leading the People
The ideals of the first French revolution also inspired the 1830 revolution in Paris. The ideas of
"Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity" were immortalized in the three colors of the French flag. In
Delacroix's painting, Liberty is seen leading the people toward these ideals.
Shouldn't governments help preserve some degree of equality for their citizens? But if they
overemphasize equality, won't they restrict their citizens' liberty? For example, governments
can bring about more equality by taxing rich citizens more than the poor, but if they carry their
policies too far, won't they restrict the individual's freedom to strive for economic success? The
balance between liberty and equality is an important cornerstone of democratic government.
In the late 18th century the Founders created the blueprints for the United States government
in an effort to achieve these delicate balances — between liberty and order, and between
liberty and equality. Their success is reflected in the continuing efforts to refine them. The
formula has changed with time, but the framework provided by the Constitution and the values
expressed by the Declaration of Independence remain the same.
Freedom and Equality in the Comparison of Political Systems
ABSTRACT:
The notions of freedom and equality in a group are precisely defined in terms of individual
exertions of influence or power. Freedom is discussed in the version ‘freedom from’ influence
rather than in the version ‘freedom to do’ what one wants. It is shown that at the ideal
conceptual level complete freedom implies equality. Given the plausibility of the definitions this
shows that political ‘folk rhetorics’ in which freedom and equality often are put in opposition
are misled and misleading. Quantitative notions of ‘more freedom’ and ‘more equality’ are
introduced and shown to be independent of each other. The bearing of these conceptual
exercises on the comparison of political systems is discussed. blurred.gif (1041 bytes)
During the last 5000 years the competition and contest of large, human communities or
political systems, of which modern states are the pressing example, often was decided by a
simple, `evolutionary' mechanism: war and force. However, the increasing destructive power of
artifacts which are developed with the help of scientific knowledge seems to diminish the
importance of this device—at least among communities with a somewhat rational leadership.
For the mere use of modern techniques increases the risk of self-destruction even for that party
which otherwise would be said to have won the `contest'. In this situation it would be desirable
to have other, less violent criteria to check whether some political system is better than
another one. If we could compare the quality of political systems in a purely conceptual way the
practical competition among systems could be reduced to attempts at enlightening the citizens
of the respective other system.
Recent views of the quality of political systems focus on different aspects or dimensions
expressed by terms like freedom, equality, solidarity, human rights and welfare. The problem
with such a multi-dimensional approach to the quality of political systems is that the different
dimensions have not been analyzed in precise terms and have not been thoroughly compared
with each other. There is no save knowledge about how the different aspects jointly affect the
quality of a political system. While the effect of each single aspect ceteris paribus is quite clear,
problems arise when two or more of them are varied simultaneously. In `folk' political rhetorics
it is a common topic that freedom and equality, as well as freedom and solidarity, compete with
each other or even are incompatible. When these labels are used as being characteristic for
given political systems we arrive at the usual rhetoric of political competition among states
where, say, a `free' state and a `socialist' state (= a state characterized by equality and/or
solidarity) strive for domination. These prescientific opinions lead to the expectation that a
scientific investigation will yield similar results.
I think that this expectation requires caution. In the real-world examples the key terms usually
are applied to states without much justification, and in a propagandistic vein. In order to
overcome this unsatisfactory situation the basic notions have to be studied in more precise
terms and have to be compared with each other with respect to their contributing to the
quality of political systems. In will go some steps in this direction and present some results
showing that the scientific study of these aspects or dimensions is promising. I concentrate here
on the most important notion: freedom and equality.
As a background for my explications I use a theory of social institutions combining a power
centered view of social affairs in the spirit of, say, Machiavelli, and a systemic, formal model of
such affairs, see (Balzer, 1990, 1993). This theory is intended to model comprehensive social
institutions like political systems and states—among other things. (In the social sciences
presently the game theoretic view seems to prevail when institutions are discussed. However,
what are called `institutions' in the game theoretic approach are not political systems, but more
local and abstract things like `promise', `convention' and the like. Up to now game theoretic
analysis has not been able to model and to explain one single political system of the kind I am
discussing here.) According to my theory a social institution is given by four parts: a microsystem
of individuals and their actions and social relations, a macro-system of social groups and
their properties and relations, and two `images' of these two systems: a set of `micro-images',
images of the micro-system which are internalized by the institution's members, and a `macroimage'
in which the macro-system is represented in some more objective way, for instance by
written laws, norms, myths, poems, pictures and the like. Concentrating on the macro- and
micro-systems, one basic feature of this theory is that individuals are engaged in power
relations. Each individual tries to exert power over other individuals (or to influence them). An
individual power relation in which power is exterted is constituted by the two individuals
involved plus one action performed by each of them. For instance, Peter may exert power over
John by uttering the command `Go and get me some cigarettes' and by John's getting the
cigarettes, where Peter's action is the utterance and John's action is to get the cigarettes. A
second basic feature is that individual power relations can be used to characterize groups and a
status relation among groups. Roughly, a group G has lower status than another group G' iff
many members of G' exert power over many members of G but not vice versa. Inside one
group, on the other hand, the exertions of power are in equilibrium. The third important
feature is that in a social institution the groups are ordered by the status relation such that they
form a connected, transitive graph with a unique top-element. This top-element is the `topgroup',
a group which has highest status and whose members therefore exert power over most
members of the other groups (see (Balzer, 1990) for details).
In a model of this theory freedom and equality can be defined as follows. At the micro level a
model contains four kinds of objects: persons $i,j$, actions $a,b$, and points of time $t,t'$.
Persons perform actions and exert power over each other. Moreover, they have intentions and
causal beliefs. I use the expressions that person i at time t performs action a; that i by doing a
exerts power over j so that j does b in the period from t' to t; that at time t, i intends that j
should do a; and that, at t, i believes that action a partially causes action b. With these
expressions we can define the action space of person i at time t to consist of all actions which
are possible for i at t. I say that j's action b at t is the aim of an exertion of power iff there is
some person i, some earlier instant t' and some action a such that i by doing a exerts power
over j so that j does b in the period t',t. With these two auxiliary definitions we can define that
person j is free at tiff no action b in j's action space at t is the aim of an exertion of power. That
is, no action b in j's action space is induced by some other person's exerting power on j and
influencing j to do b.
Actually, in the present context the restriction to actions from j's action space makes no
difference. It can be proved that one might equivalently use arbitrary actions.
This definition of freedom exclusively in terms of individual exertions of power apparently is
exposed to a well-known criticism of behaviorist approaches to power, see (Lukes, 1974). It
seems that important ways of exerting power in a less direct, `structural' way are not covered,
like for instance excluding an issue from the agenda, or hiding an exertion of power behind the
obligations of one's own social position. Yet this impression is misleading. First, in the present
account, the notion of action is not understood in the naive way of positively doing something.
Actions form a `space' of actions in which there is room for neutral behavior (doing nothing)
and also for negative behavior (expressed by a negated proposition) to count as an action, see
(Balzer, 1993), Chap.6. Second, in the context of a social institution, each exertion of power is
directly linked to mental predicates of intention and causal beliefs, and indirectly linked to
macro-features like social positions and norms. I cannot describe the details here but just note
that in an institutional embedding an exertion of power—though at the surface described by a
relation among actors and actions—may acquire the full status of social or institutional power
which is required for a proper understanding of domination, compare the definition in (Balzer,
1993), Chap.12. When embedded in a social institution, the present definition of freedom
expresses much more than the merely behaviorist absence of tokens of influence.
Of the two basic versions of freedom: freedom `from' influence and freedom `to do' what one
wants, the above definition covers the first notion. It is difficult to relate these two notions in
precise terms because the domain of humans wants is so fuzzy. If we could distinguish, in a
given state, the domain of materially possible actions which j could perform if nobody would
exert power over him and the domain of actually possible actions obtained by removing from
the first domain all those actions which are made impossible by other persons' exerting power
over j then we might say that `freedom to do' is constrained in two ways. First, it is constrained
by the domain of materially possible actions. A person cannot perform materially impossible
actions, whether she wants to do so or not. Additional to this first constraint, `freedom to do' is
further narrowed down by other persons' influences making materially possible actions
impossible. Under this perspective, if the domains of material possibility depend on the level of
welfare then the level of `materially possible' freedom, i.e. freedom that would prevail in the
presence of freedom from influence, is higher in states with a higher level of welfare. However,
this distinction does not seem to be fruitful for in reality the `material' level and the level of
influence are heavily dependent on each other. For instance, a rise of the level of welfare
usually is accompanied by increased suffering of exertions of power so that the overall freedom
`to do' of a person does not increase (or even decreases) when welfare does. Moreover,
freedom `to do' allows for ideal, individualistic realization of freedom: I simply cut down my
wants in order to become completely free (as the Hegelian slave). This shows that freedom `to
do' is not well suited for discussions of essentially social matters like the comparison of political
systems, and that freedom `from' is the right notion to be used in such contexts.
Equality can be defined by distinguishing $external$ and $internal$ equality. Let us say that two
persons i,j at t are externally equal iff they exert `the same' power over third persons k, and are
affected by third persons exerting power over them in `the same' way. Clearly, `the same' here
must be interpreted somewhat liberally. I take it to mean that whenever i exerts power over
some k by means of some action a then there is an action a' by which j exerts power over k, and
vice versa with i and j interchanged, and that whenever some k exerts power over i by means of
some action a then the same k also exerts power over j by some a' and vice versa with i and j
interchanged. In a more fine grained analysis one would use action-types and require that a and
a' be actions of the same type. i and j are internally equal at t iff each exertion of power of i
over j is matched by one of j over i and vice versa. Finally, we can say that i and j are equal (at t)
iff i and j are externally and internally equal at t. Note that this definition captures social
equality as contrasted to physiological or other kinds of `non-social' equality. Two persons may
be equal in the sense defined but still widely differ, say, in strength, intelligence or wealth.
It is easily seen by counterexamples that one person may be free but not equal to another one,
or may be equal to another one but not free. Also, it can be shown by way of example that even
complete equality of all persons in a group may go together with the absence of freedom in
that group. In the reverse direction there is a positive result. If all members of a group are free
then they are equal, or, more briefly: total freedom implies equality. This result holds for the
notion of `freedom from', and may be expressed in still other terms as saying that equality is a
necessary condition for freedom (`freedom from'). In the comparison of political systems these
notions typically are used in a quantitative way allowing for `more' and `less'. The definitions
just described can be modified and turned into comparative notions of more freedom and more
equality being present in one group than in another group of about the same size. Problems in
application then arise in mixed cases like that of an increase of equality together with a
decrease of freedom. There is no commonly accepted way of combining different criteria in
order to obtain a definite result.
The condition of `more freedom' on this account is directly linked to the presence or absence of
power relations. An increase of freedom by the above definition implies that less exertions of
power are made: `more freedom implies less exertion of power'. On the other hand, equality
may vary without any change in the numbers of exertions of power, for instance, by mere
`redistribution' of such exertions in the population. Moreover, the quantitavie notions of
freedom and equality are independent of each other. This can be shown by logical comparison,
and by showing that under fixed, hypothetical conditions, a variation in one dimension is
compatible with no variation in the other. For instance, if freedom increases the degree of
equality may remain unchanged. In particular this shows that freedom and equality—even if
both are defined in terms of power—yield different criteria for the ranking of political systems.
The fact that both these notions can be defined in terms of power does not imply that the
comparison of political systems in these two dimensions can be `reduced' to one, more basic
criterion formulated in terms of exertions of power.
Liberty and Equality in the France
Of the population own 22% of the land and about 5% of the population has more than 82% of
the country's wealth. Thus the French Kingdom in July 17, 1789, where she is one of the
greatest revolutions of the world, to remove the ruling family of the French Bourbons, and
declares that the First Republic, after achieving the goals of the Great Revolution in 1792,
where he was to take off the last king of King Louis XVI Paris formally.
While the French Revolution has become an indisputable fact, and after Republicans rejected
the king's proposal to conduct a referendum, the French National Assembly declared the socalled
«the Bill of Rights». The definitive texts came the launch of public freedoms, rallied
around people and become «all French icon». In 1791 the state passed the Constitution
guarantees the rights and dignity of every citizen, in advance Revolution slogan: «freedom
brotherhood equality», on any restrictions can be imposed by the state later on citizens. In
1793, then added the texts confirm that sovereignty belongs citizens, and approved the
separation of the legislative, judicial and executive authorities, and to ensure that the freedoms
of all the French, without distinction.
Despite the broad freedoms, the French Revolution (which lasted for successive waves), also
raised serious slogans blood, salvation of the clergy and «remnants of King», was the slogan
«Hang Last King Bomaae another priest», France lost during the period of revolution around 30
thousand people and more than 50 thousand political prisoners.
First Republic long did not last. In 1804, Napoleon Bonaparte declared (Napoleon I) himself
emperor to end the fledgling republic, and establishes a new dictatorship, but the revolution
that toppled the Bourbons, managed to grab the Second Republic, and announced in the
February 25, 1848, and confirmed in December 2 massive uprising in 1851, Napoleon III was
elected president of the republic, and walked Charles Louis Napoleon on the approach of his
predecessors, and declared that the Second French Empire military coup, and appointed
himself emperor.
French waited a long time until the Germans crushed the armies of Napoleon III and occupied
parts of France, the French people and announced the third republic in 1870, a parliamentary
republic, again.
Despite all the precautions that Parliament tried to fortify himself out, the parliamentary
system led to severe weakness in the Third Republic, until Paris fell under Nazi occupation
armies German in July 1940.
The French themselves have not silent on the occupation, and over the air launched the voice
of General Charles de Gaulle, to announce an armed resistance against the Nazis, and despite
the great inconvenience, who was represented «de Gaulle» and behind resistance to the Vichy
government, the liberalization of the ground came up with the process «Normandy», which
ended the existence of Nazi in Paris. On November 28, 1946 declared elected Vincent Auriol
president of the Government of France temporary, and then becoming the January 16, 1947
the first elected president of France, declares the people launching the Fourth Republic, which
followed other parliamentary system is full, even over take over General de Gaulle's presidency,
and the Declaration of the Fifth Republic, and the Constitution 1958, and despite the bitter
experiences that fought the French, the permanent constitution was the slogan revolution
carried by 283 years of freedom, fraternity and equality, did not dare any French democratic
system since the demise of the property on the prejudice to «icon all French», as they call on
the Bill of Rights. Although systems change between the parliamentary and presidential
parliamentary, and even with two experiments with the occupation and another two with the
fall of the Republic, the French knew early where lies the true strength, the center of the
continent where they have far more enemies than friends and allies throughout history....
Raise the slogan of "liberty, equality and fraternity" inherited from the Enlightenment the first
time during the French Revolution. As long as the display this slogan to appeal, but he
established himself in the end, under the Third Republic, and was included in the 1958
Constitution, which today is part of our national heritage.
The writer François Fénelon is established a link between freedom, equality and brotherhood
concepts in the late seventeenth century, then these concepts spread more widely in the Age of
Enlightenment.
The slogan of "liberty, equality and fraternity" A slogans raised during the French Revolution.
Robespierre suggested in his speech in January 1790 on the organization of the National Guard,
writing phrases "French people" and "liberty, equality and fraternity" on the uniforms and flags,
but the project has not been adopted.
And taking Albarcillon, who quickly ended the population of other cities Hteke, since 1793
drawing on the facades of their homes following statements: "unity and the indivisibility of the
republic, freedom, equality or death," but he asked them after a short while write off the last
part of this statement, which was suggesting terrorism.
This slogan has become Baúta under the Empire, like many revolutionary symbols. Then reemerged
during the 1848 revolution pregnant religious character, as it was the priests residing
ritual celebration of brotherhood in Christ, and the blessing of freedom planted trees at the
time. When the 1848 Constitution was drafted slogan "liberty, equality and fraternity" is
defined as the "principle" of the principles of the Republic.
Although the Second Empire carving this slogan aside, but he established himself in the end,
under the Third Republic, however, some persisted in his refusal, including people from the
supporters of the Republic. Sometimes, some prefer the concept of solidarity on the concept of
equality which involves modifying the social levels, and the religious implication of the concept
of brotherhood is not unanimous.
This was engraved logo on Qguasr public buildings to mark the celebrations of July 14 1880. The
constitution within 1946 and 1958, this slogan, which represents in this day an integral part of
our national heritage. Logo also appears on the widespread purposes, such as coins and
stamps.
Integrated settled a constitution in October 1958 by President Charles de Gaulle, the spiritual
father of the Fifth Republic, which is the same constitution, which is known as the Constitution
of the Fifth French Republic.
The beginning since the monarchy, who did not know officially constitution was adopted mainly
on custom, and then came the French Revolution to begin a new era overthrew the monarchy
and declared the first French Republic, and since that time rolled several constitutions did not
succeed to continue for several reasons, including the large number of coups and change
between the Republic and the Empire, and most recently was the German invasion of France
during World War II. After the war was approved constitution in 1946 as an extension of the
Third Republic that existed before World War II, and suffered from many problems suffered by
the Third Republic, the short-term such as ministries, for example, until the Fifth Republic on
the ruins of the Fourth Republic, was the dispensing system parliamentary rule in favor of the
rule of semi-presidential system.
French Constitution of the Fifth Republic began from the same perspective advertisement that
appeared in the wake of the French Revolution in 1789, and known as the declaration of human
rights and the citizen, through the preamble to the Constitution of 1946. It was ratified in the
fourth of October 1958, and is located in 89 articles, and the latest amendments made to it
were in the twenty-third of July 2008.
In this Constitution, Article II French differ from Article II of the Egyptian constitution, drafted,
and which has always been a bone of contention in the period after the revolution, where the
second article states that the language of the Republic is French and the slogan home is the
French flag three Ballowanh known, as well as the emphasis on the emblem of the Republic
«liberty, equality and fraternity» and its principle «people's Government and the people for the
people», and select the language present in the Egyptian draft and miss the US Constitution, for
example.
While the draft agree that Islam is the official religion of the state and that the principles of the
Sharia is the main source of legislation, with all citizens are equal before the law, the French
Constitution confirms that France is a secular democratic state to ensure the equality of all
citizens before the law without discrimination based on race, origin or religion, as stated in the
first article.
The people's sovereignty principle of the draft Egypt's new constitution in line with the
Constitution of the Fifth Republic of France, where he came in the first section of the draft
«state and society», especially Article V, that the sovereignty of the people exercised and
protected by, and that the source of authority, while it came in the third article of the French
Constitution in some detail, where «sovereignty of the people shall be exercised through their
representatives by referendum, and may not be for a class of people or any individual the right
to practice that accounts for national sovereignty».
With regard to the definition of the president, according to Article 134 of the draft of the
Egyptian Constitution, is the head of state and head of the executive branch, sponsored by the
interests of the people and to preserve the independence and territorial integrity, and takes
into account the border between the authorities, as is elected for a term of four years,
renewable through re-elected for a one-time, either in the French Constitution, the President of
the Republic ensures respect for the Constitution and ensures the functioning of public
authorities and the continued survival of the state, and continue his term of office for five
years, and cannot continue in office more than two consecutive presidency.
And other points of agreement with regard to the judiciary, where the French constitution and
agreed on the draft of the Egyptian Constitution, the independence of the judiciary and the
inability of judges to isolate, and the Constitution of France explained that the president is a
protector of the independence of the judiciary, while the Egyptian draft did not say so explicitly.
Beginning with the US Constitution, the oldest written constitution, which is still work in
progress by the whole world, it also documents the institution of the federal government of the
United States of America, and is a supreme law of the country. If we look at the core of the
issue that concerned the US Constitution are the cause of freedom in general.
According to the constitution, the US federal government is composed of three separate
authorities, the legislative authority represented by the Congress in both chambers, "the House
of Representatives and the Senate, and the executive represented in the United States
President-elect and his administration, the judicial authority of the Supreme Court of the
United States, and operates the Constitution to regulate relations between those authorities.
The US Constitution was adopted on the philosophical theories of some philosophers, such as
philosophers Englishmen John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Edward Cook, the French
philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, has called on Congress to write it in the conference held
on the fourteenth of May 1784, The House of Representatives of the various States to
Philadelphia, which was the federal capital at the time, where he was the first conference to
choose the first president of the United States, was chosen to George Washington, who was a
deputy from Virginia, after Benjamin Franklin rejected his choice for the position because of his
age at the time, 81 years old, and then they started in discussing the new constitution, a debate
which saw strong diatribes and altercations and differences, but ended the whole adoption
Constitution editorial says: "We the people of the United States, a desire to create a more
perfect union, and in the administration of justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the common good and secure the blessings of liberty for us coming
generations, draw and establish this Constitution of the United States of America. "
Many of the amendments took place on the US Constitution. First was ten amendments called
"Bill of Rights" and proposed in the twenty-fifth of September 1789, was approved at the
December 15, 1791, then the amendment atheist ten proposed in March 1794, which was
passed in February 1795, and rolled amendments until I was twenty-seven amendments, the
most recent is the twenty-seventh amendment proposed in the 25 September 1989 and
approved on 7 May 1992.
US Constitution can be considered a secular document which does not mention anything about
God or religion, but in the article, which stresses the lack of distinction between people on the
basis of their beliefs, and material that prevents Congress from the issuance of laws based on
religion.
Meets US Constitution with a draft of the Egyptian constitution in some subjects, including civil
rights and liberties, as the freedom of worship, freedom of expression and of the press and
pretend guaranteed in the US Constitution and in accordance with the First Amendment in the
Bill of Rights, as well as ensure that the Bill of Rights itself the right of citizens of security and
lack of arrest or detention, but the issuance of an indictment, which is the same as found in
Part II of the draft of the Egyptian Constitution, under the title of "rights, freedoms and duties",
and to ensure that human dignity and full equality before the law without consideration to
race, origin, language, religion, opinion, and it may not capture any citizen, searched or
detained or his freedom restricted in any way except by order of the judge reasoned.
US Constitution differs he did not specify the basic religion of the United States, while the
Egyptian constitution specified in the second article, which states that Islam is the official
religion of the state.
For the Head of State, the US Constitution provides that the mandate of President four-year
period ending on the twentieth of January of each period, while in the Egyptian constitution
duration is determined not clearly, but acknowledges that the presidential term is four years
and made the election procedures before the end of President ninety days at least, should also
announce the result by at least ten days before the end of the presidential term, in accordance
with Article 135 of the draft.
In the case of the death of President of the US Constitution before the start of his term, the vice
president becomes president, and if it has not been the choice of prime before the scheduled
start of the state, the Vice President also become president, while in the draft of the Egyptian
Constitution, article 141 reported that in the case of the mind temporarily prevents direct
duties prime minister he became president, while if there's death, disability or resignation, the
House of Representatives declare the seat vacant and notify the competent authorities, and
then proceed with House Speaker tasks President of the Republic, and solve the whereabouts
of the Senate and the president in the event of dissolution of the House of Representatives
President .
US campaigner against racism has won great popularity and has been linked to the call for
freedom of racism and rejection, then he deserves to get the Nobel Peace Prize, and pass the
anniversary of the birth of Martin Luther King Jr. on Jan. 15 to remember his dreams, which he
said, "I dream of the day that my four children will live days in people where there is no rule
people on the colors of their skin, but since it entails morals. "
Perhaps if King were alive to this day and saw Barack Obama ascends to occupy the post of
President of the United States to flooded happiness to the fact that his dream has finally
achieved was the eradication of racism Here is African-American black chairs the same state
that stop where Martin Luther defender of freedom and the rights of black citizens.
ABSTRACT:
The notions of freedom and equality in a group are precisely defined in terms of individual
exertions of influence or power. Freedom is discussed in the version ‘freedom from’ influence
rather than in the version ‘freedom to do’ what one wants. It is shown that at the ideal
conceptual level complete freedom implies equality. Given the plausibility of the definitions this
shows that political ‘folk rhetorics’ in which freedom and equality often are put in opposition
are misled and misleading. Quantitative notions of ‘more freedom’ and ‘more equality’ are
introduced and shown to be independent of each other. The bearing of these conceptual
exercises on the comparison of political systems is discussed. blurred.gif (1041 bytes)
During the last 5000 years the competition and contest of large, human communities or
political systems, of which modern states are the pressing example, often was decided by a
simple, `evolutionary' mechanism: war and force. However, the increasing destructive power of
artifacts which are developed with the help of scientific knowledge seems to diminish the
importance of this device—at least among communities with a somewhat rational leadership.
For the mere use of modern techniques increases the risk of self-destruction even for that party
which otherwise would be said to have won the `contest'. In this situation it would be desirable
to have other, less violent criteria to check whether some political system is better than
another one. If we could compare the quality of political systems in a purely conceptual way the
practical competition among systems could be reduced to attempts at enlightening the citizens
of the respective other system.
Recent views of the quality of political systems focus on different aspects or dimensions
expressed by terms like freedom, equality, solidarity, human rights and welfare. The problem
with such a multi-dimensional approach to the quality of political systems is that the different
dimensions have not been analyzed in precise terms and have not been thoroughly compared
with each other. There is no save knowledge about how the different aspects jointly affect the
quality of a political system. While the effect of each single aspect ceteris paribus is quite clear,
problems arise when two or more of them are varied simultaneously. In `folk' political rhetorics
it is a common topic that freedom and equality, as well as freedom and solidarity, compete with
each other or even are incompatible. When these labels are used as being characteristic for
given political systems we arrive at the usual rhetoric of political competition among states
where, say, a `free' state and a `socialist' state (= a state characterized by equality and/or
solidarity) strive for domination. These prescientific opinions lead to the expectation that a
scientific investigation will yield similar results.
I think that this expectation requires caution. In the real-world examples the key terms usually
are applied to states without much justification, and in a propagandistic vein. In order to
overcome this unsatisfactory situation the basic notions have to be studied in more precise
terms and have to be compared with each other with respect to their contributing to the
quality of political systems. In will go some steps in this direction and present some results
showing that the scientific study of these aspects or dimensions is promising. I concentrate here
on the most important notion: freedom and equality.
As a background for my explications I use a theory of social institutions combining a power
centered view of social affairs in the spirit of, say, Machiavelli, and a systemic, formal model of
such affairs, see (Balzer, 1990, 1993). This theory is intended to model comprehensive social
institutions like political systems and states—among other things. (In the social sciences
presently the game theoretic view seems to prevail when institutions are discussed. However,
what are called `institutions' in the game theoretic approach are not political systems, but more
local and abstract things like `promise', `convention' and the like. Up to now game theoretic
analysis has not been able to model and to explain one single political system of the kind I am
discussing here.) According to my theory a social institution is given by four parts: a microsystem
of individuals and their actions and social relations, a macro-system of social groups and
their properties and relations, and two `images' of these two systems: a set of `micro-images',
images of the micro-system which are internalized by the institution's members, and a `macroimage'
in which the macro-system is represented in some more objective way, for instance by
written laws, norms, myths, poems, pictures and the like. Concentrating on the macro- and
micro-systems, one basic feature of this theory is that individuals are engaged in power
relations. Each individual tries to exert power over other individuals (or to influence them). An
individual power relation in which power is exterted is constituted by the two individuals
involved plus one action performed by each of them. For instance, Peter may exert power over
John by uttering the command `Go and get me some cigarettes' and by John's getting the
cigarettes, where Peter's action is the utterance and John's action is to get the cigarettes. A
second basic feature is that individual power relations can be used to characterize groups and a
status relation among groups. Roughly, a group G has lower status than another group G' iff
many members of G' exert power over many members of G but not vice versa. Inside one
group, on the other hand, the exertions of power are in equilibrium. The third important
feature is that in a social institution the groups are ordered by the status relation such that they
form a connected, transitive graph with a unique top-element. This top-element is the `topgroup',
a group which has highest status and whose members therefore exert power over most
members of the other groups (see (Balzer, 1990) for details).
In a model of this theory freedom and equality can be defined as follows. At the micro level a
model contains four kinds of objects: persons $i,j$, actions $a,b$, and points of time $t,t'$.
Persons perform actions and exert power over each other. Moreover, they have intentions and
causal beliefs. I use the expressions that person i at time t performs action a; that i by doing a
exerts power over j so that j does b in the period from t' to t; that at time t, i intends that j
should do a; and that, at t, i believes that action a partially causes action b. With these
expressions we can define the action space of person i at time t to consist of all actions which
are possible for i at t. I say that j's action b at t is the aim of an exertion of power iff there is
some person i, some earlier instant t' and some action a such that i by doing a exerts power
over j so that j does b in the period t',t. With these two auxiliary definitions we can define that
person j is free at tiff no action b in j's action space at t is the aim of an exertion of power. That
is, no action b in j's action space is induced by some other person's exerting power on j and
influencing j to do b.
Actually, in the present context the restriction to actions from j's action space makes no
difference. It can be proved that one might equivalently use arbitrary actions.
This definition of freedom exclusively in terms of individual exertions of power apparently is
exposed to a well-known criticism of behaviorist approaches to power, see (Lukes, 1974). It
seems that important ways of exerting power in a less direct, `structural' way are not covered,
like for instance excluding an issue from the agenda, or hiding an exertion of power behind the
obligations of one's own social position. Yet this impression is misleading. First, in the present
account, the notion of action is not understood in the naive way of positively doing something.
Actions form a `space' of actions in which there is room for neutral behavior (doing nothing)
and also for negative behavior (expressed by a negated proposition) to count as an action, see
(Balzer, 1993), Chap.6. Second, in the context of a social institution, each exertion of power is
directly linked to mental predicates of intention and causal beliefs, and indirectly linked to
macro-features like social positions and norms. I cannot describe the details here but just note
that in an institutional embedding an exertion of power—though at the surface described by a
relation among actors and actions—may acquire the full status of social or institutional power
which is required for a proper understanding of domination, compare the definition in (Balzer,
1993), Chap.12. When embedded in a social institution, the present definition of freedom
expresses much more than the merely behaviorist absence of tokens of influence.
Of the two basic versions of freedom: freedom `from' influence and freedom `to do' what one
wants, the above definition covers the first notion. It is difficult to relate these two notions in
precise terms because the domain of humans wants is so fuzzy. If we could distinguish, in a
given state, the domain of materially possible actions which j could perform if nobody would
exert power over him and the domain of actually possible actions obtained by removing from
the first domain all those actions which are made impossible by other persons' exerting power
over j then we might say that `freedom to do' is constrained in two ways. First, it is constrained
by the domain of materially possible actions. A person cannot perform materially impossible
actions, whether she wants to do so or not. Additional to this first constraint, `freedom to do' is
further narrowed down by other persons' influences making materially possible actions
impossible. Under this perspective, if the domains of material possibility depend on the level of
welfare then the level of `materially possible' freedom, i.e. freedom that would prevail in the
presence of freedom from influence, is higher in states with a higher level of welfare. However,
this distinction does not seem to be fruitful for in reality the `material' level and the level of
influence are heavily dependent on each other. For instance, a rise of the level of welfare
usually is accompanied by increased suffering of exertions of power so that the overall freedom
`to do' of a person does not increase (or even decreases) when welfare does. Moreover,
freedom `to do' allows for ideal, individualistic realization of freedom: I simply cut down my
wants in order to become completely free (as the Hegelian slave). This shows that freedom `to
do' is not well suited for discussions of essentially social matters like the comparison of political
systems, and that freedom `from' is the right notion to be used in such contexts.
Equality can be defined by distinguishing $external$ and $internal$ equality. Let us say that two
persons i,j at t are externally equal iff they exert `the same' power over third persons k, and are
affected by third persons exerting power over them in `the same' way. Clearly, `the same' here
must be interpreted somewhat liberally. I take it to mean that whenever i exerts power over
some k by means of some action a then there is an action a' by which j exerts power over k, and
vice versa with i and j interchanged, and that whenever some k exerts power over i by means of
some action a then the same k also exerts power over j by some a' and vice versa with i and j
interchanged. In a more fine grained analysis one would use action-types and require that a and
a' be actions of the same type. i and j are internally equal at t iff each exertion of power of i
over j is matched by one of j over i and vice versa. Finally, we can say that i and j are equal (at t)
iff i and j are externally and internally equal at t. Note that this definition captures social
equality as contrasted to physiological or other kinds of `non-social' equality. Two persons may
be equal in the sense defined but still widely differ, say, in strength, intelligence or wealth.
It is easily seen by counterexamples that one person may be free but not equal to another one,
or may be equal to another one but not free. Also, it can be shown by way of example that even
complete equality of all persons in a group may go together with the absence of freedom in
that group. In the reverse direction there is a positive result. If all members of a group are free
then they are equal, or, more briefly: total freedom implies equality. This result holds for the
notion of `freedom from', and may be expressed in still other terms as saying that equality is a
necessary condition for freedom (`freedom from'). In the comparison of political systems these
notions typically are used in a quantitative way allowing for `more' and `less'. The definitions
just described can be modified and turned into comparative notions of more freedom and more
equality being present in one group than in another group of about the same size. Problems in
application then arise in mixed cases like that of an increase of equality together with a
decrease of freedom. There is no commonly accepted way of combining different criteria in
order to obtain a definite result.
The condition of `more freedom' on this account is directly linked to the presence or absence of
power relations. An increase of freedom by the above definition implies that less exertions of
power are made: `more freedom implies less exertion of power'. On the other hand, equality
may vary without any change in the numbers of exertions of power, for instance, by mere
`redistribution' of such exertions in the population. Moreover, the quantitavie notions of
freedom and equality are independent of each other. This can be shown by logical comparison,
and by showing that under fixed, hypothetical conditions, a variation in one dimension is
compatible with no variation in the other. For instance, if freedom increases the degree of
equality may remain unchanged. In particular this shows that freedom and equality—even if
both are defined in terms of power—yield different criteria for the ranking of political systems.
The fact that both these notions can be defined in terms of power does not imply that the
comparison of political systems in these two dimensions can be `reduced' to one, more basic
criterion formulated in terms of exertions of power.
Liberty and Equality in the France
Of the population own 22% of the land and about 5% of the population has more than 82% of
the country's wealth. Thus the French Kingdom in July 17, 1789, where she is one of the
greatest revolutions of the world, to remove the ruling family of the French Bourbons, and
declares that the First Republic, after achieving the goals of the Great Revolution in 1792,
where he was to take off the last king of King Louis XVI Paris formally.
While the French Revolution has become an indisputable fact, and after Republicans rejected
the king's proposal to conduct a referendum, the French National Assembly declared the socalled
«the Bill of Rights». The definitive texts came the launch of public freedoms, rallied
around people and become «all French icon». In 1791 the state passed the Constitution
guarantees the rights and dignity of every citizen, in advance Revolution slogan: «freedom
brotherhood equality», on any restrictions can be imposed by the state later on citizens. In
1793, then added the texts confirm that sovereignty belongs citizens, and approved the
separation of the legislative, judicial and executive authorities, and to ensure that the freedoms
of all the French, without distinction.
Despite the broad freedoms, the French Revolution (which lasted for successive waves), also
raised serious slogans blood, salvation of the clergy and «remnants of King», was the slogan
«Hang Last King Bomaae another priest», France lost during the period of revolution around 30
thousand people and more than 50 thousand political prisoners.
First Republic long did not last. In 1804, Napoleon Bonaparte declared (Napoleon I) himself
emperor to end the fledgling republic, and establishes a new dictatorship, but the revolution
that toppled the Bourbons, managed to grab the Second Republic, and announced in the
February 25, 1848, and confirmed in December 2 massive uprising in 1851, Napoleon III was
elected president of the republic, and walked Charles Louis Napoleon on the approach of his
predecessors, and declared that the Second French Empire military coup, and appointed
himself emperor.
French waited a long time until the Germans crushed the armies of Napoleon III and occupied
parts of France, the French people and announced the third republic in 1870, a parliamentary
republic, again.
Despite all the precautions that Parliament tried to fortify himself out, the parliamentary
system led to severe weakness in the Third Republic, until Paris fell under Nazi occupation
armies German in July 1940.
The French themselves have not silent on the occupation, and over the air launched the voice
of General Charles de Gaulle, to announce an armed resistance against the Nazis, and despite
the great inconvenience, who was represented «de Gaulle» and behind resistance to the Vichy
government, the liberalization of the ground came up with the process «Normandy», which
ended the existence of Nazi in Paris. On November 28, 1946 declared elected Vincent Auriol
president of the Government of France temporary, and then becoming the January 16, 1947
the first elected president of France, declares the people launching the Fourth Republic, which
followed other parliamentary system is full, even over take over General de Gaulle's presidency,
and the Declaration of the Fifth Republic, and the Constitution 1958, and despite the bitter
experiences that fought the French, the permanent constitution was the slogan revolution
carried by 283 years of freedom, fraternity and equality, did not dare any French democratic
system since the demise of the property on the prejudice to «icon all French», as they call on
the Bill of Rights. Although systems change between the parliamentary and presidential
parliamentary, and even with two experiments with the occupation and another two with the
fall of the Republic, the French knew early where lies the true strength, the center of the
continent where they have far more enemies than friends and allies throughout history....
Raise the slogan of "liberty, equality and fraternity" inherited from the Enlightenment the first
time during the French Revolution. As long as the display this slogan to appeal, but he
established himself in the end, under the Third Republic, and was included in the 1958
Constitution, which today is part of our national heritage.
The writer François Fénelon is established a link between freedom, equality and brotherhood
concepts in the late seventeenth century, then these concepts spread more widely in the Age of
Enlightenment.
The slogan of "liberty, equality and fraternity" A slogans raised during the French Revolution.
Robespierre suggested in his speech in January 1790 on the organization of the National Guard,
writing phrases "French people" and "liberty, equality and fraternity" on the uniforms and flags,
but the project has not been adopted.
And taking Albarcillon, who quickly ended the population of other cities Hteke, since 1793
drawing on the facades of their homes following statements: "unity and the indivisibility of the
republic, freedom, equality or death," but he asked them after a short while write off the last
part of this statement, which was suggesting terrorism.
This slogan has become Baúta under the Empire, like many revolutionary symbols. Then reemerged
during the 1848 revolution pregnant religious character, as it was the priests residing
ritual celebration of brotherhood in Christ, and the blessing of freedom planted trees at the
time. When the 1848 Constitution was drafted slogan "liberty, equality and fraternity" is
defined as the "principle" of the principles of the Republic.
Although the Second Empire carving this slogan aside, but he established himself in the end,
under the Third Republic, however, some persisted in his refusal, including people from the
supporters of the Republic. Sometimes, some prefer the concept of solidarity on the concept of
equality which involves modifying the social levels, and the religious implication of the concept
of brotherhood is not unanimous.
This was engraved logo on Qguasr public buildings to mark the celebrations of July 14 1880. The
constitution within 1946 and 1958, this slogan, which represents in this day an integral part of
our national heritage. Logo also appears on the widespread purposes, such as coins and
stamps.
Integrated settled a constitution in October 1958 by President Charles de Gaulle, the spiritual
father of the Fifth Republic, which is the same constitution, which is known as the Constitution
of the Fifth French Republic.
The beginning since the monarchy, who did not know officially constitution was adopted mainly
on custom, and then came the French Revolution to begin a new era overthrew the monarchy
and declared the first French Republic, and since that time rolled several constitutions did not
succeed to continue for several reasons, including the large number of coups and change
between the Republic and the Empire, and most recently was the German invasion of France
during World War II. After the war was approved constitution in 1946 as an extension of the
Third Republic that existed before World War II, and suffered from many problems suffered by
the Third Republic, the short-term such as ministries, for example, until the Fifth Republic on
the ruins of the Fourth Republic, was the dispensing system parliamentary rule in favor of the
rule of semi-presidential system.
French Constitution of the Fifth Republic began from the same perspective advertisement that
appeared in the wake of the French Revolution in 1789, and known as the declaration of human
rights and the citizen, through the preamble to the Constitution of 1946. It was ratified in the
fourth of October 1958, and is located in 89 articles, and the latest amendments made to it
were in the twenty-third of July 2008.
In this Constitution, Article II French differ from Article II of the Egyptian constitution, drafted,
and which has always been a bone of contention in the period after the revolution, where the
second article states that the language of the Republic is French and the slogan home is the
French flag three Ballowanh known, as well as the emphasis on the emblem of the Republic
«liberty, equality and fraternity» and its principle «people's Government and the people for the
people», and select the language present in the Egyptian draft and miss the US Constitution, for
example.
While the draft agree that Islam is the official religion of the state and that the principles of the
Sharia is the main source of legislation, with all citizens are equal before the law, the French
Constitution confirms that France is a secular democratic state to ensure the equality of all
citizens before the law without discrimination based on race, origin or religion, as stated in the
first article.
The people's sovereignty principle of the draft Egypt's new constitution in line with the
Constitution of the Fifth Republic of France, where he came in the first section of the draft
«state and society», especially Article V, that the sovereignty of the people exercised and
protected by, and that the source of authority, while it came in the third article of the French
Constitution in some detail, where «sovereignty of the people shall be exercised through their
representatives by referendum, and may not be for a class of people or any individual the right
to practice that accounts for national sovereignty».
With regard to the definition of the president, according to Article 134 of the draft of the
Egyptian Constitution, is the head of state and head of the executive branch, sponsored by the
interests of the people and to preserve the independence and territorial integrity, and takes
into account the border between the authorities, as is elected for a term of four years,
renewable through re-elected for a one-time, either in the French Constitution, the President of
the Republic ensures respect for the Constitution and ensures the functioning of public
authorities and the continued survival of the state, and continue his term of office for five
years, and cannot continue in office more than two consecutive presidency.
And other points of agreement with regard to the judiciary, where the French constitution and
agreed on the draft of the Egyptian Constitution, the independence of the judiciary and the
inability of judges to isolate, and the Constitution of France explained that the president is a
protector of the independence of the judiciary, while the Egyptian draft did not say so explicitly.
Beginning with the US Constitution, the oldest written constitution, which is still work in
progress by the whole world, it also documents the institution of the federal government of the
United States of America, and is a supreme law of the country. If we look at the core of the
issue that concerned the US Constitution are the cause of freedom in general.
According to the constitution, the US federal government is composed of three separate
authorities, the legislative authority represented by the Congress in both chambers, "the House
of Representatives and the Senate, and the executive represented in the United States
President-elect and his administration, the judicial authority of the Supreme Court of the
United States, and operates the Constitution to regulate relations between those authorities.
The US Constitution was adopted on the philosophical theories of some philosophers, such as
philosophers Englishmen John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Edward Cook, the French
philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, has called on Congress to write it in the conference held
on the fourteenth of May 1784, The House of Representatives of the various States to
Philadelphia, which was the federal capital at the time, where he was the first conference to
choose the first president of the United States, was chosen to George Washington, who was a
deputy from Virginia, after Benjamin Franklin rejected his choice for the position because of his
age at the time, 81 years old, and then they started in discussing the new constitution, a debate
which saw strong diatribes and altercations and differences, but ended the whole adoption
Constitution editorial says: "We the people of the United States, a desire to create a more
perfect union, and in the administration of justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the common good and secure the blessings of liberty for us coming
generations, draw and establish this Constitution of the United States of America. "
Many of the amendments took place on the US Constitution. First was ten amendments called
"Bill of Rights" and proposed in the twenty-fifth of September 1789, was approved at the
December 15, 1791, then the amendment atheist ten proposed in March 1794, which was
passed in February 1795, and rolled amendments until I was twenty-seven amendments, the
most recent is the twenty-seventh amendment proposed in the 25 September 1989 and
approved on 7 May 1992.
US Constitution can be considered a secular document which does not mention anything about
God or religion, but in the article, which stresses the lack of distinction between people on the
basis of their beliefs, and material that prevents Congress from the issuance of laws based on
religion.
Meets US Constitution with a draft of the Egyptian constitution in some subjects, including civil
rights and liberties, as the freedom of worship, freedom of expression and of the press and
pretend guaranteed in the US Constitution and in accordance with the First Amendment in the
Bill of Rights, as well as ensure that the Bill of Rights itself the right of citizens of security and
lack of arrest or detention, but the issuance of an indictment, which is the same as found in
Part II of the draft of the Egyptian Constitution, under the title of "rights, freedoms and duties",
and to ensure that human dignity and full equality before the law without consideration to
race, origin, language, religion, opinion, and it may not capture any citizen, searched or
detained or his freedom restricted in any way except by order of the judge reasoned.
US Constitution differs he did not specify the basic religion of the United States, while the
Egyptian constitution specified in the second article, which states that Islam is the official
religion of the state.
For the Head of State, the US Constitution provides that the mandate of President four-year
period ending on the twentieth of January of each period, while in the Egyptian constitution
duration is determined not clearly, but acknowledges that the presidential term is four years
and made the election procedures before the end of President ninety days at least, should also
announce the result by at least ten days before the end of the presidential term, in accordance
with Article 135 of the draft.
In the case of the death of President of the US Constitution before the start of his term, the vice
president becomes president, and if it has not been the choice of prime before the scheduled
start of the state, the Vice President also become president, while in the draft of the Egyptian
Constitution, article 141 reported that in the case of the mind temporarily prevents direct
duties prime minister he became president, while if there's death, disability or resignation, the
House of Representatives declare the seat vacant and notify the competent authorities, and
then proceed with House Speaker tasks President of the Republic, and solve the whereabouts
of the Senate and the president in the event of dissolution of the House of Representatives
President .
US campaigner against racism has won great popularity and has been linked to the call for
freedom of racism and rejection, then he deserves to get the Nobel Peace Prize, and pass the
anniversary of the birth of Martin Luther King Jr. on Jan. 15 to remember his dreams, which he
said, "I dream of the day that my four children will live days in people where there is no rule
people on the colors of their skin, but since it entails morals. "
Perhaps if King were alive to this day and saw Barack Obama ascends to occupy the post of
President of the United States to flooded happiness to the fact that his dream has finally
achieved was the eradication of racism Here is African-American black chairs the same state
that stop where Martin Luther defender of freedom and the rights of black citizens.