purpose of politics essay

What Is Politics and Why Is It Important? (23 Reasons)

Politics isn’t just about the headlines or election season fireworks; it’s the subtle yet significant undercurrent that determines the direction of public policy and community welfare.

From public parks to pension funds, politics touches everything that matters to us. Its importance cannot be overstated, as it crafts the narrative of our shared journey and individual stories.

As you prepare to digest the deeper significance of politics, ponder this: Might the simple act of understanding politics wield the power to alter your life’s trajectory? Read on to uncover how something so abstract becomes concrete in the choices we make and the voices we elevate.

Table of Contents

What Is Politics?

At its essence, politics is about distribution — of resources, justice, authority, and responsibility. It’s about how a society decides to allocate its collective wealth, manage its collective problems, and nurture its collective strengths. Politicians, aided by public servants and influenced by the electorate, craft the policies that serve as the invisible framework for everyday life.

From city hall to the global stage, politics is imbued in the decision-making processes that shape our environment, our economy, and our culture. It encompasses not only the actions of governments but also the participation of ordinary citizens who vote, protest, lobby, and campaign.

The vibrancy of a democracy is inextricably linked to the engagement of its constituents, making politics not just a practice of the powerful but a right and responsibility of the populace.

Politics Shapes the Laws and Regulations

Politics acts as the conductor for the orchestra of society, directing the creation and enforcement of laws and regulations that affect every aspect of our daily lives. Such rules govern our behavior, interactions, and even expectations at both the individual and community levels.

From the education we receive to the healthcare that safeguards our well-being, political decisions influence the fundamental aspects of our existence. Traffic laws, food safety regulations, and housing codes are all outcomes of political processes, showcasing the depth of politics’ reach into our daily routines.

• Personal freedoms and rights are safeguarded by laws that stem from politics, like freedom of speech and protection against discrimination.
• Consumer protection laws ensure that products meet safety standards, reflecting the political will to look after public interest.

Changes in society often trigger political responses that lead to new regulations. For instance, the rise of digital technology has put data privacy at the forefront of political debate, leading to regulations that aim to protect individuals’ online information.

Politics is the driving force behind this vast network of directives that knit the fabric of communal life, pointing to its indispensable role in shaping societal structure.

Politics Determines Healthcare System Management

Through politics, a community decides how its healthcare system will function, who will have access to medical services, and how these services will be funded and provided. The political arena is where debates about the right to healthcare, the role of government vs. private sector involvement, and the distribution of healthcare services take place.

Political decisions can lead to the implementation of nationwide healthcare programs providing essential services to the public or to the establishment of systems where healthcare is mainly a service accessed through private means.

Healthcare systems influenced by politics can take various forms:

• Universal healthcare systems that aim to provide access to all citizens.
• Systems with a mix of private and public services where insurance plays a significant role.

The effectiveness of a healthcare system during health crises, like epidemics or natural disasters, relies significantly on earlier political decisions regarding health policy and investment in public health infrastructure.

Politics Affects Educational Policies and Access

Political ideologies and priorities set the stage for what form of education is available to the public, affecting everything from early childhood education to higher education and vocational training.

The decisions made in political spheres determine how educational systems are organized and funded and what curriculum is emphasized, reflecting the values and goals a society upholds for the next generation.

In talking about educational access, consider these points:

• Politics influences the equitable distribution of educational resources across different regions and demographics.
• Political debates shape policies on teacher qualifications and student assessment methods.

Moreover, the level of investment in education, as decided by politicians, can either enhance opportunities for life-long learning or create barriers that affect future workforce prospects and societal innovation.

Access to education is, therefore, not only a matter of policy but also a reflection of the political will to invest in a nation’s most valuable asset—its people. This nexus between politics and education highlights the indelible role politics plays in framing a society’s future and citizens’ potential.

Politics Influences the Economy and Resource Distribution

The economic landscape within countries is profoundly molded by political actions and policies. Political leaders and governments make crucial decisions about fiscal policies, trade agreements, and labor laws, all of which, in turn, affect how wealth is created and allocated.

Politics determines who benefits from economic growth through tax structures and social welfare programs, illustrating the breadth of its influence on economic equality and opportunity for citizens.

Economic contexts influenced by politics:

• Economic frameworks: Capitalist, socialist, and mixed economies each embody different political philosophies.
• Subsidies and tariffs: Political tools used to support local industries or to compete in the global market.

Decisions made in the political arena can lead to the stimulation of job creation or, conversely, to periods of austerity and cutbacks. The stability and prosperity of entire industries can hang in the balance as politicians navigate the complexities of the economy through regulatory and policy decisions.

Politics Is Central to Crisis and Emergency Response

In times of crisis, whether they be natural disasters, pandemics, or financial downturns, the role of politics becomes even more visible and critical. The effectiveness of a political body’s response can greatly influence the impact of the crisis on the population, managing not only the immediate aftermath but also the longer-term recovery efforts.

A timeline often illustrates the phases of political response to a crisis:

• Immediate action & legislation in response to crisis.
• Mid-term policy adjustments based on lessons learned.
• Long-term strategic planning for future crisis preparedness and resilience.

During recent global challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, political decisions directly affected the level of resources allocated for emergency aid, the speed and nature of public health responses, and the success of vaccine distribution programs.

Politics determines how swiftly and effectively a community responds to crises and how public trust is managed during such times, underlining the importance of prepared political leadership for disaster preparedness and management.

Politics Drives National and International Policy Agendas

At the helm of a nation’s course, politics sets the priorities and agendas both domestically and on the global stage. The issues that political leaders choose to focus on can range from healthcare reform to climate change and from economic recovery to international peacekeeping. Political agendas are reflected in the legislative cycles, diplomatic initiatives, and the platforms on which political representatives are elected.

Highlighting political agendas:

• National: Infrastructure projects, education reform, and healthcare expansion can dominate the national conversation.
• International: Commitments to global agreements, such as climate accords, reflect the positioning of a country on the world stage.

Through international relations, politics drives the nature of treaties, alliances, and dialogues between countries. It shapes a nation’s footprint in global affairs, including aid, trade, and defense commitments.

The strategic direction given by political leadership at the national and international levels illustrates the profound influence that politics holds in charting the course for our collective future.

Politics Manages a Nation’s Defense and Security

Political leaders have the authority to shape defense policies, dedicate resources to military and law enforcement, and decide how to confront threats. These crucial choices impact not only the levels of national security but also international peace, as tactics for dealing with conflicts, terrorism, and cyber threats are determined.

Aspects of defense and security shaped by politics:

• National defense budgets reflect the prioritization of military readiness.
• Intelligence-gathering policies balance the need for security and individual privacy rights.

Decisions about engaging in military action or diplomatic negotiations are inherently political and carry profound implications for international stability. The strategies and alliances cultivated through political channels define a nation’s approach to defense, emphasizing politics as an indispensable force in maintaining national security.

Politics Impacts Global Relationships and Diplomacy

Political leadership directly affects how nations interact with each other, wielding diplomacy as a tool for building relationships, resolving conflicts, and promoting mutual interests. Political actions at this stage can have far-reaching consequences, determining trade patterns, forging alliances, and setting the tone for international cooperation.

In examining the role of politics in global relationships, consider the following:

• Trade: Agreements between countries can either strengthen ties or lead to tension.
• Peacekeeping: Political commitments to international peacekeeping missions promote global stability.

The political arena is where decisions on foreign aid and international treaties are made, reflecting a nation’s stance towards global issues such as human rights, environmental concerns, and world health. The interconnectedness of countries today makes politics a crucial actor in the delicate balance of global diplomacy.

Politics Plays a Role in Social Justice and Human Rights

Politics serves as a battleground where issues of equality, representation, and fairness are fiercely debated and addressed. Public policies that emerge from political processes reflect societal commitments to protecting the rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of background or status.

Central themes of social justice touched by politics:

• Equality and anti-discrimination laws
• Access to justice and legal representation for marginalized groups
• Protection of rights for vulnerable populations

Through advocacy, legislation, and policy-making, politics is instrumental in shaping a more equitable society. Stirred by social movements and public sentiment, political will is the driving force behind meaningful change in the areas of social equity and human rights.

The politics of social justice aims to rectify systemic inequalities and uphold the intrinsic rights of every person, underlining politics as a force for societal progress and moral accountability.

Politics Allows for Citizen Participation and Democratic Change

Democracy thrives on the active participation of its citizens, facilitated by political processes. Politicians and elected officials represent the people’s voice, making engagement in electoral processes and policy-making part of the backbone of democratic societies. Citizen participation extends beyond voting to include activities such as advocacy, protest, community organizing, and serving on public committees or boards.

Ways politics empowers citizen involvement:

• Voting in elections to choose representatives
• Public consultations on significant community projects or laws
• Grassroots movements influencing policy changes

Through these mechanisms, people exercise their power to influence government actions, contributing to the shaping and reshaping of societies in alignment with the public will.

Politics Is Key to Societal Values and Priorities

The values and priorities that are held up by a society are often crystallized through the political process. Politics reflect cultural beliefs, moral principles, and collective aspirations articulated through laws and policies.

The political dialogue, whether conducted on the floors of legislative buildings or in town hall meetings, captures the pulse of a society’s values—from humanitarian efforts and peace-building to economic advancement and innovation.

Elements illustrating societal values in politics:

• Social welfare and support systems
• Environmental conservation and sustainability actions
• Promotion of arts, heritage, and cultural programs

These elements represent just a slice of the broader spectrum of values that are debated and decided in the political realm. As politics responds to the changing tides of societal opinions and beliefs, it also serves as a catalyst for triggering the reevaluation and evolution of these values, highlighting its integral role in the development and expression of societal identity.

Politics Sets Labor Rights and Working Conditions

Labor legislation, safety standards, and worker compensation policies are just a few aspects of employment that are dictated by political will. These policies not only safeguard workers but also set the stage for labor relations and define the social contract between employers and employees.

Key aspects of labor influenced by politics:

• Minimum wage levels and overtime rules
• Health and safety regulations in the workplace
• Rights to collective bargaining and unionization

These critical elements of labor rights demonstrate how politics intersects with the everyday realities of workers, advocating for fair treatment and ensuring that labor markets operate with respect for human dignity and equitable practices.

Politics Impacts Infrastructure and Public Services

Infrastructure — the physical framework of society, including transportation systems like roads and bridges, public buildings, water supply, and power networks — is a prime example of politics in action.

Political leaders allocate budgets for infrastructure projects, which not only drive economic growth but also directly affect the quality of life for citizens. The availability and condition of public services such as schools, hospitals, and law enforcement are also tied to political agendas and policies.

A glance at key infrastructure components and services:

• Transport:  Roads, rail networks, public transit systems
• Utilities:  Water treatment, electricity grids, internet access
• Social:  Schools, hospitals, police and fire services

The decision-making process about which projects are prioritized, how funds are distributed across regions, and what standards are set for maintenance and safety is inherently political. Such decisions often reflect the broader priorities and values of the elected government, demonstrating the intersection of political will and public welfare.

Politics Determines Power Dynamics within Society

The distribution and exercise of power within a society are profoundly shaped by political structures and policies. Politics decides who gets a voice in the public sphere and how different interests are balanced against each other. The power dynamics within a nation can drive change or maintain the status quo, affecting everything from economic disparity to access to resources.

Consider these facets of power dynamics:

• Political mechanisms:  Voting systems, representation, checks and balances
• Socioeconomic status:  Wealth disparity, class divisions, and social mobility
• Access to resources:  Availability of quality education, healthcare, and housing

Such dynamics are not static but flow and shift as political decisions reshape the landscape of opportunity and control. The recognition of the essential role of politics in crafting these dynamics underscores its importance as a tool for either liberating or constraining societal progress.

Politics Enables Minority Representation and Advocacy

Representing the interests of minority groups is a crucial function of politics, affording those who might otherwise be marginalized the opportunity to influence decisions that affect their lives.

Political systems that encourage diverse representation and provide channels for advocacy enable these groups to play an active role in shaping policy and bringing attention to their unique challenges and perspectives.

The influence of politics on minority representation:

• Legislative seats:  Quotas or affirmative action to ensure diversity
• Policy focus:  Addressing issues specific to minority groups
• Advocacy:  Support for organizations or movements representing minority rights

The fostering of an inclusive political landscape, where all communities can have their voices heard, is vital for the health of democratic societies. Political advocacy and representation serve as conduits for respect, recognition, and the pursuit of justice for all members of society, regardless of their minority or majority status.

Politics Affects Environmental Sustainability Efforts

Environmental sustainability has become a cornerstone issue in politics as society grapples with climate change, habitat destruction, and resource depletion . Political decisions are integral to the implementation of policies and practices that promote ecological balance and long-term environmental health.

Through laws and regulations, politics can drive conservation efforts, renewable energy adoption, and the responsible management of natural resources.

Reflecting on environmental politics:

• The introduction of emissions standards helps mitigate pollution.
• Support or opposition to green energy projects impacts the speed of transition away from fossil fuels.
• International agreements, such as those targeting climate change, rely on political diplomacy and commitment.

Environmental sustainability positions not only reflect a government’s commitment to conserving resources for future generations but also speak to the global cooperation required to address challenges that transcend borders.

Politics Influences Technological Innovation Policies

Political leaders and lawmakers are responsible for crafting policies that promote technological advances while considering ethical implications, privacy concerns, and social impact. Political decisions play a crucial role in steering research funding, patent laws, and the overall direction of technological development.

Key impact points on technology due to political intervention:

• Incubation of innovation through grants and subsidies
• Data protection and privacy laws
• Balancing technological progression with job market implications

Policies set the stage for how technology is integrated into society and commerce, and thus, political foresight and governance are indispensable in shaping a future where technological benefits are maximized and the risks are mitigated.

Politics Affects International Trade and Economic Relations

The arena of international trade is shaped by political decisions that influence tariffs, trade agreements, and diplomatic relations. While politics defines the rules for how countries engage commercially, it also has the broader task of ensuring that such engagement benefits the national economy and aligns with domestic policy goals.

Illustrating trade and economic relations in politics:

• Trade Agreements:  Deals like NAFTA or the European Union ‘s Single Market define trade relationships and set economic policies.
• Trade Disputes:  Political negotiations are tools for resolving conflicts and removing barriers to commerce.
• Economic Sanctions:  Used as a political tool for applying pressure in international disputes or to promote human rights.

The shaping of trade policies and agreements by political bodies reflects the strategic interests of nations and the interdependency of the global economy. Political decisions here are crucial in forging paths toward shared prosperity and managing the complex web of international economic relations.

Politics Sets Immigration Laws and Policies

Immigration laws and policies are a clear reflection of a nation’s political climate and societal values. These laws determine who is allowed to enter a country, under what conditions, and how immigrants are integrated into society.

Aspects such as border control, asylum procedures, and pathways to citizenship are all shaped by the ruling political ethos, reflecting a nation’s stance on multiculturalism, security, and humanitarian obligations.

Immigration policy areas affected by political decisions:

• Visa Regulations : Who gets to visit, work, or study.
• Refugee Treatment : The response to humanitarian crises.
• Integration Policies : Measures that facilitate or hinder the integration of immigrants into society.

The complexities of immigration issues require a nuanced political approach, balancing the economic, cultural, and humanitarian aspects to carve out policies that are fair, enforceable, and aligned with a country’s broader goals.

Politics Dictates Tax Laws and Public Funding

Taxation is a critical component of public policy, directly influenced by political ideologies and decisions. The structure of tax systems — who gets taxed, how much, and on what — is shaped by political authority.

Taxation directly relates to the government’s ability to fund public services such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure development. The decisions on public funding allocations reflect society’s priorities and the government’s role in redistributing wealth and economic opportunities.

Tax laws enacted through political processes play a central role in the economic health of a nation and the well-being of its citizens, resonating with the overall spirit of governance and equity.

Politics Shapes Public Opinion and Social Norms

Though less direct in its impact, politics also plays a profound role in shaping public opinion and social norms. Through rhetoric, policy initiatives, and public discourse, political figures and institutions influence societal attitudes and beliefs. Political dialogue can validate or challenge existing norms, thus steering the cultural direction of society.

Key ways politics shapes public discourse:

• Debate and Legislation : Public issues debated politically often lead to shifts in social norms.
• Media : Political messaging and alignment on media platforms can greatly influence public opinion.
• Education : What is prioritized in educational curricula can reflect and guide societal values.

The interplay between politics and societal values highlights the importance of having diverse, inclusive political debates that reflect the range of perspectives within the community. This discourse not only reflects current societal norms but also has the power to transform them over time, attesting to the powerful role of politics in cultural evolution.

Politics Facilitates or Impedes International Trade and Economics

Trade and economic policy are at the heart of international politics. These policies define how countries interact on an economic level, establishing the rules and standards for trade, investments, and economic cooperation.

International trade agreements, such as free trade areas or customs unions, are the product of complex political negotiations that have wide-reaching implications for economies around the globe.

• Trade barriers and tariffs can either protect domestic industries or promote international competition.
• Foreign investment policies can attract global capital or protect homegrown businesses.
• Currency valuation and monetary policies affect a country’s international economic competitiveness.

The degree to which politics either facilitates or hampers economic growth through these mechanisms often reflects a nation’s broader political objectives and economic strategies.

Politics Impacts Cultural Funding, Heritage, and the Arts

Political entities recognize the role of arts and culture in fostering a cohesive and vibrant society; hence, they make strategic decisions about supporting museums, theaters, historical preservation, and educational programs in the arts.

Cultural aspects influenced by politics:

• Subsidies and grants for cultural institutions signal political acknowledgment of the arts’ societal value.
• Decisions on what aspects of heritage to preserve speak to a society’s historical consciousness.
• Initiatives to make arts accessible to all parts of society reflect a political commitment to cultural inclusivity.

The interconnection of politics with cultural life underscores the role political decisions play in the survival and accessibility of cultural expressions, impacting everything from communal identity to international cultural exchanges.

Final Thoughts

Recognizing the importance of politics is recognizing a part of our identity – as members of a community, as participants in democracy, and as stewards of change. Let’s not underestimate the power of an informed citizenry; for it is through our collective understanding and action that the wheels of progress turn.

As you sip your coffee or scroll through the news, remember that the ripples of politics are touching the shores of your life. Don’t shy away from the ebb and flow.

Dive in, engage, and let your actions, conversations, and votes be the droplets that help shape the mighty river of society. It’s in these subtle contributions that the significance of politics truly comes to

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

As you found this post useful...

Share it on social media!

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Bea Mariel Saulo

• Craft and Criticism
• Fiction and Poetry
• News and Culture
• Lit Hub Radio
• Reading Lists

• Literary Criticism
• Craft and Advice
• In Conversation
• On Translation
• Short Story
• From the Novel
• Bookstores and Libraries
• Film and TV
• Art and Photography
• Freeman’s
• The Virtual Book Channel
• Behind the Mic
• Beyond the Page
• The Cosmic Library
• The Critic and Her Publics
• Emergence Magazine
• Fiction/Non/Fiction
• First Draft: A Dialogue on Writing
• Future Fables
• The History of Literature
• I’m a Writer But
• Just the Right Book
• Lit Century
• The Literary Life with Mitchell Kaplan
• New Books Network
• Tor Presents: Voyage Into Genre
• Windham-Campbell Prizes Podcast
• Write-minded
• The Best of the Decade
• Best Reviewed Books
• BookMarks Daily Giveaway
• The Daily Thrill
• CrimeReads Daily Giveaway

A Brief History of the Political Essay

From swift to woolf, david bromwich considers an evolving genre.

The political essay has never been a clearly defined genre. David Hume may have legitimated it in 1758 when he classified under a collective rubric his own Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary. “Political,” however, should have come last in order, since Hume took a speculative and detached view of politics, and seems to have been incapable of feeling passion for a political cause. We commonly associate political thought with full-scale treatises by philosophers of a different sort, whose understanding of politics was central to their account of human nature. Hobbes’s Leviathan , Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws , Rousseau’s Social Contract , Mill’s Representative Government , and, closer to our time, Rawls’s Theory of Justice , all satisfy that expectation. What, then, is a political essay? By the late 18th century, the periodical writings of Steele, Swift, Goldsmith, and Johnson had broadened the scope of the English essay for serious purposes. The field of politics, as much as culture, appeared to their successors well suited to arguments on society and government.

A public act of praise, dissent, or original description may take on permanent value when it implicates concerns beyond the present moment. Where the issue is momentous, the commitment stirred by passion, and the writing strong enough, an essay may sink deep roots in the language of politics. An essay is an attempt , as the word implies—a trial of sense and persuasion, which any citizen may hazard in a society where people are free to speak their minds. A more restrictive idea of political argument—one that would confer special legitimacy on an elite caste of managers, consultants, and symbolic analysts—presumes an environment in which state papers justify decisions arrived at from a region above politics. By contrast, the absence of formal constraints or a settled audience for the essay means that the daily experience of the writer counts as evidence. A season of crisis tempts people to think politically; in the process, they sometimes discover reasons to back their convictions.

The experience of civic freedom and its discontents may lead the essayist to think beyond politics. In 1940, Virginia Woolf recalled the sound of German bombers circling overhead the night before; the insect-like irritant, with its promise of aggression, frightened her into thought: “It is a queer experience, lying in the dark and listening to the zoom of a hornet which may at any moment sting you to death.” The ugly noise, for Woolf, signaled the prerogative of the fighting half of the species: Englishwomen “must lie weaponless tonight.” Yet Englishmen would be called upon to destroy the menace; and she was not sorry for their help. The mood of the writer is poised between gratitude and a bewildered frustration. Woolf ’s essay, “Thoughts on Peace in an Air Raid,” declines to exhibit the patriotic sentiment by which most reporters in her position would have felt drawn. At the same time, its personal emphasis keeps the author honest through the awareness of her own dependency.

Begin with an incident— I could have been killed last night —and you may end with speculations on human nature. Start with a national policy that you deplore, and it may take you back to the question, “Who are my neighbors?” In 1846, Henry David Thoreau was arrested for having refused to pay a poll tax; he made a lesson of his resistance two years later, when he saw the greed and dishonesty of the Mexican War: “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.” But to Thoreau’s surprise, the window of the prison had opened onto the life of the town he lived in, with its everyday errands and duties, its compromises and arrangements, and for him that glimpse was a revelation:

They were the voices of old burghers that I heard in the streets. I was an involuntary spectator and auditor of whatever was done and said in the kitchen of the adjacent village inn,—a wholly new and rare experience to me. It was a closer view of my native town. I was fairly inside of it. I had never seen its institutions before. This is one of its peculiar institutions; for it is a shire town. I began to comprehend what its inhabitants were about.

Slavery, at that time, was nicknamed “the peculiar institution,” and by calling the prison itself a peculiar institution, and maybe having in mind the adjacent inn as well, Thoreau prods his reader to think about the constraints that are a tacit condition of social life.

The risk of political writing may lure the citizen to write—a fact Hazlitt seems to acknowledge in his essay “On the Regal Character,” where his second sentence wonders if the essay will expose him to prosecution: “In writing a criticism, we hope we shall not be accused of intending a libel.” (His friend Leigh Hunt had recently served two years in prison for “seditious libel” of the Prince Regent—having characterized him as a dandy notorious for his ostentation and obesity.) The writer’s consciousness of provocative intent may indeed be inseparable from the wish to persuade; though the tone of commitment will vary with the zeal and composition of the audience, whether that means a political party, a movement, a vanguard of the enlightened, or “the people” at large.

Edmund Burke, for example, writes to the sheriffs of Bristol (and through them to the city’s electors) in order to warn against the suspension of habeas corpus by the British war ministry in 1777. The sudden introduction of the repressive act, he tells the electors, has imperiled their liberty even if they are for the moment individually exempt. In response to the charge that the Americans fighting for independence are an unrepresentative minority, he warns: “ General rebellions and revolts of an whole people never were encouraged , now or at any time. They are always provoked. ” So too, Mahatma Gandhi addresses his movement of resistance against British rule, as well as others who can be attracted to the cause, when he explains why nonviolent protest requires courage of a higher degree than the warrior’s: “Non-violence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment.” In both cases, the writer treats the immediate injustice as an occasion for broader strictures on the nature of justice. There are certain duties that governors owe to the governed, and duties hardly less compulsory that the people owe to themselves.

Apparently diverse topics connect the essays in Writing Politics ; but, taken loosely to illustrate a historical continuity, they show the changing face of oppression and violence, and the invention of new paths for improving justice. Arbitrary power is the enemy throughout—power that, by the nature of its asserted scope and authority, makes itself the judge of its own cause. King George III, whose reign spanned sixty years beginning in 1760, from the first was thought to have overextended monarchical power and prerogative, and by doing so to have reversed an understanding of parliamentary sovereignty that was tacitly recognized by his predecessors. Writing against the king, “Junius” (the pen name of Philip Francis) traced the monarch’s errors to a poor education; and he gave an edge of deliberate effrontery to the attack on arbitrary power by addressing the king as you. “It is the misfortune of your life, and originally the cause of every reproach and distress, which has attended your government, that you should never have been acquainted with the language of truth, until you heard it in the complaints of your people.”

A similar frankness, without the ad hominem spur, can be felt in Burke’s attack on the monarchical distrust of liberty at home as well as abroad: “If any ask me what a free Government is, I answer, that, for any practical purpose, it is what the people think so; and that they, and not I, are the natural, lawful, and competent judges of this matter.” Writing in the same key from America, Thomas Paine, in his seventh number of The Crisis , gave a new description to the British attempt to preserve the unity of the empire by force of arms. He called it a war of conquest; and by addressing his warning directly “to the people of England,” he reminded the king’s subjects that war is always a social evil, for it sponsors a violence that does not terminate in itself. War enlarges every opportunity of vainglory—a malady familiar to monarchies.

The coming of democracy marks a turning point in modern discussions of sovereignty and the necessary protections of liberty. Confronted by the American annexation of parts of Mexico, in 1846–48, Thoreau saw to his disgust that a war of conquest could also be a popular war, the will of the people directed to the oppression of persons. It follows that the state apparatus built by democracy is at best an equivocal ally of individual rights. Yet as Emerson would recognize in his lecture “The Fugitive Slave Law,” and Frederick Douglass would confirm in “The Mission of the War,” the massed power of the state is likewise the only vehicle powerful enough to destroy a system of oppression as inveterate as American slavery had become by the 1850s.

Acceptance of political evil—a moral inertia that can corrupt the ablest of lawmakers—goes easily with the comforts of a society at peace where many are satisfied. “Here was the question,” writes Emerson: “Are you for man and for the good of man; or are you for the hurt and harm of man? It was question whether man shall be treated as leather? whether the Negroes shall be as the Indians were in Spanish America, a piece of money?” Emerson wondered at the apostasy of Daniel Webster, How came he there? The answer was that Webster had deluded himself by projecting a possible right from serial compromise with wrong.

Two ways lie open to correct the popular will without a relapse into docile assent and the rule of oligarchy. You may widen the terms of discourse and action by enlarging the community of participants. Alternatively, you may strengthen the opportunities of dissent through acts of exemplary protest—protest in speech, in action, or both. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. remain the commanding instances in this regard. Both led movements that demanded of every adherent that the protest serve as an express image of the society it means to bring about. Nonviolent resistance accordingly involves a public disclosure of the work of conscience—a demonstrated willingness to make oneself an exemplary warrior without war. Because they were practical reformers, Gandhi and King, within the societies they sought to reform, were engaged in what Michael Oakeshott calls “the pursuit of intimations.” They did not start from a model of the good society generated from outside. They built on existing practices of toleration, friendship, neighborly care, and respect for the dignity of strangers.

Nonviolent resistance, as a tactic of persuasion, aims to arouse an audience of the uncommitted by its show of discipline and civic responsibility. Well, but why not simply resist? Why show respect for the laws of a government you mean to change radically? Nonviolence, for Gandhi and King, was never merely a tactic, and there were moral as well as rhetorical reasons for their ethic of communal self-respect and self-command. Gandhi looked on the British empire as a commonwealth that had proved its ability to reform. King spoke with the authority of a native American, claiming the rights due to all Americans, and he evoked the ideals his countrymen often said they wished to live by. The stories the nation loved to tell of itself took pride in emancipation much more than pride in conquest and domination. “So,” wrote King from the Birmingham City Jail, “I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court because it is morally right, and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong.”

A subtler enemy of liberty than outright prejudice and violent oppression is the psychological push toward conformity. This internalized docility inhabits and may be said to dictate the costume of manners in a democracy. Because the rule of mass opinion serves as a practical substitute for the absolute authority that is no longer available, it exerts an enormous and hidden pressure. This dangerous “omnipotence of the majority,” as Tocqueville called it, knows no power greater than itself; it resembles an absolute monarch in possessing neither the equipment nor the motive to render a judgment against itself. Toleration thus becomes a political value that requires as vigilant a defense as liberty. Minorities are marked not only by race, religion, and habits of association, but also by opinion.

“It is easy to see,” writes Walter Bagehot in “The Metaphysical Basis of Toleration,” “that very many believers would persecute sceptics” if they were given the means, “and that very many sceptics would persecute believers.” Bagehot has in mind religious belief, in particular, but the same intolerance operates when it is a question of penalizing a word, a gesture, a wrongly sympathetic or unsympathetic show of feeling by which a fellow citizen might claim to be offended. The more divided the society, the more it will crave implicit assurances of unity; the more unified it is, the more it wants an even greater show of unity—an unmistakable signal of membership and belonging that can be read as proof of collective solidarity. The “guilty fear of criticism,” Mary McCarthy remarked of the domestic fear of Communism in the 1950s, “the sense of being surrounded by an unappreciative world,” brought to American life a regimen of tests, codes, and loyalty oaths that were calculated to confirm rather than subdue the anxiety.

Proscribed and persecuted groups naturally seek a fortified community of their own, which should be proof against insult; and by 1870 or so, the sure method of creating such a community was to found a new nation. George Eliot took this remedy to be prudent and inevitable, in her sympathetic early account of the Zionist quest for a Jewish state, yet her unsparing portrait of English anti-Semitism seems to recognize the nation-remedy as a carrier of the same exclusion it hopes to abolish. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to a widened sense of community is the apparently intuitive—but in fact regularly inculcated—intellectual habit by which we divide people into racial, religious, and ethnic identities. The idea of an international confederation for peace was tried twice, without success, in the 20th century, with the League of Nations and the United Nations; but some such goal, first formulated in the political writings of Kant, has found memorable popular expression again and again.

W. E. B. Du Bois’s essay “Of the Ruling of Men” affords a prospect of international liberty that seems to the author simply the next necessary advance of common sense in the cause of humanity. Du Bois noticed in 1920 how late the expansion of rights had arrived at the rights of women. Always, the last hiding places of arbitrary power are the trusted arenas of privilege a society has come to accept as customary, and to which it has accorded the spurious honor of supposing it part of the natural order: men over women; the strong nations over the weak; corporate heads over employees. The pattern had come under scrutiny already in Harriet Taylor Mill’s “Enfranchisement of Women,” and its application to the hierarchies of ownership and labor would be affirmed in William Morris’s lecture “Useful Work Versus Useless Toil.” The commercial and manufacturing class, wrote Morris, “ force the genuine workers to provide for them”; no better (only more recondite in their procedures) are “the parasites” whose function is to defend the cause of property, “sometimes, as in the case of lawyers, undisguisedly so.” The socialists Morris and Du Bois regard the ultimate aim of a democratic world as the replacement of useless by useful work. With that change must also come the invention of a shared experience of leisure that is neither wasteful nor thoughtless.

A necessary bulwark of personal freedom is property, and in the commercial democracies for the past three centuries a usual means of agreement for the defense of property has been the contract. In challenging the sacredness of contract, in certain cases of conflict with a common good, T. H. Green moved the idea of “freedom of contract” from the domain of nature to that of social arrangements that are settled by convention and therefore subject to revision. The freedom of contract must be susceptible of modification when it fails to meet a standard of public well-being. The right of a factory owner, for example, to employ child labor if the child agrees, should not be protected. “No contract,” Green argues, “is valid in which human persons, willingly or unwillingly, are dealt with as commodities”; for when we speak of freedom, “we mean a positive power or capacity of doing or enjoying something worth doing or enjoying.” And again:

When we measure the progress of a society by its growth in freedom, we measure it by the increasing development and exercise on the whole of those powers of contributing to social good with which we believe the members of the society to be endowed; in short, by the greater power on the part of the citizens as a body to make the most and best of themselves.

Legislation in the public interest may still be consistent with the principles of free society when it parts from a leading maxim of contractual individualism.

The very idea of a social contract has usually been taken to imply an obligation to die for the state. Though Hobbes and Locke offered reservations on this point, the classical theorists agree that the state yields the prospect of “commodious living” without which human life would be unsocial and greatly impoverished; and there are times when the state can survive only through the sacrifice of citizens. May there also be a duty of self-sacrifice against a state whose whole direction and momentum has bent it toward injustice? Hannah Arendt, in “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” asked that question regarding the conduct of state officials as well as ordinary people under the encroaching tyranny of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Citizens then, Arendt observes, had live options of political conduct besides passive obedience and open revolt. Conscientious opposition could show itself in public indications of nonsupport . This is a fact that the pervasiveness of conformism and careerism in mass societies makes harder to see than it should be.

Jonathan Swift, a writer as temperamentally diverse from Arendt as possible, shows in “A Modest Proposal” how the human creature goes about rationalizing any act or any policy, however atrocious. Our propensity to make-normal, to approve whatever renders life more orderly, can lead by the lightest of expedient steps to a plan for marketing the babies of the Irish poor as flesh suitable for eating. It is, after all—so Swift’s fictional narrator argues—a plausible design to alleviate poverty and distress among a large sector of the population, and to eliminate the filth and crowding that disgusts persons of a more elevated sort. The justification is purely utilitarian, and the proposer cites the most disinterested of motives: he has no financial or personal stake in the design. Civility has often been praised as a necessity of political argument, but Swift’s proposal is at once civil and, in itself, atrocious.

An absorbing concern of Arendt’s, as of several of the other essay writers gathered here, was the difficulty of thinking. We measure, we compute, we calculate, we weigh advantages and disadvantages—that much is only sensible, only logical—but we give reasons that are often blind to our motives, we rationalize and we normalize in order to justify ourselves. It is supremely difficult to use the equipment we learn from parents and teachers, which instructs us how to deal fairly with persons, and apply it to the relationship between persons and society, and between the manners of society and the laws of a nation. The 21st century has saddled persons of all nations with a catastrophic possibility, the destruction of a planetary environment for organized human life; and in facing the predicament directly, and formulating answers to the question it poses, the political thinkers of the past may help us chiefly by intimations. The idea of a good or tolerable society now encompasses relations between people at the widest imaginable distance apart. It must also cover a new relation of stewardship between humankind and nature.

Having made the present selection with the abovementioned topics in view—the republican defense against arbitrary power; the progress of liberty; the coming of mass-suffrage democracy and its peculiar dangers; justifications for political dissent and disobedience; war, as chosen for the purpose of domination or as necessary to destroy a greater evil; the responsibilities of the citizen; the political meaning of work and the conditions of work—an anthology of writings all in English seemed warranted by the subject matter. For in the past three centuries, these issues have been discussed most searchingly by political critics and theorists in Britain and the United States.

The span covers the Glorious Revolution and its achievement of parliamentary sovereignty; the American Revolution, and the civil war that has rightly been called the second American revolution; the expansion of the franchise under the two great reform bills in England and the 15th amendment to the US constitution; the two world wars and the Holocaust; and the mass movements of nonviolent resistance that brought national independence to India and broadened the terms of citizenship of black Americans. The sequence gives adequate evidence of thinkers engaged in a single conversation. Many of these authors were reading the essayists who came before them; and in many cases (Burke and Paine, Lincoln and Douglass, Churchill and Orwell), they were reading each other.

Writing Politics contains no example of the half-political, half-commercial genre of “leadership” writing. Certain other principles that guided the editor will be obvious at a glance, but may as well be stated. Only complete essays are included, no extracts. This has meant excluding great writers—Hobbes, Locke, Wollstonecraft, and John Stuart Mill, among others—whose definitive political writing came in the shape of full-length books. There are likewise no chapters of books; no party manifestos or statements of creed; nothing that was first published posthumously. All of these essays were written at the time noted, were meant for an audience of the time, and were published with an eye to their immediate effect. This is so even in cases (as with Morris and Du Bois) where the author had in view the reformation of a whole way of thinking. Some lectures have been included—the printed lecture was an indispensable medium for political ideas in the 19th century—but there are no party speeches delivered by an official to advance a cause of the moment.

Two exceptions to the principles may prove the rule. Abraham Lincoln’s letter to James C. Conkling was a public letter, written to defend the Emancipation Proclamation, in which, a few months earlier, President Lincoln had declared the freedom of all slaves in the rebelling states; he now extended the order to cover black soldiers who fought for the Union: “If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive—even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept.” Lincoln was risking his presidency when he published this extraordinary appeal and admonition, and his view was shared by Frederick Douglass in “The Mission of the War”: “No war but an Abolition war, no peace but an Abolition peace.” The other exception is “The Roots of Honour,” John Ruskin’s attack on the mercenary morality of 19th-century capitalism . He called the chapter “Essay I” in Unto This Last , and his nomenclature seemed a fair excuse for reprinting an ineradicable prophecy.

__________________________________

From Writing Politics , edited by David Bromwich. Copyright © 2020 by David Bromwich; courtesy of NYRB Classics.

• Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)

David Bromwich

Previous article, next article, support lit hub..

Join our community of readers.

to the Lithub Daily

Popular posts.

Follow us on Twitter

Rumaan Alam on the Psychic Usefulness of a Tangible Disaster

• RSS - Posts

Literary Hub

Created by Grove Atlantic and Electric Literature

Sign Up For Our Newsletters

How to Pitch Lit Hub

Advertisers: Contact Us

Privacy Policy

Support Lit Hub - Become A Member

Become a Lit Hub Supporting Member : Because Books Matter

For the past decade, Literary Hub has brought you the best of the book world for free—no paywall. But our future relies on you. In return for a donation, you’ll get an ad-free reading experience , exclusive editors’ picks, book giveaways, and our coveted Joan Didion Lit Hub tote bag . Most importantly, you’ll keep independent book coverage alive and thriving on the internet.

Become a member for as low as $5/month

A Summary and Analysis of George Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language’

By Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University)

‘Politics and the English Language’ (1946) is one of the best-known essays by George Orwell (1903-50). As its title suggests, Orwell identifies a link between the (degraded) English language of his time and the degraded political situation: Orwell sees modern discourse (especially political discourse) as being less a matter of words chosen for their clear meanings than a series of stock phrases slung together.

You can read ‘Politics and the English Language’ here before proceeding to our summary and analysis of Orwell’s essay below.

‘Politics and the English Language’: summary

Orwell begins by drawing attention to the strong link between the language writers use and the quality of political thought in the current age (i.e. the 1940s). He argues that if we use language that is slovenly and decadent, it makes it easier for us to fall into bad habits of thought, because language and thought are so closely linked.

Orwell then gives five examples of what he considers bad political writing. He draws attention to two faults which all five passages share: staleness of imagery and lack of precision . Either the writers of these passages had a clear meaning to convey but couldn’t express it clearly, or they didn’t care whether they communicated any particular meaning at all, and were simply saying things for the sake of it.

Orwell writes that this is a common problem in current political writing: ‘prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house.’

Next, Orwell elaborates on the key faults of modern English prose, namely:

Dying Metaphors : these are figures of speech which writers lazily reach for, even though such phrases are worn-out and can no longer convey a vivid image. Orwell cites a number of examples, including toe the line , no axe to grind , Achilles’ heel , and swansong . Orwell’s objection to such dying metaphors is that writers use them without even thinking about what the phrases actually mean, such as when people misuse toe the line by writing it as tow the line , or when they mix their metaphors, again, because they’re not interested in what those images evoke.

Operators or Verbal False Limbs : this is when a longer and rather vague phrase is used in place of a single-word (and more direct) verb, e.g. make contact with someone, which essentially means ‘contact’ someone. The passive voice is also common, and writing phrases like by examination of instead of the more direct by examining . Sentences are saved from fizzling out (because the thought or idea being conveyed is not particularly striking) by largely meaningless closing platitudes such as greatly to be desired or brought to a satisfactory conclusion .

Pretentious Diction : Orwell draws attention to several areas here. He states that words like objective , basis , and eliminate are used by writers to dress up simple statements, making subjective opinion sound like scientific fact. Adjectives like epic , historic , and inevitable are used about international politics, while writing that glorifies war is full of old-fashioned words like realm , throne , and sword .

Foreign words and phrases like deus ex machina and mutatis mutandis are used to convey an air of culture and elegance. Indeed, many modern English writers are guilty of using Latin or Greek words in the belief that they are ‘grander’ than home-grown Anglo-Saxon ones: Orwell mentions Latinate words like expedite and ameliorate here. All of these examples are further proof of the ‘slovenliness and vagueness’ which Orwell detects in modern political prose.

Meaningless Words : Orwell argues that much art criticism and literary criticism in particular is full of words which don’t really mean anything at all, e.g. human , living , or romantic . ‘Fascism’, too, has lost all meaning in current political writing, effectively meaning ‘something not desirable’ (one wonders what Orwell would make of the word’s misuse in our current time!).

To prove his point, Orwell ‘translates’ a well-known passage from the Biblical Book of Ecclesiastes into modern English, with all its vagueness of language. ‘The whole tendency of modern prose’, he argues, ‘is away from concreteness.’ He draws attention to the concrete and everyday images (e.g. references to bread and riches) in the Bible passage, and the lack of any such images in his own fabricated rewriting of this passage.

The problem, Orwell says, is that it is too easy (and too tempting) to reach for these off-the-peg phrases than to be more direct or more original and precise in one’s speech or writing.

Orwell advises every writer to ask themselves four questions (at least): 1) what am I trying to say? 2) what words will express it? 3) what image or idiom will make it clearer? and 4) is this image fresh enough to have an effect? He proposes two further optional questions: could I put it more shortly? and have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?

Orthodoxy, Orwell goes on to observe, tends to encourage this ‘lifeless, imitative style’, whereas rebels who are not parroting the ‘party line’ will normally write in a more clear and direct style.

But Orwell also argues that such obfuscating language serves a purpose: much political writing is an attempt to defend the indefensible, such as the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan (just one year before Orwell wrote ‘Politics and the English Language’), in such a euphemistic way that the ordinary reader will find it more palatable.

When your aim is to make such atrocities excusable, language which doesn’t evoke any clear mental image (e.g. of burning bodies in Hiroshima) is actually desirable.

Orwell argues that just as thought corrupts language, language can corrupt thought, with these ready-made phrases preventing writers from expressing anything meaningful or original. He believes that we should get rid of any word which has outworn its usefulness and should aim to use ‘the fewest and shortest words that will cover one’s meaning’.

Writers should let the meaning choose the word, rather than vice versa. We should think carefully about what we want to say until we have the right mental pictures to convey that thought in the clearest language.

Orwell concludes ‘Politics and the English Language’ with six rules for the writer to follow:

i) Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.

iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

‘Politics and the English Language’: analysis

In some respects, ‘Politics and the English Language’ advances an argument about good prose language which is close to what the modernist poet and thinker T. E. Hulme (1883-1917) argued for poetry in his ‘ A Lecture on Modern Poetry ’ and ‘Notes on Language and Style’ almost forty years earlier.

Although Hulme and Orwell came from opposite ends of the political spectrum, their objections to lazy and worn-out language stem are in many ways the same.

Hulme argued that poetry should be a forge where fresh metaphors are made: images which make us see the world in a slightly new way. But poetic language decays into common prose language before dying a lingering death in journalists’ English. The first time a poet described a hill as being ‘clad [i.e. clothed] with trees’, the reader would probably have mentally pictured such an image, but in time it loses its power to make us see anything.

Hulme calls these worn-out expressions ‘counters’, because they are like discs being moved around on a chessboard: an image which is itself not unlike Orwell’s prefabricated hen-house in ‘Politics and the English Language’.

Of course, Orwell’s focus is English prose rather than poetry, and his objections to sloppy writing are not principally literary (although that is undoubtedly a factor) but, above all, political. And he is keen to emphasise that his criticism of bad language, and suggestions for how to improve political writing, are both, to an extent, hopelessly idealistic: as he observes towards the end of ‘Politics and the English Language’, ‘Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against.’

But what Orwell advises is that the writer be on their guard against such phrases, the better to avoid them where possible. This is why he encourages writers to be more self-questioning (‘What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?’) when writing political prose.

Nevertheless, the link between the standard of language and the kind of politics a particular country, regime, or historical era has is an important one. As Orwell writes: ‘I should expect to find – this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify – that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.’

Those writing under a dictatorship cannot write or speak freely, of course, but more importantly, those defending totalitarian rule must bend and abuse language in order to make ugly truths sound more attractive to the general populace, and perhaps to other nations.

In more recent times, the phrase ‘collateral damage’ is one of the more objectionable phrases used about war, hiding the often ugly reality (innocent civilians who are unfortunate victims of violence, but who are somehow viewed as a justifiable price to pay for the greater good).

Although Orwell’s essay has been criticised for being too idealistic, in many ways ‘Politics and the English Language’ remains as relevant now as it was in 1946 when it was first published.

Indeed, to return to Orwell’s opening point about decadence, it is unavoidable that the standard of political discourse has further declined since Orwell’s day. Perhaps it’s time a few more influential writers started heeding his argument?

9 thoughts on “A Summary and Analysis of George Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language’”

• Pingback: 10 of the Best Works by George Orwell – Interesting Literature
• Pingback: The Best George Orwell Essays Everyone Should Read – Interesting Literature

YES! Thank you!

A great and useful post. As a writer, I have been seriously offended by the politicization of the language in the past 50 years. Much of this is supposedly to sanitize, de-genderize, or diversity-fie language – exactly as it’s done in Orwell’s “1984.” How did a wonderfully useful word like gay – cheerful or lively – come to mean homosexual? And is optics not a branch of physics? Ironically, when the liberal but sensible JK Rowling criticized the replacement of “woman” with “person who menstruates” SHE was the one attacked. Now, God help us, we hope “crude” spaceships will get humans to Mars – which, if you research the poor quality control in Tesla cars, might in fact be a proper term.

And less anyone out there misread, this or me – I was a civil rights marcher, taught in a girls’ high school (where I got in minor trouble for suggesting to the students that they should aim higher than the traditional jobs of nurse or teacher), and – while somewhat of a mugwump – consider myself a liberal.

But I will fight to keep the language and the history from being 1984ed.

My desert island book would be the Everyman Essays of Orwell which is around 1200 pages. I’ve read it all the way through twice without fatigue and read individual essays endlessly. His warmth and affability help, Even better than Montaigne in this heretic’s view.

• Pingback: Q Marks the Spot 149 (March 2021 Treasure Map) – Quaerentia

I’ll go against the flow here and say Orwell was – at least in part – quite wrong here. If I recall correctly, he was wrong about a few things including, I think, the right way to make a cup of tea! In all seriousness, what he fails to acknowledge in this essay is that language is a living thing and belongs to the people, not the theorists, at all time. If a metaphor changes because of homophone mix up or whatever, then so be it. Many of our expressions we have little idea of now – I think of ‘baited breath’ which almost no one, even those who know how it should be spelt, realise should be ‘abated breath’.

Worse than this though, his ‘rules’ have indeed been taken up by many would-be writers to horrifying effect. I recall learning to make up new metaphors and similes rather than use clichés when I first began training ten years ago or more. I saw some ghastly new metaphors over time which swiftly made me realise that there’s a reason we use the same expressions a great deal and that is they are familiar and do the job well. To look at how to use them badly, just try reading Gregory David Roberts ‘Shantaram’. Similarly, the use of active voice has led to unpalatable writing which lacks character. The passive voice may well become longwinded when badly used, but it brings character when used well.

That said, Orwell is rarely completely wrong. Some of his points – essentially, use words you actually understand and don’t be pretentious – are valid. But the idea of the degradation of politics is really quite a bit of nonsense!

Always good to get some critique of Orwell, Ken! And I do wonder how tongue-in-cheek he was when proposing his guidelines – after all, even he admits he’s probably broken several of his own rules in the course of his essay! I think I’m more in the T. E. Hulme camp than the Orwell – poetry can afford to bend language in new ways (indeed, it often should do just this), and create daring new metaphors and ways of viewing the world. But prose, especially political non-fiction, is there to communicate an argument or position, and I agree that ghastly new metaphors would just get in the way. One of the things that is refreshing reading Orwell is how many of the problems he identified are still being discussed today, often as if they are new problems that didn’t exist a few decades ago. Orwell shows that at least one person was already discussing them over half a century ago!

Absolutely true! When you have someone of Orwell’s intelligence and clear thinking, even when you believe him wrong or misguided, he is still relevant and remains so decades later.

Comments are closed.

Discover more from Interesting Literature

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

+91 9848321284

Political Marketing

Political Writing: The Power of Words in Politics

Jun 16, 2020

Words are powerful. They can inspire, motivate, and unite people. Political writing can be a tool for rallying support for a cause or rallying opposition against a policy. And it can be used to build relationships with other countries or strengthen alliances with allies. Whatever your political goal may be, strong writing skills are essential to achieving it. So if you’re interested in entering the world of politics, learn how to write well. It will make all the difference.

Politics is all about words. The right words can inspire people to change the world, ruining a career. In this blog post, we’ll look at some of the most powerful political speeches throughout history and explore the power of words in politics. Stay tuned – it’s going to be a fascinating ride!

What is Political Writing?

Political writing is writing that is related to politics. This includes pieces written by or on political groups, candidates, parties, and government agencies.

Political writing is the art of writing in support of a political cause.

Political writing is a form of nonfiction. It’s one of the most common uses for language today because we often use it to express our opinions about political matters.

Political writing is nonfiction that presents an opinion or interpretation of political issues. It can be in speeches, position papers, or editorials.

Political writing is written communication that deals with government, politics, and political science.

Political writing is the act of sharing or discussing events and situations of a political nature.

Political writing is a genre of the essay, article, or other work that deals with political matters.

What is political writing, and why is it important?

Political writing is a type of writing that makes people think about their opinions, actions, and the world. It’s essential to keep reading it because it helps us get involved in our communities.

Political writing is the use of language to convince others to create change. It’s important because it allows people to express their opinions and ideas, affecting how politicians make decisions that affect everyone.

Political writing uses written language to present a view, promote a plan, or persuade readers.

Political writing is a genre of writing that analyzes and responds to politics. This type of writing is essential because it allows people to voice their opinions about politics and government, which helps create better policies for our country.

Political writing is the art of convincing people to support your point of view through rhetoric and logic.

One type of political writing his speeches. They’re essential because they can influence and educate many people on controversial topics.

Political writing is a way to express one’s opinion on issues that impact the world. It can be in different forms, such as novels, poetry, or news articles.

The history of political writing

In the 17th century, many political pamphlets were written. Many of these pamphlets contained strong opinions and biased information, but most importantly, they helped shape policy in England during this period.

Although the first political writings appeared in ancient times, it wasn’t until much later that people started writing about politics.

Politics have influenced society for thousands of years. Throughout history, politicians have defined the direction of countries and shaped people’s lives.

Types of political writing

• Political essays are generally written formally to persuade readers to adopt an author’s point of view.
• A political speech aims to persuade people and rally support for a person or party.
• A manifesto is an extended essay that lays out one’s beliefs and goals in great detail.
• Opinion writing is a form of political writing that expresses an opinion about a topic.
• Essays are usually based on personal experiences and may be autobiographical, but they can also be analytical essays about issues or topics.
• News reports differ from op-eds because they focus more on factual information than opinions.
• Editorial: The author’s opinion on a topic, often supported with facts and statistics
• Letter to the editor: A letter from an individual reader responding to something in the newspaper
• Magazine article: A long-form article that is usually published in a magazine
• Opinion Pieces: these are pieces that come from the writer’s personal opinion and can be either positive or negative
• Analysis: This type of writing analyzes a topic in-depth, usually with statistics and data to back up its points
• News Stories: news stories tell readers about current events happening around the world; they may include interviews with experts on the issue or people who have been affected by it
• Op-Eds: op-eds are articles written by someone outside of an organization, such as a politician, activist, union leader, etc., meant for publication in a newspaper or magazine
• Argumentation
• Campaigning/Polemicizing
• Persuasive writing
• Informative writing
• Narrative writing

How to write a persuasive political speech

A persuasive political speech is a type of writing that aims to convince the audience that your view on an issue is more valid than others. To do this, you must start by acknowledging different opinions and pointing out why they are wrong.

The initial step in writing a persuasive speech is to establish your credibility. For example, please talk about your accomplishments for the party or how many years you’ve been involved.

A persuasive political speech should be well-prepared, clear, and straightforward, logically structured. It should focus on the main points without unnecessary details.

A persuasive speech is a type of speech designed to convince the audience. This can be done through logical reasoning, testimonies, facts, figures, or stories.

It would help to tell the audience what you stand for and why and how you will fulfill your promises. It will help if you convince them they want to change their lives or won’t vote for you.

A good speech should be like a story with a beginning, middle, and end. It should present the main idea in the opening sentence or paragraph and develop it throughout the speech. A persuasive political speech will use facts and statistics to support its views.

A political speech is a great way to persuade your audience and win votes. If you’d like to learn some things you can do before writing your address, that will help with the process.

How to write an op-ed piece

Op-ed pieces help express your opinion on a topic.

An op-ed piece is an opinionated article in which the author expresses their views on a topic recently discussed in the news.

An op-ed piece is a short article published in newspapers or other media. It does not necessarily reflect the newspaper’s opinion but rather that of an individual writer.

An op-ed piece is an article that expresses a writer’s opinion on current affairs. This writing style is frequently used in newspapers, magazines, and blogs.

Best Practices for Political Writing

• Be clear about your position on the issue
• Provide evidence to support your point of view
• Ensure you have a good thesis statement and the main idea of your essay or article.
• Use strong verbs and nouns to make sentences more powerful
• Avoid using too many adjectives or adverbs; instead, use descriptive words that show what something looks like, smells like, tastes like, feels like, etc
• Keep it short- this means no more than five paragraphs at most (and each section should be less than three sentences)
• Use clear, concise language
• Avoid jargon and acronyms that are not universally-known
• Provide evidence for your claims
• Write in a way that is easy to understand but still has a depth of knowledge
• allow readers to engage with you through comments or social media shares
• Avoid using slang or idioms
• Keep sentences short and simple
• Use active voice, not passive voice
• Be concise- get to the point quickly without rambling about irrelevant information.
• Make sure you know your audience before writing anything political
• Make sure your writing is engaging and accessible to read
• Keep it brief, but don’t be too concise- make the reader feel like they’re getting something out of reading your article
• Use a variety of sentences with varying lengths to keep readers interested in what you have to say
• Be careful not to be preachy or biased when discussing political topics.
• Use simple language- avoid jargon and acronyms.
• Avoid hyperbole, exaggeration, and generalizations.
• Create an apparent argument with evidence to support your claims
• Be concise- don’t ramble or go off on tangents
• Stick to one point at a time- present new ideas in separate paragraphs
• Use persuasive language to connect with the reader, but avoid over-the-top rhetoric or exaggerated claims.
• Provide specific evidence for your assertions
• Avoid using unnecessary jargon and acronyms
• Read the publication’s guidelines
• Write objectively, not emotionally
• Use active voice and strong verbs to convey power and action
• Keep your sentences short and simple for easy readability
• Include sources in your writing when possible
• Use short, punchy sentences
• Avoid using jargon or acronyms without explaining what they mean
• Keep your writing simple and easy to read
• Make sure you are always fair in your analysis of the issue at hand

Words are an effective tool in politics. When these words are chosen wisely, they can create the perfect storm that sweeps away opposition and makes new citizenship norms. Contact us today if you’re looking for someone with deep experience in crafting compelling political arguments or want to learn more about how language shapes our society. We have years of expertise working with politicians on both sides of the aisle and across different countries worldwide!

One way to get in touch is by filling out our online form on this site or give us a call at +91 9848321284. Let’s work together today!

Subscribe To Receive The Latest News

Curabitur ac leo nunc. Vestibulum et mauris vel ante finibus maximus.

Add notice about your Privacy Policy here.

Related Posts

How Political Campaigns Use Your Data to Target You

Model Clustering for Political Campaign: Analyzing Voter Behavior

Data Privacy Concerns for Political Campaigns: Best Practices & Risks

AI Ethics Frameworks for Political Campaigns: Understanding, Addressing, and Shaping

Use basic attention token to maximize political strategy impact.

Call me +91 9848321284

[email protected]

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Federalist Papers

By: History.com Editors

Updated: June 22, 2023 | Original: November 9, 2009

The Federalist Papers are a collection of essays written in the 1780s in support of the proposed U.S. Constitution and the strong federal government it advocated. In October 1787, the first in a series of 85 essays arguing for ratification of the Constitution appeared in the Independent Journal , under the pseudonym “Publius.” Addressed to “The People of the State of New York,” the essays were actually written by the statesmen Alexander Hamilton , James Madison and John Jay . They would be published serially from 1787-88 in several New York newspapers. The first 77 essays, including Madison’s famous Federalist 10 and Federalist 51 , appeared in book form in 1788. Titled The Federalist , it has been hailed as one of the most important political documents in U.S. history.

Articles of Confederation

As the first written constitution of the newly independent United States, the Articles of Confederation nominally granted Congress the power to conduct foreign policy, maintain armed forces and coin money.

But in practice, this centralized government body had little authority over the individual states, including no power to levy taxes or regulate commerce, which hampered the new nation’s ability to pay its outstanding debts from the Revolutionary War .

In May 1787, 55 delegates gathered in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation and the problems that had arisen from this weakened central government.

A New Constitution

The document that emerged from the Constitutional Convention went far beyond amending the Articles, however. Instead, it established an entirely new system, including a robust central government divided into legislative , executive and judicial branches.

As soon as 39 delegates signed the proposed Constitution in September 1787, the document went to the states for ratification, igniting a furious debate between “Federalists,” who favored ratification of the Constitution as written, and “Antifederalists,” who opposed the Constitution and resisted giving stronger powers to the national government.

The Rise of Publius

In New York, opposition to the Constitution was particularly strong, and ratification was seen as particularly important. Immediately after the document was adopted, Antifederalists began publishing articles in the press criticizing it.

They argued that the document gave Congress excessive powers and that it could lead to the American people losing the hard-won liberties they had fought for and won in the Revolution.

In response to such critiques, the New York lawyer and statesman Alexander Hamilton, who had served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, decided to write a comprehensive series of essays defending the Constitution, and promoting its ratification.

Who Wrote the Federalist Papers?

As a collaborator, Hamilton recruited his fellow New Yorker John Jay, who had helped negotiate the treaty ending the war with Britain and served as secretary of foreign affairs under the Articles of Confederation. The two later enlisted the help of James Madison, another delegate to the Constitutional Convention who was in New York at the time serving in the Confederation Congress.

To avoid opening himself and Madison to charges of betraying the Convention’s confidentiality, Hamilton chose the pen name “Publius,” after a general who had helped found the Roman Republic. He wrote the first essay, which appeared in the Independent Journal, on October 27, 1787.

In it, Hamilton argued that the debate facing the nation was not only over ratification of the proposed Constitution, but over the question of “whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”

After writing the next four essays on the failures of the Articles of Confederation in the realm of foreign affairs, Jay had to drop out of the project due to an attack of rheumatism; he would write only one more essay in the series. Madison wrote a total of 29 essays, while Hamilton wrote a staggering 51.

Federalist Papers Summary

In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Jay and Madison argued that the decentralization of power that existed under the Articles of Confederation prevented the new nation from becoming strong enough to compete on the world stage or to quell internal insurrections such as Shays’s Rebellion .

In addition to laying out the many ways in which they believed the Articles of Confederation didn’t work, Hamilton, Jay and Madison used the Federalist essays to explain key provisions of the proposed Constitution, as well as the nature of the republican form of government.

'Federalist 10'

In Federalist 10 , which became the most influential of all the essays, Madison argued against the French political philosopher Montesquieu ’s assertion that true democracy—including Montesquieu’s concept of the separation of powers—was feasible only for small states.

A larger republic, Madison suggested, could more easily balance the competing interests of the different factions or groups (or political parties ) within it. “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests,” he wrote. “[Y]ou make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens[.]”

After emphasizing the central government’s weakness in law enforcement under the Articles of Confederation in Federalist 21-22 , Hamilton dove into a comprehensive defense of the proposed Constitution in the next 14 essays, devoting seven of them to the importance of the government’s power of taxation.

Madison followed with 20 essays devoted to the structure of the new government, including the need for checks and balances between the different powers.

'Federalist 51'

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” Madison wrote memorably in Federalist 51 . “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

After Jay contributed one more essay on the powers of the Senate , Hamilton concluded the Federalist essays with 21 installments exploring the powers held by the three branches of government—legislative, executive and judiciary.

Impact of the Federalist Papers

Despite their outsized influence in the years to come, and their importance today as touchstones for understanding the Constitution and the founding principles of the U.S. government, the essays published as The Federalist in 1788 saw limited circulation outside of New York at the time they were written. They also fell short of convincing many New York voters, who sent far more Antifederalists than Federalists to the state ratification convention.

Still, in July 1788, a slim majority of New York delegates voted in favor of the Constitution, on the condition that amendments would be added securing certain additional rights. Though Hamilton had opposed this (writing in Federalist 84 that such a bill was unnecessary and could even be harmful) Madison himself would draft the Bill of Rights in 1789, while serving as a representative in the nation’s first Congress.

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Stream American Revolution documentaries and your favorite HISTORY series, commercial-free.

Ron Chernow, Hamilton (Penguin, 2004). Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (Simon & Schuster, 2010). “If Men Were Angels: Teaching the Constitution with the Federalist Papers.” Constitutional Rights Foundation . Dan T. Coenen, “Fifteen Curious Facts About the Federalist Papers.” University of Georgia School of Law , April 1, 2007. 

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Introductory essay

Written by the educators who created Cyber-Influence and Power, a brief look at the key facts, tough questions and big ideas in their field. Begin this TED Study with a fascinating read that gives context and clarity to the material.

Each and every one of us has a vital part to play in building the kind of world in which government and technology serve the world’s people and not the other way around. Rebecca MacKinnon

Over the past 20 years, information and communication technologies (ICTs) have transformed the globe, facilitating the international economic, political, and cultural connections and exchanges that are at the heart of contemporary globalization processes. The term ICT is broad in scope, encompassing both the technological infrastructure and products that facilitate the collection, storage, manipulation, and distribution of information in a variety of formats.

While there are many definitions of globalization, most would agree that the term refers to a variety of complex social processes that facilitate worldwide economic, cultural, and political connections and exchanges. The kinds of global connections ICTs give rise to mark a dramatic departure from the face-to-face, time and place dependent interactions that characterized communication throughout most of human history. ICTs have extended human interaction and increased our interconnectedness, making it possible for geographically dispersed people not only to share information at an ever-faster rate but also to organize and to take action in response to events occurring in places far from where they are physically situated.

While these complex webs of connections can facilitate positive collective action, they can also put us at risk. As TED speaker Ian Goldin observes, the complexity of our global connections creates a built-in fragility: What happens in one part of the world can very quickly affect everyone, everywhere.

The proliferation of ICTs and the new webs of social connections they engender have had profound political implications for governments, citizens, and non-state actors alike. Each of the TEDTalks featured in this course explore some of these implications, highlighting the connections and tensions between technology and politics. Some speakers focus primarily on how anti-authoritarian protesters use technology to convene and organize supporters, while others expose how authoritarian governments use technology to manipulate and control individuals and groups. When viewed together as a unit, the contrasting voices reveal that technology is a contested site through which political power is both exercised and resisted.

Technology as liberator

The liberating potential of technology is a powerful theme taken up by several TED speakers in Cyber-Influence and Power . Journalist and Global Voices co-founder Rebecca MacKinnon, for example, begins her talk by playing the famous Orwell-inspired Apple advertisement from 1984. Apple created the ad to introduce Macintosh computers, but MacKinnon describes Apple's underlying narrative as follows: "technology created by innovative companies will set us all free." While MacKinnon examines this narrative with a critical eye, other TED speakers focus on the ways that ICTs can and do function positively as tools of social change, enabling citizens to challenge oppressive governments.

In a 2011 CNN interview, Egyptian protest leader, Google executive, and TED speaker Wael Ghonim claimed "if you want to free a society, just give them internet access. The young crowds are going to all go out and see and hear the unbiased media, see the truth about other nations and their own nation, and they are going to be able to communicate and collaborate together." (i). In this framework, the opportunities for global information sharing, borderless communication, and collaboration that ICTs make possible encourage the spread of democracy. As Ghonim argues, when citizens go online, they are likely to discover that their particular government's perspective is only one among many. Activists like Ghonim maintain that exposure to this online free exchange of ideas will make people less likely to accept government propaganda and more likely to challenge oppressive regimes.

A case in point is the controversy that erupted around Khaled Said, a young Egyptian man who died after being arrested by Egyptian police. The police claimed that Said suffocated when he attempted to swallow a bag of hashish; witnesses, however, reported that he was beaten to death by the police. Stories about the beating and photos of Said's disfigured body circulated widely in online communities, and Ghonim's Facebook group, titled "We are all Khaled Said," is widely credited with bringing attention to Said's death and fomenting the discontent that ultimately erupted in the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, or what Ghonim refers to as "revolution 2.0."

Ghonim's Facebook group also illustrates how ICTs enable citizens to produce and broadcast information themselves. Many people already take for granted the ability to capture images and video via handheld devices and then upload that footage to platforms like YouTube. As TED speaker Clay Shirky points out, our ability to produce and widely distribute information constitutes a revolutionary change in media production and consumption patterns. The production of media has typically been very expensive and thus out of reach for most individuals; the average person was therefore primarily a consumer of media, reading books, listening to the radio, watching TV, going to movies, etc. Very few could independently publish their own books or create and distribute their own radio programs, television shows, or movies. ICTs have disrupted this configuration, putting media production in the hands of individual amateurs on a budget — or what Shirky refers to as members of "the former audience" — alongside the professionals backed by multi-billion dollar corporations. This "democratization of media" allows individuals to create massive amounts of information in a variety of formats and to distribute it almost instantly to a potentially global audience.

Shirky is especially interested in the Internet as "the first medium in history that has native support for groups and conversations at the same time." This shift has important political implications. For example, in 2008 many Obama followers used Obama's own social networking site to express their unhappiness when the presidential candidate changed his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The outcry of his supporters did not force Obama to revert to his original position, but it did help him realize that he needed to address his supporters directly, acknowledging their disagreement on the issue and explaining his position. Shirky observes that this scenario was also notable because the Obama organization realized that "their role was to convene their supporters but not to control their supporters." This tension between the use of technology in the service of the democratic impulse to convene citizens vs. the authoritarian impulse to control them runs throughout many of the TEDTalks in Cyber-Influence and Power.

A number of TED speakers explicitly examine the ways that ICTs give individual citizens the ability to document governmental abuses they witness and to upload this information to the Internet for a global audience. Thus, ICTs can empower citizens by giving them tools that can help keep their governments accountable. The former head of Al Jazeera and TED speaker Wadah Khanfar provides some very clear examples of the political power of technology in the hands of citizens. He describes how the revolution in Tunisia was delivered to the world via cell phones, cameras, and social media outlets, with the mainstream media relying on "citizen reporters" for details.

Former British prime minister Gordon Brown's TEDTalk also highlights some of the ways citizens have used ICTs to keep their governments accountable. For example, Brown recounts how citizens in Zimbabwe used the cameras on their phones at polling places in order to discourage the Mugabe regime from engaging in electoral fraud. Similarly, Clay Shirky begins his TEDTalk with a discussion of how cameras on phones were used to combat voter suppression in the 2008 presidential election in the U.S. ICTs allowed citizens to be protectors of the democratic process, casting their individual votes but also, as Shirky observes, helping to "ensure the sanctity of the vote overall."

Technology as oppressor

While smart phones and social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook have arguably facilitated the overthrow of dictatorships in places like Tunisia and Egypt, lending credence to Gordon Brown's vision of technology as an engine of liberalism and pluralism, not everyone shares this view. As TED speaker and former religious extremist Maajid Nawaz points out, there is nothing inherently liberating about ICTs, given that they frequently are deployed to great effect by extremist organizations seeking social changes that are often inconsistent with democracy and human rights. Where once individual extremists might have felt isolated and alone, disconnected from like-minded people and thus unable to act in concert with others to pursue their agendas, ICTs allow them to connect with other extremists and to form communities around their ideas, narratives, and symbols.

Ian Goldin shares this concern, warning listeners about what he calls the "two Achilles heels of globalization": growing inequality and the fragility that is inherent in a complex integrated system. He points out that those who do not experience the benefits of globalization, who feel like they've been left out in one way or another, can potentially become incredibly dangerous. In a world where what happens in one place very quickly affects everyone else — and where technologies are getting ever smaller and more powerful — a single angry individual with access to technological resources has the potential to do more damage than ever before. The question becomes then, how do we manage the systemic risk inherent in today's technology-infused globalized world? According to Goldin, our current governance structures are "fossilized" and ill-equipped to deal with these issues.

Other critics of the notion that ICTs are inherently liberating point out that ICTs have been leveraged effectively by oppressive governments to solidify their own power and to manipulate, spy upon, and censor their citizens. Journalist and TED speaker Evgeny Morozov expresses scepticism about what he calls "iPod liberalism," or the belief that technology will necessarily lead to the fall of dictatorships and the emergence of democratic governments. Morozov uses the term "spinternet" to describe authoritarian governments' use of the Internet to provide their own "spin" on issues and events. Russia, China, and Iran, he argues, have all trained and paid bloggers to promote their ideological agendas in the online environment and/or or to attack people writing posts the government doesn't like in an effort to discredit them as spies or criminals who should not be trusted.

Morozov also points out that social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are tools not only of revolutionaries but also of authoritarian governments who use them to gather open-source intelligence. "In the past," Morozov maintains, "it would take you weeks, if not months, to identify how Iranian activists connect to each other. Now you know how they connect to each other by looking at their Facebook page. KGB...used to torture in order to get this data." Instead of focusing primarily on bringing Internet access and devices to the people in countries ruled by authoritarian regimes, Morozov argues that we need to abandon our cyber-utopian assumptions and do more to actually empower intellectuals, dissidents, NGOs and other members of society, making sure that the "spinternet" does not prevent their voices from being heard.

The ICT Empowered Individual vs. The Nation State

In her TEDTalk "Let's Take Back the Internet," Rebecca MacKinnon argues that "the only legitimate purpose of government is to serve citizens, and…the only legitimate purpose of technology is to improve our lives, not to manipulate or enslave us." It is clearly not a given, however, that governments, organizations, and individuals will use technology benevolently. Part of the responsibility of citizenship in the globalized information age then is to work to ensure that both governments and technologies "serve the world's peoples." However, there is considerable disagreement about what that might look like.

WikiLeaks spokesperson and TED speaker Julian Assange, for example, argues that government secrecy is inconsistent with democratic values and is ultimately about deceiving and manipulating rather than serving the world's people. Others maintain that governments need to be able to keep secrets about some topics in order to protect their citizens or to act effectively in response to crises, oppressive regimes, terrorist organizations, etc. While some view Assange's use of technology as a way to hold governments accountable and to increase transparency, others see this use of technology as a criminal act with the potential to both undermine stable democracies and put innocent lives in danger.

ICTs and global citizenship

While there are no easy answers to the global political questions raised by the proliferation of ICTs, there are relatively new approaches to the questions that look promising, including the emergence of individuals who see themselves as global citizens — people who participate in a global civil society that transcends national boundaries. Technology facilitates global citizens' ability to learn about global issues, to connect with others who care about similar issues, and to organize and act meaningfully in response. However, global citizens are also aware that technology in and of itself is no panacea, and that it can be used to manipulate and oppress.

Global citizens fight against oppressive uses of technology, often with technology. Technology helps them not only to participate in global conversations that affect us all but also to amplify the voices of those who have been marginalized or altogether missing from such conversations. Moreover, global citizens are those who are willing to grapple with large and complex issues that are truly global in scope and who attempt to chart a course forward that benefits all people, regardless of their locations around the globe.

Gordon Brown implicitly alludes to the importance of global citizenship when he states that we need a global ethic of fairness and responsibility to inform global problem-solving. Human rights, disease, development, security, terrorism, climate change, and poverty are among the issues that cannot be addressed successfully by any one nation alone. Individual actors (nation states, NGOs, etc.) can help, but a collective of actors, both state and non-state, is required. Brown suggests that we must combine the power of a global ethic with the power to communicate and organize globally in order for us to address effectively the world's most pressing issues.

Individuals and groups today are able to exert influence that is disproportionate to their numbers and the size of their arsenals through their use of "soft power" techniques, as TED speakers Joseph Nye and Shashi Tharoor observe. This is consistent with Maajid Nawaz's discussion of the power of symbols and narratives. Small groups can develop powerful narratives that help shape the views and actions of people around the world. While governments are far more accustomed to exerting power through military force, they might achieve their interests more effectively by implementing soft power strategies designed to convince others that they want the same things. According to Nye, replacing a "zero-sum" approach (you must lose in order for me to win) with a "positive-sum" one (we can both win) creates opportunities for collaboration, which is necessary if we are to begin to deal with problems that are global in scope.

Let's get started

Collectively, the TEDTalks in this course explore how ICTs are used by and against governments, citizens, activists, revolutionaries, extremists, and other political actors in efforts both to preserve and disrupt the status quo. They highlight the ways that ICTs have opened up new forms of communication and activism as well as how the much-hailed revolutionary power of ICTs can and has been co-opted by oppressive regimes to reassert their control.

By listening to the contrasting voices of this diverse group of TED speakers, which includes activists, journalists, professors, politicians, and a former member of an extremist organization, we can begin to develop a more nuanced understanding of the ways that technology can be used both to facilitate and contest a wide variety of political movements. Global citizens who champion democracy would do well to explore these intersections among politics and technology, as understanding these connections is a necessary first step toward MacKinnon's laudable goal of building a world in which "government and technology serve the world's people and not the other way around."

Let's begin our exploration of the intersections among politics and technology in today's globalized world with a TEDTalk from Ian Goldin, the first Director of the 21st Century School, Oxford University's think tank/research center. Goldin's talk will set the stage for us, exploring the integrated, complex, and technology rich global landscape upon which the political struggles for power examined by other TED speakers play out.

Navigating our global future

i. "Welcome to Revolution 2.0, Ghonim Says," CNN, February 9, 2011. http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/02/09/wael.ghonim.interview.cnn .

Relevant talks

Gordon Brown

Wiring a web for global good.

Clay Shirky

How social media can make history.

Wael Ghonim

Inside the egyptian revolution.

Wadah Khanfar

A historic moment in the arab world.

Evgeny Morozov

How the net aids dictatorships.

Maajid Nawaz

A global culture to fight extremism.

Rebecca MacKinnon

Let's take back the internet.

Julian Assange

Why the world needs wikileaks.

Global power shifts

Shashi Tharoor

Why nations should pursue soft power.

Essay on Politics: Topics, Tips, and Examples for Students

Defining What is Politics Essay

The process of decision-making that applies to members of a group or society is called politics. Arguably, political activities are the backbone of human society, and everything in our daily life is a form of it.

Understanding the essence of politics, reflecting on its internal elements, and critically analyzing them make society more politically aware and let them make more educated decisions. Constantly thinking and analyzing politics is critical for societal evolution.

Political thinkers often write academic papers that explore different political concepts, policies, and events. The essay about politics may examine a wide range of topics such as government systems, political ideologies, social justice, public policies, international relations, etc.

After selecting a specific research topic, a writer should conduct extensive research, gather relevant information, and prepare a logical and well-supported argument. The paper should be clear and organized, complying with academic language and standards. A writer should demonstrate a deep understanding of the subject, an ability to evaluate and remain non-biased to different viewpoints, and a capacity to draw conclusions.

Now that we are on the same page about the question 'what is politics essay' and understand its importance, let's take a deeper dive into how to build a compelling political essay, explore the most relevant political argumentative essay topics, and finally, examine the political essay examples written by the best essay writing service team.

Politics Essay Example for Students

If you are still unsure how to structure your essay or how to present your statement, don't worry. Our team of experts has prepared an excellent essay example for you. Feel free to explore and examine it. Use it to guide you through the writing process and help you understand what a successful essay looks like.

How to Write a Political Essay: Tips + Guide

A well-written essay is easy to read and digest. You probably remember reading papers full of big words and complex ideas that no one bothered to explain. We all agree that such essays are easily forgotten and not influential, even though they might contain a very important message.

If you are writing an essay on politics, acknowledge that you are on a critical mission to easily convey complicated concepts. Hence, what you are trying to say should be your main goal. Our guide on how to write a political essay will help you succeed.

Conduct Research for Your Politics Essay

After choosing a topic for the essay, take enough time for preparation. Even if you are familiar with the matter, conducting thorough research is wiser. Political issues are complex and multifaceted; comprehensive research will help you understand the topic better and offer a more nuanced analysis.

Research can help you identify different viewpoints and arguments around the topic, which can be beneficial for building more impartial and persuasive essays on politics. Sometimes in the hit of the moment, opposing sides are not able to see the common ground; your goal is to remain rational, speak to diverse audiences, and help them see the core of the problem and the ways to solve it.

In political papers, accuracy and credibility are vital. Researching the topic deeply will help you avoid factual errors or misrepresentations from any standpoint. It will allow you to gather reliable sources of information and create a trustworthy foundation for the entire paper.

If you want to stand out from the other students, get inspired by the list of hottest essay ideas and check out our political essay examples.

Need Professional Help on College Essays?

Essays designed to meet your specific requirements are a click away!

Brainstorm Political Essay Topics

The next step to writing a compelling politics essay is to polish your thoughts and find the right angle to the chosen topic.

Before you start writing, generate fresh ideas and organize your thoughts. There are different techniques to systematize the mess going on in your head, such as freewriting, mind mapping, or even as simple as listing ideas. This will open the doors to new angles and approaches to the topic.

When writing an essay about politics, ensure the topic is not too general. It's always better to narrow it down. It will simplify your job and help the audience better understand the core of the problem. Brainstorming can help you identify key points and arguments, which you can use to find a specific angle on the topic.

Brainstorming can also help you detect informational gaps that must be covered before the writing process. Ultimately, the brainstorming phase can bring a lot more clarity and structure to your essay.

We know how exhausting it is to come up with comparative politics essay topics. Let our research paper writing service team do all the hard work for you.

Create Your Politics Essay Thesis Statement

Thesis statements, in general, serve as a starting point of the roadmap for the reader. A political essay thesis statement outlines the main ideas and arguments presented in the body paragraphs and creates a general sense of the content of the paper.

Creating a thesis statement for essays about politics in the initial stages of writing can help you stay focused and on track throughout the working process. You can use it as an aim and constantly check your arguments and evidence against it. The question is whether they are relevant and supportive of the statement.

Get creative when creating a statement. This is the first sentence readers will see, and it should be compelling and clear.

The following is a great example of a clear and persuasive thesis statement:

 'The lack of transparency and accountability has made the World Trade Organization one of the most controversial economic entities. Despite the influence, its effectiveness in promoting free trade and economic growth in developing countries has decreased.'

Provide Facts in Your Essay about Politic

It's a no-brainer that everything you will write in your essay should be supported by strong evidence. The credibility of your argument will be questioned every step of the way, especially when you are writing about sensitive subjects such as essays on government influence on economic troubles. 

Provide facts and use them as supporting evidence in your politics essay. They will help you establish credibility and accuracy and take your paper out of the realm of speculation and mere opinions.

Facts will make your essay on political parties more persuasive, unbiased, and targeted to larger audiences. Remember, the goal is to bring the light to the core of the issue and find a solution, not to bring people even farther apart.

Speaking of facts, many students claim that when they say ' write my essay for me ' out loud, our writing team is the fastest to respond and deliver high-quality essays meeting their trickiest requirements.

Structure Your Political Essay

Your main goal is to communicate your ideas to many people. To succeed, you need to write an essay that is easy to read and understand. Creating a structure will help you present your ideas logically and lead the readers in the right direction.

Sometimes when writing about political essay topics, we get carried away. These issues can be very emotional and sensitive, and writers are not protected from becoming victims of their own writings. Having a structure will keep you on track, only focusing on providing supported arguments and relevant information.

Start with introducing the thesis statement and provide background information. Followed by the body paragraphs and discuss all the relevant facts and standpoints. Finish it up with a comprehensive conclusion, and state the main points of your essay once again.

The structure will also save you time. In the beginning, creating an outline for essays on politics will give you a general idea of what should be written, and you can track your progress against it.

Revise and Proofread Your Final Politics Essay

Once every opinion is on the paper and every argument is well-constructed, one final step should be taken. Revision!

We know nothing is better than finishing the homework and quickly submitting it, but we aim for an A+. Our political essay must be reviewed. You need to check if there is any error such as grammatical, spelling, or contextual.

Take some time off, relax, and start proofreading after a few minutes or hours. Having a fresh mind will help you review not only grammar but also the arguments. Check if something is missing from your essays about politics, and if you find gaps, provide additional information.

You had to spend a lot of time on them, don't give up now. Make sure they are in perfect condition.

Effective Political Essay Topics

We would be happy if our guide on how to write political essays helped you, but we are not stopping there. Below you will find a list of advanced and relevant political essay topics. Whether you are interested in global political topics or political science essay topics, we got you covered.

Once you select a topic, don't forget to check out our politics essay example! It will bring even more clarity, and you will be all ready to start writing your own paper.

Political Argumentative Essay Topics

Now that we know how to write a political analysis essay let's explore political argumentative essay topics:

• Should a political party take a stance on food politics and support policies promoting sustainable food systems?
• Should we label Winston Churchill as the most influential political figure of World War II?
• Does the focus on GDP growth in the political economy hinder the human development index?
• Is foreign influence a threat to national security?
• Is foreign aid the best practice for political campaigning?
• Does the electoral college work for an ideal political system?
• Are social movements making a real difference, or are they politically active for temporary change?
• Can global politics effectively address political conflicts in the modern world?
• Are opposing political parties playing positive roles in US international relations?
• To what extent should political influence be allowed in addressing economic concerns?
• Can representative democracy prevent civil wars in ethnically diverse countries?
• Should nuclear weapons be abolished for the sake of global relations?
• Is economic development more important than ethical issues for Caribbean politics?
• What role should neighboring nations play in preventing human rights abuse in totalitarian regimes?
• Should political decisions guide the resolution of conflicts in the South China Sea?

Political Socialization Essay Topics

Knowing how to write a political issue essay is one thing, but have you explored our list of political socialization essay topics?

• To what extent does a political party or an influential political figure shape the beliefs of young people?
• Does political influence shape attitudes toward environmental politics?
• How can individuals use their own learning process to navigate political conflicts in a polarized society?
• How do political strategies shape cultural globalization?
• Is gender bias used as a political instrument in political socialization?
• How can paying attention to rural communities improve political engagement?
• What is the role of Amnesty International in preventing the death penalty?
• What is the role of politically involved citizens in shaping minimum wage policies?
• How does a political party shape attitudes toward global warming?
• How does the federal system influence urban planning and attitudes toward urban development?
• What is the role of public opinion in shaping foreign policy, and how does it affect political decision making
• Did other countries' experiences affect policies on restricting immigration in the US?
• How can note-taking skills and practice tests improve political engagement? 
• How do the cultural values of an independent country shape the attitudes toward national security?
• Does public opinion influence international intervention in helping countries reconcile after conflicts?

Political Science Essay Topics

If you are searching for political science essay topics, check our list below and write the most compelling essay about politic:

• Is environmental education a powerful political instrument? 
• Can anarchist societies provide a viable alternative to traditional forms of governance?
• Pros and cons of deterrence theory in contemporary international relations
• Comparing the impact of the French Revolution and World War II on the political landscape of Europe
• The role of the ruling political party in shaping national policies on nuclear weapons
• Exploring the roots of where politics originate
• The impact of civil wars on the processes of democratization of the third-world countries
• The role of international organizations in promoting global health
• Does using the death penalty in the justice system affect international relations?
• Assessing the role of the World Trade Organization in shaping global trade policies
• The political and environmental implications of conventional agriculture
• The impact of the international court on political decision making
• Is philosophical anarchism relevant to contemporary political discourse?
• The emergence of global citizenship and its relationship with social movements
• The impact of other countries on international relations between the US and China

Final Words

See? Writing an essay about politic seems like a super challenging job, but in reality, all it takes is excellent guidance, a well-structured outline, and an eye for credible information.

If you are stressed out from juggling a hundred different course assignments and have no time to focus on your thesis, our dissertation writing services could relieve you! Our team of experts is ready to take over even the trickiest tasks on the tightest schedule. You just have to wish - ' write my essay ' out loud, and we will be on it!

Ready to Enrich Your Understanding of Politics?

Order our thought-provoking essay today and elevate your intellectual game!

Related Articles

What Is Politics and Why Is It Important? According to 4 Experts

Politics has gone through different stages throughout history, yet up to the present times, it has continued to be a topic of debate.

Before we delve deeper into its complexities, we need to understand what politics is and why it is important.

Find out how these four experts define politics and view its importance in various ways.

Table of Contents

Politics is the art and science of governance

Politics is an arena of power, politics is the art or science of government, frequently asked questions.

D r. J Paul Rand, MBA, CPCN

Executive Director, RSolutions (Holdings)

Politics, the art and science of activities related to governing nations, groups, or organizations, is one of those terms we all claim to avoid, yet invariably, it impacts everyone.

When I was 19, I became the youngest elected official in Washington State history. While I completed a four-year tenure in a non-partisan municipal role, I moved into learning, education, and organizational sciences as a performance psychologist for a number of years thereafter.

Most recently, however, due to my research and experience, I was nominated and selected as a non-partisan Regional White House Fellow. I have enjoyed non-partisan roles but use this to highlight that politics is always present: from cities to non-profits, family business, to major corporations, to national politics.

Politics is the application of human ideals into a lived reality, which is complicated.

Politics (and religion) are the conventional “do not discuss” topics for family and friends, but that is really a poor decision if you consider that politics is a natural occurrence of governance of the people.

When we define politics (as drama or contest), we often allow surface reactions of issues, topics, and concerns to devalue a very intentional and unique opportunity to be involved, aware and participate in a free governing society, the alternate – politics-free oligarchy or dictatorship that usurps freedom of involvement.

In these environments, your rights are to live and do what you are told, as told. Ending such tyranny has been a fight many of our kin – inside and outside of the US – have battled for hundreds of years.

So why, then, do people avoid politics?

Politics, for many, can feel or appear to be a game, when in reality, it is a process for moving from an ideal of governance – of the people, by the people, for the people – toward practical application. Politics becomes visible one might say as we shift to achieve ideals and encounter the fundamental reality that while we may share many many commonalities (biologically, physically, mentally/emotionally, etc.) as people, we are fundamentally and entirely dynamic and unique individuals.

When we find the ability to recognize that politics is the necessary process of managing those differences while focusing on the shared ideal of a particular party to achieve the desired ideal, we can learn to recognize politics is a natural occurrence for finding unity amid complex ambiguity of the people, by the people, for the people.

Related: What Is the Main Purpose of a Political Party?

Politics shapes governance when ideal becomes a focused law of governance to bind the people

The less familiar you are with politics, the less clarity on governance you will have. In this case, the less familiar you are with the complexities that shape your environment, influence you, your children, and your community, and the more susceptible to tyranny of the minority – a fast track to losing your rights.

Being aware of politics and understanding the role of politics in everyday life is important to developing your personal character and valuing important issues

But it’s not about not getting caught in the weeds of political banter or dissent, but to instead participate in the true examination of your deeply held person ideals, values, and how fair those ideals are in the governance of all others.

David Pring-Mill

Media Consultant | Writer | Communications Director, Hyperloop Advanced Research Partnership

Politics is the arena in which power can be won or lost, leveraged, or squandered, either toward illuminated ends or corruptive impulses and indifference. Politicians can advance themselves by understanding and navigating relations between people, and their actions influence the distribution of social goods among people. But everything is quickly changing.

With our communication and economic activities so profoundly altered by technology, the metaphorical machinery of representative democracy is now increasingly rested upon literal machinery.

Disinformation has found faster pathways of travel, on platforms with skewed incentives. Our election infrastructure is hackable. AI programs are learning quickly, sometimes from biased and incomplete datasets. Ultimately beneficial types of automation may be preceded by painful transitions.

Dramatic, unfathomable advances in quantum computing could make current systems irrelevant. The future is dependent not only on innovation but on the successful integration of new solutions into complex systems.

Related: How to Find Simple Solutions to Complex Problems

To understand politics in 2019, it’s worth taking a very close look at technology.

Different business models incentivize different tactics. Lawmakers are looking to crack down on a digital Wild West that increasingly trades in personal data.

The venture capital pouring into Silicon Valley startups sometimes establishes an underlying imperative for growth that works against responsible product development. In the pursuit of scalability, social values are sometimes compromised, and systemic vulnerabilities are created.

Fortunately, we’re also seeing a lot of opportunities for independent, cash-strapped entrepreneurs. Some of the old barriers to entry no longer exist. To the contrary, there are more resources, in terms of not only capital but also the growing supply of B2B tools and services.

This is significant. John Adams felt compelled to study politics and war so that his sons would have the liberty to study mathematics, philosophy, and practical sciences, so that their children, in turn, could freely study art and creative disciplines that enhance the textures of living.

If politics is, from one Founding Father’s perspective, a thing that is done to extend liberty more widely, then technology is clearly political in that it serves as a source of empowerment for entrepreneurship and expression. New technology allows for a highly individual and defiant form of each.

We must all actively work to ensure that technology continues to align with our own liberty because it is, in many instances, becoming more adept at facilitating division and censorship.

The United States of America was premised upon the right of the people to make and to alter their own government, instead of being subservient to an unjust power imposed upon them. And now we, as consumers, are looking toward increasingly powerful and global corporate structures and wondering what rights we have there.

It is fair, I think, to say that citizenship rights and consumer rights are becoming equated, in some respects. We can affect change by voting with our dollars and approaching commerce from a more organized and intentional perspective.

Author | Speaker | Founder, The Constitution Study

In short, politics is the art or science of government. Put another way, how we establish policy, which is also why it is important.

How do we determine what policy will be?

For centuries, a policy was established by a monarch, one person who determined what the nation’s policy would be. While there were different systems of politics such as Ancient Greece and Roman republics, even British politics changed from a pure monarchy to a more limited system with the Magna Carta in 1215 and the Grand Remonstrance of 1641.

In the 18th Century, there were two great attempts to change political systems, the American and French Revolutions. The American Revolution created the republic we call The United States of America, while the French Revolution created a democracy.

While the United States Constitution, drafted and ratified in 1787, remains the longest single national Constitution in the world, the French democracy included the Reign of Terror. It eventually led to the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte.

The most important question Americans have today is who will have control of our republic?

Will it be the American people or a powerful political class? Will the republic be governed by its Constitution or by a group of politicians and justices? Who will determine the policies the American people will live under, a ruling class in Washington, or the American people themselves?

Related: What Is the Purpose of the Constitution?

The answer to this question is currently up for debate, which is why it is important . If the American people do not hold their elected representatives accountable for their actions, then we will be ruled by them and a republic in name only.

Jacquelyn Benson

Civic Engagement Coordinator, Citizens Count

These days, politics gets a bad rap. It’s not hard to see why in an era of increasing partisanship and deepening suspicion of government institutions. That makes it easy to forget that politics is the necessary partner of democracy.

When people are given the power to make decisions about government policies or to choose their representatives, efforts will always be made to try to win them over. And that’s great. None of us have the time to conduct original research into every issue that impacts our lives. We have to rely on others to do some of that homework for us.

Our role then becomes choosing our sources. Who will we trust to tell us the right path on a given issue? For those of us who are working to strengthen democratic institutions, the enemy isn’t “politics” – it’s the decay of the critical faculties we use to judge who is worth listening to.

What is political discourse?

Political discourse refers to the discussion and debate of political issues, policies, and ideas. It’s how people express their opinions and beliefs about politics and engage in dialog with others who have different views.

Political discourse can occur in various settings, such as formal political institutions like parliaments or congresses, in the media, on social media platforms, or in private conversations.

The quality of political discourse is essential for a healthy democracy, as it allows individuals to exchange ideas and opinions and find solutions to problems together.

However, political discourse can also be divisive and polarizing, especially when individuals engage in hostile or disrespectful language or refuse to engage in meaningful dialog with people who hold different views.

It’s important to encourage open and respectful communication and to value the diversity of opinions and perspectives to promote healthy political discourse.

This means actively listening to others, being willing to engage in dialog, and being open to changing one’s mind when presented with new information or evidence.

How do people participate in politics?

There are many ways to participate in politics, from voting to running for office to advocacy and protesting.

Voting is perhaps the most basic form of political participation and allows people to have a say in who represents them in government.

Running for office is another way to participate in politics and can be particularly impactful for those who want to effect change at a higher level.

Advocacy is about supporting a particular cause or issue through lobbying, writing letters, or participating in public education campaigns.

Protest is another form of political participation that can range from peaceful marches and rallies to civil disobedience.

How can people stay informed about politics?

There are many ways that people can stay informed about politics, including:

• reading newspapers and magazines • following news websites and blogs • watching news programs on television • listening to radio news broadcasts

Social media can also be a valuable source of political information, but it’s important to be mindful of the accuracy and reliability of sources. It’s also a good idea to think critically and check facts, especially when it comes to political claims and statements.

Finally, participating in political discussions and debates can be a great way to learn more about different perspectives and deepen your understanding of the political process.

How do political systems differ around the world?

Political systems can vary widely around the world, depending on factors such as history, culture, and geography. For example, some countries have democratic systems of government where power is placed in the hands of the people through free and fair elections.

Other countries may have authoritarian systems of government in which power is concentrated in the hands of a single person or group.

Some countries have federal systems of government in which power is divided between a central government and regional or local governments, while other countries have unitary systems of government in which power is concentrated in a central government.

Political systems also differ in terms of their levels of transparency, accountability, and responsiveness to citizens’ needs and interests.

What challenges does the political system face today?

There are many challenges facing the political system today, including:

• political polarization • the influence of money in politics • the erosion of trust in government institutions • the rising economic inequality • the threat of global conflict and instability • the impact of climate change on the environment and human society

In addition, many people feel disconnected from the political process and that their voices aren’t being heard by their elected representatives.

These challenges require creative and collaborative solutions that involve a wide range of stakeholders, including individuals, organizations, and governments at all levels.

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

As you found this post useful...

Share it on social media!

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

The Editors

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 1: Conceptualizing Politics

Since Aristotle, Western political philosophy has been predicated on the idea that there is something necessarily social about politics. Politics doesn’t exist with only one person on a deserted island. This necessarily social aspect suggests that that politics governs our social relations and our relationship to goods and resources in order to effect improvements on society. Recall from the introduction the Socratic idea that humans do not  merely want to survive, but to live well. This perspective conceptualizes politics as a tool of social betterment. For the ancient Greeks, particularly Aristotle, politics cuts even deeper—it is central to the very purpose of what it means to be a human being. For Aristotle, the highest virtue was living a life of politics. “For as a human being is the best of animals when perfected,” observes Aristotle, “so when separated from law and justice he is worst of all.” [1] Because we cannot understand human beings outside our relations with each other, the activity that governs these relations is the most virtuous of activities.

We are far removed from these ancient thoughts on politics. Much of the American public today, for example, would hardly see living a political life as virtuous in and of itself. Indeed, the word politics itself is often used derisively: “That’s just politics,” by which we often mean crude strategies of power, conniving, dirty dealing, and even outright corruption. At the same time, it can be easy to have a cynical view of those who live a life of politics. Many of us tend to think that politicians choose a life of politics for the influence, power, and money that serving in government undoubtedly brings. The older ideal of the reluctant leader seems a quaint notion of a distant past. There nevertheless remains a reality that politicians are ideally champions of the people and not of themselves, that self-interest should be set aside to govern in the common interest. How do you perceive politics and politicians? Rate your perception of both on a scale of 1-10, where 1 is the lowest regard for both. If you tend to regard politicians as self-serving and corrupt, though there may be exceptions, you might rate them at 3 or 4. Now reflect on the level of political news you tend to consume on a daily basis.

Chapter 1.1 Exercises

• Do you listen to talk radio or watch cable news?
• How much political news do you seek out on the internet?

Compare and reflect on your views of politics and politicians and your level of political news consumption.

Conflict versus Cooperation: Two Views of Politics

The conflict-based view of politics suggests a Zero-Sum Game , in which one person’s gain is another person’s exact loss. This view may be more prominent with the realities of very polarized political environment. Polarization or hyper-partisanship in American politics is currently the norm—political party elites and politicians have little incentive to reach across the aisle and collaborate with other political actors outside their parties. This polarized environment has arguably strengthened over the Obama and Trump administrations. Not a single Republican member of the House or Senate voted for the Affordable Healthcare Act (otherwise known as Obamacare), despite the fact that the law is modeled after a Massachusetts state law that had significant Republican support. Bipartisanship in the Trump administration continues to be rare.

Historically, hyper-partisanship has not always been the case. Cross-party voting was more common throughout the New Deal era and into the 1990s. [2] The policy environment in Congress generally followed what Shanto Iyengar has called the “ Bargaining Model ,” in which a small number of political elites fashion policy out of horse trading and compromise across the party aisle. [3] Iyengar refers to this as the “pre-media” era of American politics, and suggests that changes in the media environment have contributed to a more polarized political dynamic and a “ Going Public ” model to governing. [4] In the Going Public model, the media largely replaces political parties as the conduit through which politicians get what they want. These politicians bypass other members of Congress and the president to speak directly to their constituents and the public. The strategy is predicated on maximizing your approval rating and using this as leverage in Washington to push policy and legislation you endorse. The Going Public model suggests that a conflict-based view of politics is stronger than ever. For more on media’s influence in American politics, see Chapter 9.

Compromise and cooperation are nonetheless present, if rare, even in the most hyper-polarized environment. For example, the passage of the First Step Act of 2018, legislation on criminal justice reform, received broad bipartisan support and was passed into law by President Trump, despite ongoing investigations into Trump’s campaign and administration and an overall toxic partisan environment that has riddled Washington. Cooperation and compromise in politics may be harder to see in a for-profit media landscape, in which political conflict can garner greater attention and thus greater economic incentives for private cooperations that produce political news. Cooperation in politics does not always have to be civil and friendly, and may involve bitter compromises. Cooperation in politic s can also be understood in deliberative theories of democracy , such that we value democracy because it creates conditions in which we reach consensus through communication and understanding (for more on this, see Chapter 5). Politics is most often the complex interplay of cooperation and conflict, existing simultaneously across multiple issues and within a single issue.

As the only politician with a truly national constituency in American politics, the president is often at the very heart of the push and pull of conflict vs cooperation. Sidney Milkis refers to this dynamic as the New American Party system, in which presidents are increasingly caught between the demands of their party and the demands of the nation. With intense partisanship generally the norm in today’s politics, the demands of a political party often veer toward conflict, whereas the demands of the nation may require compromise, cooperation, and a sense of national unity. [5] In Chapter 5, we will analyze party systems in democracies more closely, in particular the argument that majoritarian systems of government veer politics toward more conflict, whereas proportional systems of government are better able to build consensus and compromise.

Under what conditions do state actors who are adversaries cooperate with one another?

We see a similar dynamic between cooperation and conflict play out in International Relations. State actors often negotiate this dynamic with foreign adversaries. The issue of Iranian nuclear capability is a prime example. Whereas sanctions directed at the Iranian regime represent a clear strategy of seeking leverage though adverse pressure, a multilateral nuclear arms deal between Iran and the West represents the strategy of compromise and cooperative solutions to the issue. Under what conditions do state actors who are adversaries cooperate with one another? This is a key question in International Relations and game theory provides a number of insights and potential solutions.

Games on Cooperation and Conflict

A classic game in economics and International Relations is the Prisoner's Dilemma , a collective action game in which two criminal accomplices are captured by the police and held in separate interrogation rooms. In the interrogation, these accomplices are faced with a choice: you either rat out your partner and accuse them of the crime or you stick to the previously agreed-upon story, cooperating with your accomplice and stonewalling the cops. If you “defect” (rat out your partner) and your partner “cooperates” by not ratting you out, then you get no prison time whereas your partner receives a 10-year sentence, and vice versa if your partner defects and you cooperate. If you both defect, you both receive a 5-year sentence. If you both cooperate, you both receive a 3 year sentence.

The prisoner’s dilemma yields a number of insights into the relationship between individual rationality and group rationality. When do we cooperate with others, even when it goes against our own self-interest? The dilemma in the prisoner’s dilemma is this: in isolation, a person is better off defecting, but when both defect the outcome is worse for each. In other words, pursuing rational self-interest may lead to worse outcomes than if, as a group, people act contrary to rational self-interest. Relatedly, the prisoner’s dilemma also suggests that it is hard to get selfish individuals to act for the common good. The prisoner’s dilemma has been influential in understanding economic, political, and moral human action.

One way of playing the prisoner’s dilemma is called indefinite iterations, in which you play against the same person numerous times. You will now play prisoner’s dilemma 5 times in a row against 5 separate opponents. You opponents are Fez, Tex, Sherlock, Plum Hat, and Pink Hat. You will find the game here: http://ncase.me/trust/ Play the game all the way through before reading further.

So how did you do? Which opponent were you most successful against? Which were you least successful against? The basic strategies were laid on in this game in which Fez (Copycat), Tex (Grudger), Sherlock (Detective), Plum Hat (Always Cheat), Pink Hat (Always Cooperate) are each designed with a certain objective in mind. Write a short reflection paper (3-page minimum) detailing your results and the strategies your opponents used against you.

In the 1980s and 90s, Dr. Robert Axelrod conducted two large tournaments in which game theorists submitted codes that could be played indefinitely against one another. Dr. Axelrod included a clone of each code (so it could play against itself) and an additional code that randomly cooperated and defected. After thousands of games played, one strategy emerged as the clear winner: the Tit-for-Tat strategy, or our very own Mr. Yellow. Tit-for-Tat is a very simple code: it cooperates on its first move and for every subsequent move it simply replicates the move its opponent made in the last round. If you cooperate with Tit-for-Tat, it will do the same. If you defect, it will defect. You also played against Mr. Red, who defects every time, and Mr. Green, who cooperates every time. What Dr. Axelrod found is that cooperative strategies are generally more successful than strategies that more often defect. [6]

Tit-for-Tat has four basic properties that may suggest why it is successful. First, it is kind: it always cooperates on the first move. Second, it is retaliatory: it always retaliates upon defections. Another way of saying this is that it does not let uncooperative behavior go unpunished. Third, it is forgiving: you might defect against Tit-for-Tat 100 times in a row, but the moment you begin cooperating, it does so as well. Another way of saying this is that Tit-for-Tat has a very short memory with regards to uncooperative behavior and never leaves payoffs on the table. Fourth, it is clear: opponents can rely on its behavior in a way that facilitates mutually beneficial outcomes. [7]

We can apply this strategy to political behavior for both individuals and state actors. In International Relations, for example, Tit-for-Tat suggests that the most successful strategy for diplomacy is to be kind, retaliatory, forgiving, and clear. Begin negotiations with the carrot first, use the stick for uncooperative behavior in order to avoid being taken advantage of, forgive at first signs of cooperation, and be predictable in your behavior. We can also apply these strategies to negotiations among lawmakers in a legislative branch, or between legislators and a prime minister or president.

Chapter 1.3 Exercises

Reflect on your own observations of political behavior. Do you find this type of strategy to be successful? Why or why not?

Politics as a Field of Power

In political and social science, power is often understood to be the capacity an individual has to influence the behavior of others. This can take the form of soft power such as influence and positive incentives or hard power such as coercion or intimidation. We can also view power through the lens of legitimacy: legitimate power can be seen as authority—the ability to exercise lawful or agreed-upon instruments of power to influence people or processes in deliberate ways. Illegitimate power can been understood as brute force, unsanctioned and unlawful coercion. Consider two examples: a pilot of an aircraft and a hijacker of an aircraft. Both have a degree of power over a plane and the passengers within it. The pilot uses authority to influence passengers to abide by rules and regulations, such as fastening their seat belts and being attentive to emergency exits. The hijacker uses brute force to intimidate and coerce passengers in order to achieve their objectives.

Looking more closely at authority and power, there are important distinctions that can be made. Where power can be regarded as the tools and instruments at one’s disposal, authority can be regarded as the way in which we wield those tools and instruments. Consider the power of the American presidency in this distinction. The office of the presidency comes with inherent powers, some codified in the US Constitution and others attained through the actions of previous presidents, Congress, and the federal courts. If a president has little understanding of those powers, they may use those powers poorly or not at all, and hence their authority may suffer. The inherent powers remain the same, but how they are used can differ greatly   from one president to another.

Politics is a field on which power is contested, shared, lost, won, rendered legitimate, or rendered illegitimate.

So we arrive at another definition of politics: politics is a field on which power is contested, shared, lost, won, rendered legitimate, or rendered illegitimate. In this definition, we conceive law as structures built on this field that legitimize and direct power in certain ways. Actors contest and cooperate on this field to achieve certain desirable outcomes, either individual or collective. The degree to which this field is transparent (actions of contestation or cooperation can be seen by everyone) and inclusive (the ease with which individuals may enter the field and contest or cooperate) goes a long way toward understanding power in a democracy (for a closer look at democracy, see Chapter 5). A field of power suggests a force that circulates between and among individuals, and it suggests a perspective of politics that lends itself to something akin to the laws of physics. For every action there are opposite reactions, the push and pull of political power.

Chapter 1.4 Example

Person A has power over Person B to the extent that they can determine B’s conduct, but power in our modern world is often hard to see directly, since it commonly takes the form of the absence of brute force.

Social and legal norms often determine our conduct in such a way that we ourselves affirm those norms and therefore do not consider them power over us. Conditioned power is internal, implying control over someone without the use of force. The 20th–century French philosopher Michel Foucault regarded conditioned power as the dominant form of power in our modern world. The notion of “corrections” in the modern penal system indicates internal discipline over inmates. This conditioned form of power is not confined to modern prisons for Foucault. Schools, hospitals, corporate offices, public life—in all these areas there exists a interrelated structure of conditioning power that controls without appearing intrusive. With the technological development of greater forms of surveillance at a government’s disposal, this view of power is perhaps more relevant than ever.

Lastly, the characteristics that make up our identity (such as race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) have historically been the basis for political control over individuals. Of course, this type of control still exists in our world today, but over the past century we have seen powerful reactions to it in the form of racial justice, feminism, and the LGBTQ+ movements. This is the rise of what has been called identity politics : the characteristics of one’s identity are the basis of political action and are central to the struggle between justice and injustice. Identity politics is often defined as political mobilization based on exclusive alliances of shared identity characteristics at the expense of traditional, broad-based political parties. What is overlooked in this definition, however, is that control and domination over individuals is the central struggle of identity politics. If the characteristics of one’s identity form the basis of political action, and we regard action as including forms of control and domination, then slavery, patriarchy, and the criminalization of homosexuality are all forms of identity politics as well.

So What About Political Science?

Politics, of course, is not Political Science.

Politics, of course, is not Political Science. We can develop theories about what politics is, but Political Science needs no theory—it is an institutionalized discipline for the study of political thought, systems, behavior, and institutions. Political Science is also the study of the methods we use to understand political thought, systems, behavior, and institutions, and to this degree Political Science has theories of its own disciplinary activities (this is the subfield of Methods, and for more on this, see Chapter 10). Political Science is part of the broader meta-discipline of the social sciences, which includes, among other disciplines, Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, and Psychology. What brings these disciplines together is a focus on explaining phenomena in various aspects of the social realm. In other words, providing explanations for observable facts or events that take place in our social experience. It may be useful to think of this as detective work—there are numerous mysteries to be solved. Take the example of the core focus of this chapter: what are the optimal conditions under which individuals cooperate with one another contrary to their own self-interest? In other words, what are the causes  of cooperative behavior?

Here we need to consider causation more deeply. In philosophy, causality is the study of the nature of cause and effect. The 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume posited that causation is best understood as counterfactual relation—why x and not y ? This makes clear the relationship between cause and effect. As Hume writes, we can determine a cause where “if the first object had not been, the second never had existed.” This understanding is arguably the very foundation of social science inquiry—to locate causal explanations for the observable facts and events in our shared human experience. In the social sciences, we use the term Independent Variable to describe the cause and Dependent Variable to describe the effect or outcome. Typically, the social scientist requires more than one independent variable in order to test various explanations against one another. In the hard sciences, such as biology or physics, predictions about the causal relationship between these independent and dependent variables are often referred to as hypotheses. In order to test these explanations against one another accurately, the social scientist must be attentive to the ways in which our proposed explanations may be tangled up in one another. The dependent variable is the observable fact or event that we seek explanations for, and because of this, social science inquiry requires only one dependent variable.

Chapter 1.5 Example

In American electoral politics, numerous studies suggest that conservative Republican voters are more mobilized and have higher voter turnout in elections that liberal Democrats.

Let’s look at one specific example to help clarify the basic elements of social science inquiry. In American electoral politics, numerous studies suggest that conservative Republican voters are more mobilized and have higher voter turnout in elections that liberal Democrats. What explains this variation or difference? Our dependent variable is greater mobilization and voter turnout for conservative Republicans and lesser mobilization and voter turnout for liberal Democrats. Our independent variables are the causal explanations for this observable fact, and may include demographics (conservative Republican voters tend to be more similar to each other—older, whiter, wealthier—than liberal Democrats, who are a more diverse coalition of interests), party organization and action (the Republican Party and party elites are better at mobilizing and maximizing turnout than the Democratic Party and their party elites), issues (the issues themselves, or perhaps the way issues are framed, creates an environment that better mobilizes conservative Republicans), or ideology (the ideological foundation of left politics tends toward critique and critical inquiry, whereas the ideological foundation of right politics tends toward authority and order).

These independent variables are  possible  explanations, not certain ones. A good social scientist should always maintain an open and curious degree of skepticism for all explanations. For the philosopher of science Karl Popper, all theories must be potentially false if they are to be scientific, or what Popper calls falsifiability . With the above example, we can see how independent variables might get tangled up in one another. Consider the explanations of demographics and party organization—it may be the case that party elites more successfully mobilize conservative Republicans because demographically similar voters are easier to mobilize. The task of the social scientist in this instance is to control and isolate independent variables to minimize the influence other explanations may have on that variable. This can be complex detective work. The basics of social science inquiry seek explanations for observable facts or events in our social world.

Politics is a necessarily social activity.

As we focus on the question of “what is politics” we see different theories and perspectives taking shape that lie at the heart of the discipline of political science. Politics is a necessarily social activity. It is an endeavor that seeks to define our social relations to one another and our relationship to goods and resources. Because of this, the question of cooperation and collective action is crucial. Under what conditions do individuals cooperate to achieve certain outcomes? We can develop theories to answer that question and then make observations of political behavior and institutions to test those theories. Games can be quite useful in observing how humans cooperate or conflict with one another, particularly the prisoner’s dilemma. Evidence suggests that when two people play multiple games of prisoner’s dilemma with one another (and thus remember previous moves) the most successful strategies are initially kind, retaliatory, forgiving, and clear.

Politics is also about power—how power is used and the conditions under which power is or is not present. In this conception, it is helpful to think of politics as a field on which power is contested. Law acts as a structure that determines the form and flows of power. In a democracy, the transparency and inclusivity of this field are important values. Power is also a set of relations that can be exercised over individuals without their knowing it. This form of conditioned power operates within but can also be found in the basic structures of society, such as norms, institutions, or the law. Lastly, a struggle for power can be located in the characteristics of an individual’s identity, such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. These power struggles are often described as identity politics, such as the feminist fight against patriarchal domination or a civil rights response to racial discrimination. Understanding various forms of power and how they are manifested requires research and observation into our social and political world.

We now have a basic understanding of what politics is and the foundational work of political science as a discipline. In the next four chapters, we will look at some key political concepts such as freedom, equality, and democracy in order to deepen our understanding of the rich and dynamic study of politics.

Media Attributions

• Donald_J._Trump_at_2019_State_of_the_Union_(46092930285)_(cropped)
• Aristotle, Politics, trans. C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1998, pg. 5. ↵
• Richard Fleischer and John Bond. "The Shrinking Middle in the US Congress," British Journal of Political Science, vol. 34, no. 3 (July 2004): pp. 429–51. ↵
• Shanto Iyengar, Media Politics, 2nd Edition. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, pp. 195–99. ↵
• Ibid. ↵
• Sidney Milkis, Jesse Rhodes, and Emily Charnock. "What Happened to Postpartisanship? Barack Obama and the New American Party System," Perspectives on Politics, vol. 10, no. 1 (March 2012): pp. 57–76. ↵
• Robert Axelrod and Douglas Dion. "The Further Evolution of Cooperation," Science 242 (Dec. 9, 1988): pp. 1385–90 ↵
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Prisoner's Dilemma," https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/#IndeIter (accessed on May 26, 2019) ↵

A mathematical representation in which one actor's gain or loss is exactly balanced by another actor's gain or loss. If one actor gains 3 in an exchange, the other actors losses 3.

A political environment in which party-line voting is strong and political parties increasingly see their party opponents as enemies to be bested. Cooperation across party lines is rare in a hyper-partisan environment. This can also be called hyper-polarization.

Cooperation or collaboration among the two major parties in America's two-party system.

Style of governing in which a small number of political elites develop compromises on legislation and policy that will have bipartisan support.

A style of governing in which individual politicians speak directly to the public and their constituents in an effort to boost their approval ratings. Higher approval from the public can then be used as leverage to best your opponents and win on policy.

A justification for democracy in which the democratic process is valued because participants can communicate, understand each other, and come to some form of consensus through deliberation.

System of government in which candidates with the most votes in an election win that district's single seat, and other candidates with less votes win no seats in government. This is likely to produce two-party dominant systems and a majority rule in government.

A system of government in which a percentage of seats won by a party in the legislature roughly mirrors the number of votes cast for that party. This is likely to produce multi-party systems and coalition governments in which multiple parties form a coalition to govern.

Mathematical models that seek to understand strategic interactions between rational decision-makers.

Collective action game in which players decide whether they defect or cooperation with an accomplice.

The principle that it is always rational to act in one's self-interest.

A tendency to engage in politics on the basis of certain characteristics of identity, such as race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, etc. Identity in this view becomes the basis of political action and central to the struggle between justice and injustice.

An explanation or cause of an observable fact or event in our social world. Independent variables are seen as causal agents in social science inquiry.

The effect or outcome of a particular social phenomena. In social science inquiry, a dependent variable is an observable fact or event requires some explanation or cause.

The idea that theories that explain some observable fact or event must always carry the potential of being false. This implies that scientific theories should be continually tested.

Politics, Power, and Purpose: An Orientation to Political Science Copyright © 2019 by Jay Steinmetz is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

1.1 Defining Politics: Who Gets What, When, Where, How, and Why?

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Define and describe politics from various perspectives.
• Identify what makes a behavior political.
• Identify and discuss the three core elements of any political event: rules, reality, and choices.
• Define and discuss varieties of constitutions.

Politics has existed as long as humans have faced scarcity, have had different beliefs and preferences, and have had to resolve these differences while allocating scarce resources. It will continue to exist so long as these human conditions persist—that is, forever. Politics are fundamental to the human condition.

Politics means different things to different people. Politics , and related terms like political and politician , can have both positive and negative connotations. The Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that humans were “political animals” in that only by engaging in politics could humans reach their highest potential. 5 Yet often, the terms political and politician can be used in disparaging ways to refer to individuals using trickery or manipulation to obtain or preserve their status or authority. More formally, a politician is someone running for elective office or serving in it or as a person who is using the skills of a politician in other social interaction. A political actor is anyone who is engaged in political activity. Politics involves all the actions of government and all the people who work for, serve, or challenge it.

This book takes the broadest view, adopting the guidance of political scientist Harold Lasswell , who defined politics as “who gets what, when, how.” 6 Politics exists wherever people interact with one another to make decisions that affect them collectively. Politics exists within families. When parents decide where the family will live: politics. The family (who) gets a place to live (what) at the point of decision (when) based on the parents’ choice (how). When your school decides what tuition to charge: politics. When the government imposes taxes or funds education: politics. Most generally, politics is any interaction among individuals, groups, or institutions that seek to arrive at a decision about how to make a collective choice, or to solve some collective problem. Political science focuses primarily on these interactions as they involve governments. 7

Every political event is different. The mass protests in Hong Kong in 2020, inspired by those seeking to protect their political rights, were not exactly the same as the Black Lives Matter protests in the United States or the climate change actions animated by Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg . Yet as varied as political situations can be, there are commonalities across these events and over all political activities. Whenever you seek to understand a political event—whether an election in Tanzania, a protest in Estonia, or a public health program in Indonesia—it is useful to focus on the following:

What are the most important rules ? What is the reality of the existing event or environment? What choices do the participants make? Political outcomes—for example, which candidate wins an election—are based on the interaction of these rules, realities, and choices.

The importance of rules in politics or in life cannot be overstated. In virtually every human endeavor, the most successful individuals are likely to have a keen knowledge of the rules and how to use (or break) the rules to the advantage of their cause. Ignorance of the rules makes accomplishing your goals more difficult.

Rules can be highly precise or open to interpretation. In chess, for example, the rules are completely known to all players: each piece can move in certain directions but in no other ones. Each player takes a turn; that’s the rule. Although chess is highly complex, each player’s options at any given time are known. Chess champions—in fact, all champions—know how to use the rules to their advantage.

College campuses have their own sets of formal and informal rules, and not all of them are as precise as those in chess. The de jure rules are the rules as they are written, the formal rules. The de facto rules are the ones actually practiced or enforced, the informal rules. For example: a sign might state that the ( de jure ) speed limit is 55 miles per hour, but if police do not give tickets to drivers unless they are driving 65 miles per hour, then that is the de facto rule. To thrive at college, it is useful to understand not only the formal rules but also the informal rules, which have been called “the hidden curriculum.” 8

The rules in any political environment affect who has power and how they can use it. Consider the rules that determine who can vote and how. These rules can be permissive or strict, making voting either easier or harder to do. The harder it is to vote, the fewer people will actually cast their ballots and vice versa. Voting rules influence who shows up to vote. Politicians who believe they have a better chance of success under permissive voting rules are likely to advocate for such rules, while politicians who believe they are more likely to prevail under restrictive voting rules will advocate for them instead.

Rules might appear to be neutral—that is, they may seem fair and not designed to favor one group over another—but this is not entirely true. Until recently, to become a pilot in the US Air Force, a person had to be no shorter than 5 feet 4 inches and no taller than 6 feet 5 inches: the short and the tall were excluded from this opportunity. The rule might be in place for a good reason—in this case, to ensure that pilots can fit properly into their seats—but rules like these allocate opportunities and resources to some while withholding them from others. Because this rule excluded over 40 percent of American women from becoming pilots, it has been modified. 9

Rules are everywhere in politics. Your family has rules—even if the main rule is “no rules”—as does your school. Rules, such as Robert’s Rules of Order , 10 govern legislatures, and the criminal justice system, the tax system, and the national immigration systems are all based, at least in principle, on rules.

Rules and institutions are closely related. The institution of marriage or the institution of the family, for example, are the sets of rules (rights, roles, and responsibilities) by which those within the marriage or family live. Alternatively, institutions can be organizations, which are groups of people working together for a common purpose whose actions are governed by rules.

Perhaps the most important set of rules for any institution or organization is its constitution . The constitution affirms the most basic legal principles of a country or a state. These principles typically include the structure of the government, its duties, and the rights of the people. Constitutions can be quite general or extremely detailed. The Constitution of Monaco has fewer than 4,000 words, while the Constitution of India has nearly 150,000 words. 11 Unlike the United States, some countries, including Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, do not have a single document they call the constitution but instead rely on other written and even unwritten sources. In most countries the constitution is called just that—the constitution—although Germany, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and a few other countries call their constitutions the basic law. 12

What Is a Constitution?

Constitutions define the relationship between people and their government. They give powers to and place limits upon the government and serve as the basis for any other laws or government activities.

Constitutions are perhaps the most important set of rules in a country because, after all, they are just pieces of paper. The true importance of a country’s constitution depends on the politics of that country. In the United States, the Constitution is venerated almost as if it were a religious document. Most of the biggest conflicts throughout US history have involved disputes over what the Constitution requires, allows, or prohibits. When the US Supreme Court rules that a political action is unconstitutional, the violator—whether it be the president, the Congress, or any other group or individual in society—is expected to comply with the ruling and stop the action. 13 But this is not always the case everywhere. Politicians in any country may be tempted to ignore their constitutions, especially when it comes to the rights they ostensibly guarantee, and whether those politicians prevail depends on whether other political actors are willing and able to uphold the constitution.

Because rules affect the allocation of power and other scarce resources, political actors spend substantial time and effort fighting over them. In general, political actors seek to establish rules that benefit them and their allies.

Rules guide and constrain behavior, but the reality on the ground at any specific time also impacts political outcomes. Reality —facts—is not a matter of opinion, although people can dispute the nature of reality. Something is a fact , for example, when there is compelling evidence that an event has happened or a condition exists. The sun rises in the East: reality. The United Nations is an international organization: fact (reality). 14 Has the United Nations made the world a better place? That is a matter of opinion, although those who say “yes” or “no” can provide facts that support their views about reality. 15

How candidates can raise and spend money on their electoral campaigns may be limited by campaign finance laws, but if one candidate raises twice as much money as the other candidate, that is an important fact. If one candidate is the incumbent —a politician already serving in office and running for reelection—and the other is not, that is an important fact. These are important facts because whether or not a candidate is an incumbent and how much campaign money they raise may affect their chances of winning the election. In US elections, for example, incumbents generally have a better chance of being elected (although the strength of this relationship has varied over time), while the impact of fundraising on electoral success is open to question. 16

In chess, the rules are constant, never changing during the game. The reality changes as play proceeds—at any moment each player has a specific number of pieces in particular places on the board. What happens then depends on the choices the players make. This is as true for politics as for any other game. A key difference between chess and politics is that, in politics, the players themselves can change the rules of the game while they are playing.

Politics can be thought of as having the characteristics of a game. The players—anyone involved in political action—make strategic choices, given the rules and the current conditions, in an attempt to “win” the game by obtaining their goals.

Rules provide constraints and opportunities. Reality presents resources and challenges. The choices participants make in the face of rules and reality determine political outcomes. Choice exists whenever political actors face options, which they always do. If there are two candidates in an election for a single position, the voter has to choose between them, not being able to vote for both. Even if there is only one candidate, the voter still has an option: to vote for the candidate or to abstain.

In a democracy , the winning candidate wins because more voters chose to vote, and vote for that candidate, than for other options. The very definition of democracy is that it is a form of government in which the people have the ability to choose their leaders or, in some cases, the policies that they will adopt. 17

Political outcomes are always contingent; they cannot be predicted with certainty in advance. That does not mean, however, that outcomes are completely unpredictable. By accounting for the rules, how human behavior works, and existing realities, it is possible to reasonably predict what is likely to happen and explain what does happen.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Mark Carl Rom, Masaki Hidaka, Rachel Bzostek Walker
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Political Science
• Publication date: May 18, 2022
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/1-1-defining-politics-who-gets-what-when-where-how-and-why

© Jan 3, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Essay on Politics

Essay on Politics for Students in English

Politics is a hugely important domain in the world and it has a profound impact on the functioning as well as the policies of the governments. Politics has an effect on all types of government including democratic, autocratic, monarchical, theocratic and others. The government is responsible for making decisions on different matters of public interest, issuing orders for the public health, directing the citizens towards development and growth, and performing a wide range of other related functions.

There are numerous definitions of what politics means. Politics can be described as the disagreement between the various groups on what they like. One of the broad definitions of politics, which is widely agreed, is the art of governance. The government is the entity having the legal authority of regulating people’s actions. The word politics is usually used for defining how the countries are governed and how the governments make the rules and the laws. 

Defining laws and regulations that tell people what they can or cannot do is one of the ways in which the government leads the people. These regulations and laws are enacted by the government for ensuring order and protection in the society. Beyond the laws, the government might also regulate the citizens and the functioning of the country in other ways. Most of the countries have specific groups or political parties for expressing their views and policies. 

The political parties form a consensus on the common policies or path that they should take in communicating their ideas or policies to the people. These parties support legislative bills or reforms and the candidates based on the agenda agreed upon by the members. The election is usually contested or fought between the opposite political parties of different spectrum. 

One of the conventional explanations of politics refers to politics being conducted within the system of checks and balances for avoiding misuse of political power. The several institutions that exist within the governing system include the legislative body that is responsible for making laws, executive body that imposes them, and judiciary that interprets them thus providing a powerful and well-rounded political spectrum.

If you want to study in detail about politics and its various concepts of applications for your essay in English then you can refer to it on the Vedantu website or app. Vedantu is a leading learning platform with a wide range of learning resources, tutorials, solutions, reference notes, and sample questions papers with solutions for students of different branches.

Short Politics Essay in English

Politics, in general, is the platform by which people create, maintain, and change the laws that govern their lives. As a result, conflict and collaboration are inextricably connected in politics. On the one hand, the presence of conflicting views, competing expectations, competing needs, and competing interests is expected to result in conflict over the rules under which people live.

Politics is fascinating because everyone has a different perspective on life and its rules. They have differing opinions about how they should live. What money should go to whom? What is the best way to disperse power to help the powerless? Is it better for society to be built on collaboration or conflict? And so forth. They also talk about how such disputes can be resolved. What is the best way to make decisions as a group? In what conditions does who have a say? How much say should each person have in decisions? The list goes on.

This, according to Aristotle, made politics the "master science," which he described as "the action by which human beings strive to better their lives and build and contribute to a Good Society." Politics is, first and foremost, a social practice. It's still a conversation, but the parties have reduced it to a monologue.

Any effort to grasp the sense of the word "politics" must always grapple with two major issues. The first is the different connotations that this word has in everyday speech. Unlike economics, geography, history, and biology, which most people think of as academic subjects, few people approach politics without preconceptions. The second, more complicated issue is that even well-respected authorities cannot agree about what politics is all about. It has infiltrated nearly every aspect of society.

Hence, we can say that the exercise of authority, the sacred science of governance, the making of unified decisions, the distribution of limited resources, the art of deceit and exploitation, and so on are all terms used to describe politics.

FAQs on Essay on Politics

1. How do we define politics?

Politics is the collection of activities connected with community decision-making or other types of power relations between individuals, such as resource allocation or status.

2. Name the Various national-level political parties in india.

There are several national-level political parties in India. The major ones include:

All India Trinamool Congress(AITC)

Bahujan Samaj Party(BSP)

Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP)

Communist Party of India(CPI)

Communist Party of India(Marxist)

Indian National Congress(INC)

National People’s Party(NPP)

Nationalist Congress Party(NCP)

3. What is the definition of politics?

Politics has numerous definitions and explanations. In the basic broad term politics can be defined as the art of governance through a collection of activities that are associated with society, decision-making, and power relations between the individuals, like status or resource allocation. The concept of politics is very important in the governance of a country and it is an important topic related to public life that the students must learn about.

4.  Which are the different major political parties in India?

There are several major political parties in India. Some of these political parties include All India Trinamool Congress (AITMC), Indian National Congress (INC), Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India (CPI), and National People’s Party (NPP) amongst a host of others. Each of these political parties have their own political manifesto based on which they conduct their operations.

5. Why is politics an important subject for students to learn?

Politics is related to day-to-day functioning of a country or a society and thus it is important for students to learn and be well informed about it. Politics includes vital policies and decisions that have a direct impact on people and as a responsible citizen it is crucial for students to have a basic grasp of developments in the country that charts out the future path of the nation.

6. How can I prepare for an essay on politics?

If you want to write an essay on politics then you would need to prepare well by understanding the definitions and various other aspects related to politics. One of the ways you can do this is by learning and reading about politics on the internet. You can also find a detailed essay on politics for students in English at Vedantu. This essay incorporates all the important points and provides an excellent guide on how the essay should be done.

7. How can I download the English essay on politics from Vedantu?

If you want to download the English essay on Politics provided by Vedantu then you can do it from either the website or the app. All you need to do is go to the English section and browse to the essay on politics. Here you will have the “Download PDF” option and you just need to click on that button to download the English essay by Vedantu on your device for free. Once you downloaded the PDF file you can access it offline any time you want.

Get 50% OFF On Your First Order

• political essay

Best Guide on How to Write a Political Essay

Politics has a tremendous impact on how we shape ourselves and our cultures. Almost every element of our life is impacted by it. Students that study the principles of politics learn about a wide range of crucially important political problems, including ecology, justice, democracy, nationalism, globalization, and others. Due to the variety of issues and the requirement for in-depth information and critical thought, writing a political essay can be a challenging endeavor. When you write a political essay, you are critically analyzing a particular political idea, historical moment, political position, or legal document. This type of writing is a practice in understanding political theory, which frequently also touches on philosophical territory. If you're just starting out, allow us to reassure you that writing a political essay is a talent that becomes better with practice. So, don't worry if you have to write a paper about it; simply learn more about "how to write a political essay" by exploring both online and offline resources.

An unquestionable advantage of studying ' how to write a political essay ' is the development of critical thinking and the capacity to assess topics from the past, present, and future that matter in the world. By writing about them, one may demonstrate a unique approach to issues that are shared by all people and provide their own perspective to the understanding of global and local events.

A student must allot enough time to the politics paper in order to perform in-depth research and assess all the associated ideas. Discover "how to write a political essay" by reading the following instructions.

Basic Format of Political Essay

Introduction : The opening section presents a logical argument and a clear design for the paper structure. For a brief essay, this portion can be condensed down into a few lines or paragraphs. A large document's introductory section may cover many pages. The thesis statement for the paper must be carefully considered and must be relevant for all components of the project.

A serious political essay should include a part on literature reviews to demonstrate how your established thesis is founded on earlier research. It can be included in the introduction or any other portion of the article's body. It is up to you to choose which strategy is most suited to the study you are conducting.

Sections of the Body: The number of body parts can be decided according to the demands of the topic. Each particular feature of the topic is treated in a distinct body section. Depending on how many are required to communicate the desired argument, it may consist of one, two, three, or even more paragraphs.

The focus of the writing must remain consistent throughout, and the sections must flow naturally into one another.

Effective methods for structuring the body paragraphs

Thesis: What is the main idea of this paragraph, according to the thesis? This major point should be stated in the first statement, which should be closely related to the last sentence. Keep your thoughts flowing smoothly!

Analysis and proof : Please be aware that it is improper to reference the quotes and then analyze each one separately. The proper strategy calls for presenting the necessary proof and doing analysis simultaneously. If you mention the House's reaction to a Senate amendment to a bill, you should also provide a comment regarding the President's reaction to the same amendment.

Transitional and summary sentences : When stating a concept, don't forget to conclude in the same paragraph, either in that sentence or the one after. Include all the necessary transitional language to connect the various paragraphs and topics, as well as all the necessary explanations.

Conclusion When writing a conclusion for a political essay, keep in mind that it shouldn't only restate the thesis but should also be relevant to it. Before drafting the conclusion, check at the essay another time. Make sure the thesis statement connects to every section of the essay. Make sure the evidence used to support the argument is relevant to the thesis. If everything checks out, you may start working on the summary paragraphs. However, if you believe that there should be any adjustments made, make the necessary revisions and update the thesis.

If you want to be a competent writer, you must understand exactly how to repeat the thesis, rather than just copying it straight from the introduction and another paragraph of the conclusion. The last phrases of the essay should be a summary of the entire piece. You must take advantage of this opportunity to restate your viewpoint and underline the essential argument. Be cautious not to include any new information in the conclusion. Your job here is to clarify and offer a wider context for the material that has been presented, not to add to it.

How to Write a Political Essay: Guidelines

• Construct an argument : Normative concerns are a common topic in political writings. The student's objective is to provide a concrete exposition of the fundamental interpretive facts and to provide his opinions on the theoretical issue. There is no right or incorrect response since it is a matter of opinion. Simply said, the student must persuade his readers by crafting a strong argument that is well supported by a thorough and insightful interpretive effort.
• Construct a thesis : The student's aim is to create a thesis that he will stick to throughout the entire paper. The structure of a political essay should be such that the thesis emphasizes a conceptual argument. To put it another way, the student should select a perspective that is clearly defined and gather references to provide the readers a sense of confidence. The textual references will assure readers that the student has considered the question.
• Put the theories you've learned in class into practice : The result of a student's involvement in all lectures, seminars, debates, and assigned readings is technically an essay, whether it be a political essay or another kind of essay . The student should then be able to put all of these concepts and what they learned in school to use.
• Specify your conditions : Academic writing pieces called "political essays" offer a novel perspective on the intellectual facets of the most significant political concepts and topics. The vocabulary employed in a political essay should thus be carefully explained by the student.
• Provide references : When delivering an argument, the student must make certain that it is backed by facts that are properly referenced in the footnotes. Aside from preventing plagiarism , the goal is to lead readers to the appropriate reference for a certain factual point if they want to learn more about it. It also contributes to a more interesting and informative article.
• Be concise : To keep from placing the essay with too many quotes, students can use a paraphrase tool to rewrite them. However, plagiarism is not tolerated in academia, and students have to reference the original source. The student must also include an opinion on the paraphrased passage.
• Create an outline and numerous drafts : An effective political essay does not come together immediately. A lot of important adjustments are required. The plan should also include a timeframe to ensure that you have enough time to make modifications and finish it before the end date. Editing removes illogical connections and weak sections, leading to a well-researched and concise political essay.

The Bottom Line The political science essay has numerous similarities and differences with other types of writing. The advancement of society and government is the goal of political science papers, thus there is a need to develop understanding of the defined form of writing, which highlights the significance of focus and dedication to the subject. The audience's vision would be developed, and its perspective would be widened, by one's own competence in political science. If you need qualified professionals to learn How to Write a Political Essay or to help you with your political science assignment, please get in touch with us today.

FAQS on How to Write a Political Essay

How to write a political essay.

Create an argument, establish a thesis, use ideas learnt in the course, define your words, reference sources, make an outline, and multiple drafts are just a few of the steps you must do when writing a Political Essay .

What structure does a political paper follow?

Political science research papers generally consist of six sections: an introduction, a literature review, a theory, a study design, an analysis, and a conclusion or discussion. Even though there are variations in how papers are put together, most of them manage to include these 6 components.

What characteristics distinguish a strong political essay?

A political essay needs to have the following sections: a declaration of purpose in the introduction. Body paragraphs that go into great depth into the subject, including several points of view. A summary of the essay that leaves the reader aware of the author's viewpoint is provided in the conclusion.

How can I write politics better?

Learning to read critically, analyze your writing assignment for 10 to 15 minutes, realize your shortcomings, discover relevant resources, obtain feedback along the route, and look for extracurricular writing opportunities are all ways to improve political writing.

Eva Johnson

Greetings! My name is Eva Johnson, and I compose literature for a living. I pursued a Doctorate in creative writing after developing a lifetime love of literature, stories, and artistic expression. I became a full-time writing consultant at Assignmentsanta.com thanks to my love for creating original, educational content. Helping students with their academic writing assignments and getting top ratings is enjoyable. Over the years, my devotion has enabled me to publish my writing on numerous other reputable websites and online magazines. I enjoy reading, going on vacation adventures, and trying new foods while I'm not working. I want to read, learn, and experience more as I get older in order to better prepare myself for this ever-changing world.

Related Posts

A step by step guide on how to write a synthesis essay, how to write short stories in easy ways, american dream essay: definition, guidelines, topic ideas & faqs.

Assignment Santa

Take help from best writing service !!

• literature review
• adhd scholarship canada
• geography essay
• college admission essay
• cultural identity essay
• how to write chemistry lab report
• rhetorical analysis essay
• career goals essay
• how to write argumentative essay
• teel structure
• how to write an assignment
• how to make an assignment cover page
• how to write research paper
• thesis statement
• five paragraph essay
• narrative essay
• how many pages is 4000 words
• how to study effectively

Terms of use

Privacy policy.

Disclaimer: The reference papers provided by Assignment Santa should be used as model papers only. Students are not to copy or submit them as is. These reference papers are strictly intended for research and reference.

A product of Assignmentsanta.com

© 2023 Assignmentsanta.com Media. All rights reserved

How may I help you today?

State of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society Essay

The society is made up of different phenomena. Scholars, and especially those studying philosophy, have been involved in explaining the different phenomena life contains. This paper will focus on the different views that have been established with regards to the state of nature and the fundamental purpose of politics in a society.

Why are things the way they are in the natural? What evidence is there to back the theory or theories that seem most fit to explain the state of nature? Which scholars have been most convincing with regards to explaining the state of nature? What is the role of politics in the society? What is the origin of politics in the society? What is the fundamental purpose of politics in the society? Can a society exist without politics? What are the major differences between a society with politics and one without politics? These are the questions that will form the basis through which the paper will communicate its core message.

There have been a lot of scholars who have sought to set forth explanation with regards to the state of nature and the fundamental purpose of politics in the society. To clearly evaluate this, this paper will focus on two great philosophers – Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.

Although there have been contribution by other scholars on the topic being tackled in the paper, the focus will be set on Hobbes and Locke. The main aim of the paper is to compare and contrast the principles set forth by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke with regards to the fundamental purpose of political society and the state of nature. What did each of them say about these two life aspects? Whose account is most plausible? Why? These questions form the guide that will direct the course of the paper. (Zaborowski, 2010)

Thomas Hobbes is regarded to as a great philosopher. He lived in the 17 th century and has been responsible for some of the most important principles set forth to explain the state of nature and politics. His works are compared to those of Aristotle Rousseau, Locke, Rawls, Kant and Plato.

He is credited for the social contract theory and his laws on the association between nature and moral philosophies. The main point that Thomas Hobbes used in explain the state of nature is the comparison of life with regards to government. According to Hobbes, the perfect state of nature is characterized by the ability to privately make judgment which is not influenced by any exterior motive or by any agency.

The power to make and enforce a decision under Hobbes’ explanation lies within the will of a person. Although he gives an explanation, he goes on to dispute the existence of a society under the perfect state of nature. He talks of how impossible it is for the existence of masterless men who are not subjected to any law. He also looks at coercive power in the explanation of the inexistence of a society under the perfect state of nature. (Beattie, 2010)

John Locke has also been credited with explaining the state of nature. With regards to Locke’s explanation on the topic, a society might actually experience the state of nature without experiencing excessive force and lawlessness. According to Locke, a perfect state of nature exists in situations where reason is the main driving force.

Locke states that it is possible for people to exist together in harmony without one man seeking to harm another. According to Locke, a state of nature translates to a situation where all the men are free and responsible for their actions. This also includes the ability to dispose or order their different persons and possessions in the manner they deem well fit.

All this is to be done within the boundaries that have been set by the default laws of nature. According to the condition presented by Locke, the main reason that dictates the boundaries set forth is reason. Unlike Hobbes’ explanation, Locke states that there is harmony in such an environment that is rooted from the respect of liberty, property, and life. The explanation that is given by Locke also covers the punishment for different transgressions.

According to Locke, people in such a state of nature are cautious as there is an attachment or consequence to the actions they take. Unlike Hobbes’ explanation, the principles set forth by Locke have a theology attachment. The argument that has been set forth by Locke makes him as popular other philosophers who have discussed the state of nature. These include Robert Filner, Rawls, Plato, Aristotle Rousseau, and Kant. (Zaborowski, 2010)

Thomas Hobbes has also looked at the purpose and politics in the analysis of the state of nature. According to Hobbes, the society has to have a system through which order is maintained. Without a governing body, Hobbes talks of rampant destruction in the society as well as misuse of power.

According to the principles Hobbes has used in explaining the state of nature, the establishment of a central organized unit through which order is maintained is the key element in government and politics. Politics erupts in a bid to control the governing system and in quest for power. Hobbes argues that effective governance is established through absolute authority. According to Hobbes, the more absolute authority a government has the more effective it is with regards to controlling its subjects. (Beattie, 2010)

John Locke looks at politics and government from 2 main principles. He states that politics is founded on reason, social contract, and tolerance. These are important in dealing with the human nature and the selfish desires. Both Locke and Hobbes believe that the nature of men allows them to be selfish beings and this is evident through the introduction of currency.

Establishing defense for the state alone is not enough. This is the main cause that has led to the development of civil societies. According to the principles set forth by Locke, it is clear to note that he advocated for the separation of powers in government so as to improve the efficiency of government. (Parry, 2003)

In conclusion, both Locke and Hobbes have presented a wealth of information with regards to the analysis of the state of nature and the purpose of politics in the society. Hobbes views on the state of nature are more plausible whereas Locke’s views on the purpose of politics are more plausible.

Hobbes principles on the state of nature are more acceptable compared to the views of Locke. He has dealt with the situation as it presents itself and his arguments are widely acceptable and applicable. With regards to the establishment of government, Locke has presented the fundamental purpose for the establishment of government as well as analyzing the effectiveness of governance.

Beattie, A.R. (2010). Justice and morality: human suffering, natural law and international politics. Farnham, England: Ashgate Publishers.

Parry, G. (2003). John Locke. London: Routledge.

Zaborowski, H. (2010). Natural moral law in contemporary society. Washington D.C: Catholic University of America Press

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 28). State of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society. https://ivypanda.com/essays/state-of-nature-and-the-fundamental-purpose-of-political-society/

"State of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society." IvyPanda , 28 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/state-of-nature-and-the-fundamental-purpose-of-political-society/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'State of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society'. 28 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "State of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society." October 28, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/state-of-nature-and-the-fundamental-purpose-of-political-society/.

1. IvyPanda . "State of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society." October 28, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/state-of-nature-and-the-fundamental-purpose-of-political-society/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "State of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society." October 28, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/state-of-nature-and-the-fundamental-purpose-of-political-society/.

• The Convincing Argument of Socrates
• The Fundamental Traits of a Philosopher
• The Origin of Galaxies: Theories Explaining
• Importance Of Studying Philosophy
• Studying Philosophy: Drawbacks
• Explaining “The Apology of Socrates“ by Plato
• Organizations Convincing to Become a Suicide Terrorist
• Thales vs Anaximander Philosophy
• Ancient Greek Philosophers: A Critical Evaluation of Their Impact on Modern Thought
• Female Philosophers and Their Impact
• Justice for Socrates and Augustine
• Plato and the Allegory of the Caves
• Descartes Meditation: Confusion Is Fruitful
• John Rawls’ Argument for the Difference Principle
• Plato’s Parable of the Cave

One of the most popular college supplemental essay prompts is some variation of the “why this major?” essay. This academic interest essay is often referred to as a “statement of purpose.” As the name suggests, this is the essay where you outline your interests, plans, and goals for your undergraduate education.

In this article, we will address questions such as: What is a statement of purpose? How do you write a statement of purpose? And why is this essay important for your college applications?

Complimentary Initial Consultation

Fill out this form to book your complimentary initial consultation..

Tell us your name.

The purpose of this essay

The purpose of the “Why this major?” or the academic interests essay is to better understand who you are as a student and what you are passionate about. Colleges want to admit curious, motivated, and thoughtful students. They also want to make sure that your academic goals align with what the program can offer you. In other words, they want to make sure that their college is a good fit for you academically and that you will be able to reach your specific goals at their college. In the context of graduate school, this essay is often referred to as your “statement of purpose.”

Questions to ask yourself before you start writing

Before you start writing the first draft of your statement of purpose essay, take time to reflect on the questions below. After all, you want your essay to be both thorough and thoughtful. The best way to ensure you’ve written a successful college essay is by taking plenty of time to think through your answers before you physically start writing. You’ll also want to look at plenty of academic interest essay examples before you get started.

• What do you want to study and why?
• Have you decided on a major? If so, why did you choose your major?
• What do you want to do with your degree after college?
• Do you have any practical experience (i.e. internships, extracurriculars, job shadowing opportunities, ect.) related to your major?
• Why is this college a good fit for you academically?

As you consider each of these questions, take notes. You might even want to do a couple of free writes where you answer these questions candidly and honestly in a journal. There will be plenty of time to refine your ideas later on in the writing and editing process. The most important thing now is to get your ideas moving freely!

If you’re not sure how to write the “Why this major?” essay because you do not know what you want to major in, you may want to consider these  popular college majors .

Meet with our college admissions experts

5 tips to help you get started.

After you’ve spent a good deal of time pondering the question, why did you choose this major? , it’s time to start writing! Let’s take a look at 5 statement of purpose tips to help you get started.

Read the prompt carefully

Read the prompt very carefully. Each school will have a slightly different variation of this question, and it’s important to format your question accordingly. Some common versions of this prompt include:

• Why this major?
• What are your academic interests?

How a college chooses to word this question will help you gain a better understanding of this college’s values.

For instance, if a college asks you, “Why this major?” they want to know how committed you are to your course of studies. In some cases, your major may affect your chances of acceptance , especially if you are applying to a selective program. If you plan to apply to a highly-competitive major, include plenty of information about extracurricular and volunteer experience you have that is related to your course of study. This is particularly important if you are interested in pre-med .

Overall, this prompt is closest to the grad student’s statement of purpose. But what should a statement of purpose include exactly? In short, it should consist of your academic and career goals and how you hope to achieve them at this particular school.

If a college asks you about what you want to study instead of what you’d like to major in, feel free to write about your curiosities, passions, and excitement for learning. This prompt is much more open-ended than the “Why this major?” prompt so that you can approach it more creatively.

Start with a hook

College admissions officers read countless essays, so it’s important to be memorable and to stand out! The best way to do this is to start with a hook. Give them a reason to be interested and to want to keep reading. The best hooks start with a compelling (but concise) personal anecdote that sets the tone for the rest of your essay.

For example, if you want to study music, you may want to begin your essay with a short anecdote about how you spent the summer teaching your cousin how to play the piano. If you want to study political science, you may want to begin your essay by discussing the work you did for a political campaign or describing a recent protest you attended and how it influenced you.

Although the academic interests essay is different from the personal statement, the components of a successful supplemental college essay are very similar. Take a look at 4 Winning College Essay Examples from Top Schools to get some ideas of how to structure your statement of purpose. And remember, a successful statement of purpose intro always starts with a hook!

Include lots of details

College admissions officers want to read thoughtful essays that include lots of details. So be as specific as possible in your “Why this major?” essay. Including details helps communicate that you have put real thought into the prompt. It can also help demonstrate your values and communicate who you are as a person and as a student. Read more about what college admissions officers look for in an applicant here .

Discuss why the school is a good fit

Although this question is different from the “Why this college” essay , it’s important to discuss why and how attending this specific college would help you reach your academic goals. The best way to do this is to research the college’s academic offerings thoroughly and make sure that this school is actually a good fit for your academic goals and interests.

For example, if you’re interested in music, does the school offer music lessons? Do they have practice rooms or a piano on campus? Do they host lots of open mic nights? If you’re interested in studying communications, does the school have a newspaper? What other publications are produced on campus? Do they offer any public speaking classes or opportunities?

What to Do Once You’ve Been Accepted to Your Dream College

Click here to read more

Look through the course catalog and make a list of courses that sound interesting. Read professors’ bios and research their work. Find out if there are any internships, study abroad , or summer programs that support your interests. You may also want to consider reading our essay on how to find the right college for you .

Don’t rush the writing and editing process

Give yourself plenty of time to write several drafts and to take breaks in between drafts. Being able to step away from your writing for a few days at a time can be crucial in the writing and editing process. This is because it allows you to get more perspective on your writing and your ideas. If you write this essay quickly, it probably won’t be as detailed, thorough, or nuanced as it could have been if you’d given yourself more time.

Key takeaways and moving forward

It’s important to take your time on each college application essay. Your personal statement and other supplemental essay responses will be a key admissions factor. That said, depending on your college list, you may find yourself needing to write upwards of 10 separate supplemental essays! At a certain point, you may simply run out of time. If this is the case, you may want to consider applying to one of these 40+ Colleges That Don’t Require Supplemental Essays .

In the meantime, regardless of where you are in the college application process, here at Prepory, we have the resources and expertise to help you reach all of your college-related goals. Reach out to learn more about our services and how we can help you gain admission to the college of your dreams!

• May 17, 2023
• 12th Grade , College Admissions , Misc , Personal Statement

Writing the “What Do You Want to Study and Why?” Supplemental Essay

Contact a Prepory college admissions coach and start your college admissions journey.

Our college admissions experts are here to guide you from where you are to where you should be. Through our comprehensive curriculum, individualized coaching, and online workshops, you are set for success as soon as you connect with us.

During our initial consultation, we will: 

• Assess your student’s applicant profile and higher education goals 
• Provide detailed information about our services and programming
• Share tips on how to navigate the U.S. college admissions process 

Let's get started!

Land your next great job with a Prepory career coach!

Let us help you advance your career, Identify new opportunities, participate in mock interviews, build, thrive, grow, and land your dream job.

Subscribe to our blog!

Follow us on social media

Want to get admitted to your dream school or accelerate your career?

College Admissions

Career coaching.

(929) 244-3365 [email protected] 12555 Orange Drive, Suite 100A, Davie, FL 33330

Copyright © 2023  Prepory Coaching Group LLC.  All Rights Reserved.

Ready to take the next step towards college admissions or career success?

Book your free consultation.

Nice to meet you! What's your email?

And your phone number?

Please select a consultation time.