Month: June 2016

[ad_1]

Outside of the academic environment, a harsh and seemingly ever-growing debate has appeared, concerning how mass media distorts the political agenda. Few would argue with the notion that the institutions of the mass media are important to contemporary politics. In the transition to liberal democratic politics in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe the media was a key battleground. In the West, elections increasingly focus around television, with the emphasis on spin and marketing. Democratic politics places emphasis on the mass media as a site for democratic demand and the formation of "public opinion". The media are seen to empower citizens, and subject government to restraint and redress. Yet the media are not just neutral observers but are political actors themselves. The interaction of mass communication and political actors – politicians, interest groups, strategists, and others who play important roles – in the political process is apparent. Under this framework, the American political arena can be characterized as a dynamic environment in which communication, particularly journalism in all its forms, substantially influences and is influenced by it.

According to the theory of democracy, people rule. The pluralism of different political parties provides the people with "alternatives," and if and when one party loses their confidence, they can support another. The democratic principle of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" would be nice if it were all so simple. But in a medium-to-large modern state things are not quite like that. Today, several elements contribute to the shaping of the public's political discourse, including the goals and success of public relations and advertising strategies used by politically engaged individuals and the rising influence of new media technologies such as the Internet.

A naive assumption of liberal democracy is that citizens have adequate knowledge of political events. But how do citizens acquire the information and knowledge necessary for them to use their votes other than by blind guesswork? They can not possibly witness everything that is happening on the national scene, still less at the level of world events. The vast majority are not students of politics. They do not really know what is happening, and even if they did they would need guidance as to how to interpret what they knew. Since the early twentieth century this has been fulfilled through the mass media. Few today in United States can say that they do not have access to at least one form of the mass media, yet political knowledge is remarkably low. Although political information is available through the proliferation of mass media, different critics support that events are shaped and packaged, frames are constructed by politicians and news casters, and ownership influences between political actors and the media provide important short hand cues to how to interpret and understand the news.

One must not forget another interesting fact about the media. Their political influence extends far beyond newspaper reports and articles of a direct political nature, or television programs connected with current affairs that bear upon politics. In a much more subtle way, they can influence people's thought patterns by other means, like "goodwill" stories, pages dealing with entertainment and popular culture, movies, TV "soaps", "educational" programs. All these types of information form human values, concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, sense and nonsense, what is "fashionable" and "unfashionable," and what is "acceptable" and "unacceptable". These human value systems, in turn, shape people's attitude to political issues, influence how they vote and therefore determine who holds political power.

[ad_2]

Source by Jonathon Hardcastle

[ad_1]

No one likes to be judged by mere appearances. That said, we may as well say that we should not judge a candidate's worth based on which political party he belongs to. After all, being affiliated to a party has its own curses and blessings.

In the political arena of the Philippines, history tells us that there are more negative aspects than positive ones on being affiliated to a political party.

The issue of party came to my mind following the departure of Chiz Escudero, a presidential aspirant in the 2010 elections, from the Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC). Some pundits are quick to conclude that for Escudero leaving NPC he has just committed a "political suicide."

It sounds logical to say that Escudero's surprising decision was a political suicide. That is for people who surmise that winning an election depends on party affiliations. Or that one's strength is defined by a party's backing.

To my mind, political party is nothing but a nonsense group of opportunists. It is composed of fake acquaintances and pretentious friends. People are there because they want to get something out of the party, not because they want to be catalysts of the noble vision of the party.

It is difficult to recall when was the last time the Philippines truly had a genuine political party – I mean a party that really has a specific direction and a set of well-founded principles it adheres to.

Here are some existing political parties in the Philippines with names of corresponding leaders: Lakas-Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino-Christian Muslim Democrats (Gloria Arroyo); Nationalist People's Coalition (Eduardo Cojuangco Jr.); Liberal Party (Manuel Roxas II), Nacionalista Party (Manny Villar), Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Satur Ocampo); Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (Aquilino Pimentel Jr.); Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino (Erap Estrada); United Opposition (Jejomar Binay); Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (Edgardo Angara); Liberal Party (breakaway) (Lito Atienza); Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas (Norberto Gonzales); Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (Ferdinand Marcos Jr.); Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats (breakaway) (Jose de Venecia Jr.); and People's Reform Party (Miriam Defensor-Santiago). And there are nearly a hundred other regional, minor, or party-list groups whose names we only find in election forms.

We have too many parties – and it is not helping us as a nation. Whenever there is a conflict of interest within a party, we can expect that a new party (also called a breakaway party) will be formed. Thus, the number of party groups is on the rise.

More often than not, a new political party is formed by those who were left behind at the choosing of a party's official candidate in an election, not that they wanted to make a difference in our society so they established their own group.

At the national level, the emergence of new political parties is a strong sign of a widespread dissatisfaction among members of the same group. Since there is no law that prohibits the creation of a new party and we are not a two-party system country, politicians are confident that, with their money, they can always form a new party if they do not get what they want.

In the US, we do not hear of a Hilary Clinton forming a new political party because she was not nominated as the presidential standard bearer of the Democrats. It could have been a different story if Mrs. Clinton were a Filipino politician.

At the local level, it is even more difficult to talk about the essence political parties. The sad thing is that it has always been an issue of who the highest bidder is. Without a doubt, the affiliation of a local candidate to a particularly party is solely based on financial attachment. Nothing else, truth to tell.

Those who truly want to serve our people must be sustained by the patriotic principles they adhere to, not by the support of their disappearing party.

Those who are desirous to become public servants can not just be sustained by the indulgence of their political party but by the mandate of the people – for the interest of the common good

[ad_2]

Source by Stan Debohol

[ad_1]

In the work 'What Has Literature Got To Do With It' Achebe brings up a very pertinent question relating literature to creation. He asks whether 'people create stories' or 'stories create people' or rather 'stories create people create stories'. To the question whether stories would come first or people would come first is connected the myth of the creation, to which is connected the remarkable Fulani's story. ' It is a creation story about whether man came into being first or the story came first. The story goes that in the beginning there was a 'huge drop of milk. Then the milk created stone, the stone created fire; the fire created water; the water created air '. Then man was moulded by Doondari out of five elements. But man had pride. Then Doondari created blindness and blindness defeated man. The story is about creation, defeat of man through hubris and redemption of man. These stories are not just restricted to creation, but have been imbibed in the history of man, social organizations, political systems, moral attitudes, religious beliefs and even prejudices.

The Igbo political system, prevails on the absence of kings. The word 'king' is represented more by different words. In the Igobo town of Ogidi kingship gradually went out of use, because the king had to settle a lot of debts, owned by every man and woman in the kingdom. In fact one who became a king held the people in utter contempt when he organized a ritual called 'Kola-nut' where he cracked the nut between his teeth and made the people eat the cola-nut coated with the king's saliva. He was dethroned and the people became a republican. It was decided the the king should guarantee the solvency of the people. These mythical stories of kingship dwindled with the emergence of the British community when kingship merged with the British political legacy and gained new connotations.

Achebe mentions two animal stories the emergence of the British community when kingship merged with the British political legacy and gained new connotations.

Achebe mentions two animal stories which are short but complex enough to warrant them as literature. Once there was a meeting of animals, at a public square, when a fowl was spotted by his neighbours going in the opposite direction. The fowl explains that he had not gone to the meeting because of some personal matter. The fowl generously said that even though not present in body he would be present in spirit. It was decided at the meeting that a particular animal, namely the fowl would henceforth be regularly sacrificed for the Gods. And so the fowl had given its assent to be a sacrificial victim forever.

The second animal story was about a snake riding a horse. The snake could not ride very skillfully. A toad came by to show the snake horsemanship. The toad rode very skillfully, and came back and returned the horse to the snake. The snake smilingly said that it was better having than not having. He had the horse in possession. So he rode away with the horse in the same way as before.

These two stories have curious implications. The fowl story is a tale of warning to democratic citizens who do not take active participation in the democratic process. The second story has significations of class divisions. The snake is an aristocrat in a class society while a toad is a commoner with expertise whose personal effort does not matter because he does not have the necessary possessions. The snake possesses merit by birth or wealth and hence enjoys privileges whether he possesses skill or not.

The connection of these stories with literature is implicit. Literature offers scope for social transition and change. Literature can cause change in society. The king enforcing his subjects to eat the saliva covered nut is obviously an invitation to rebellion. The snake story is also a story of class division and privilege, but his seeds of revolution in it. The skilled have not may be incited to rise to rebellion by observing the undue privilege of the unskilled rich. The implication is the dissolution of an incompetent oligarchy. In fact the snake figure has been chosen because of its unattractiveness for ultimately it would become the target of revolution.

Literature is connected with social, economic and educational growth. Literature is related with the creation of human societies. Because Nigeria wants to grow as an independent nation, it needs the creative energy of national stories to support and sustain the growth of the nation.

In fact even if we look back to classical literature, it is seen that the portrayal of Achilles or Ulysses is indirectly connected to the growth of Greece as a nation. So also is the portraiture of Beowulf connected to the social, historical and national development of the Anglo Saxon society. There is a relationship between the Anglo Saxons sitting around the fire on the hearth rebelling against the cold and charting their own growth and psychoanalysis storytelling. Both have a psychological implication in them. When one tells a story to the psychoanalyst he actually tells a story. The connection between literature and psychoanalysis as Achebe puts it as 'Literature can have an important and profound positive effect as well, functioning as a kind of bountiful, nourishing matrix for a healthy, developing psyche.' Literature thus helps to counter psyche in real life helping in a discovery of the self that tables to cope with life. Literature through the symbol of the animal story connects itself with political uprisings, sociological and historical growths as well as psychoanalytic analysis of the self which helps in confronting reality and finding one's own self.

[ad_2]

Source by Anuradha Basu

[ad_1]

The French Revolution was the result of a culmination of ideas. Philosophers introduced new ideas to the literate elite. The elite put those ideas into motion. It resulted in a period of radical social upheaval and genocide that changed the course of civilization.

The mass murders and guillotining of people in the Vendee district of western France were unparalleled at the time and not to be exceeded until the genocides of the 20th century.

The French Revolution was a direct result of the philosophical period called The Enlightenment. Historians date the Enlightenment to roughly the middle decades of the 1700s. The major philosophical shift that occurred in the Enlightenment was a turning away from revelation (the Bible) as the authoritative source of absolute truth and the embrace of human reason as the source of truth. It is often called the age of reason although there was much illogic and anti-reason about it.

The Enlightenment philosophers embraced Natural Law as the principle way of understanding human relations. The philosophers believed in God but by rejecting propositional (Bible) revelation they limited themselves to revelation in nature.

Natural Law is the concept that God's laws are embedded in nature and if we just observe man in the primitive state we will see the behaviors that are universal among all people and we can enact laws based on these principles. That idea sounds practical but the way the Enlightenment philosophers pursued it was flawed from the start.

The fatal flaw of Enlightenment philosophy was that by rejecting the Bible they rejected the concept of original sin and this caused them to conclude that man is "basically good" and the reason for social vice is man's corruption by civilization. This is the myth of "The Noble Savage"

Prominent among the Enlightenment philosophers was Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Ironically he was born to a Calvinist father. His mother died when he was an infant. Calvinism is very conservative Christian theology. Rousseau apparently rejected Calvinism from an early age.

He gives details on his many extramarital affairs in his autobiography titled, "Confessions." He had five children by one mistress and he abandoned all five into a Paris orphanage. This was at a time when conditions in orphanages were such that eighty percent of the children did not live to adulthood.

Rousseau's major works were numerous and included "Discourse on the Source of Inequality," "The Social Contract" and the novel "Emile" among others.

His novel Emile is his philosophy of education expressed in the fictional story of a boy named Emile. This book got him into serious trouble because one of his characters in the novel is a priest who abandoned Christianity and embraced natural religion. The natural religion was essentially Deism which looks to nature rather than the Bible as the source of moral guidance. Emile was banned by the Parisian authorities and Rousseau was forced to leave France.

Rousseau 'writings were immensely popular and radically influenced a generation of thinkers and political leaders. Rousseau is considered one of the foremost Enlightenment philosophers yet in many ways his writings can be seen as anti-Enlightenment or postenlightenment. The Enlightenment purists confined their thinking about nature to viewing it as governed by laws of mechanics and mathematical principles. Rousseau viewed nature in a bit more of a subjective and fluid way. He did not confine himself to rigid logical reasoning.
.
Rousseau in some ways could be seen as a Romantic philosopher. Romanticism came along in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Romanticism rejected reason in favor of emotion. Its return to nature was more subjective, passionate and radical.

Rousseau died eleven years before the revolution but his writings greatly influenced the radicals who brought on the French Revolution and their attempt to remove Christianity from France. The revolutionaries took over Notre Dame Cathedral and displayed a French prostitute there as "the goddess of reason." They also abolished the seven day week and instituted a ten day week with every tenth day as a day off. Their Reign of Terror in the early 1790s was a loathsome picture of human nature that had rejected Christian morals.

Rousseau had very little influence on the American Revolution which was raging at the time of his death. The founding fathers of the United States rejected the Enlightenment notion that man is basically good. The American founders quoted the Bible far more than any other source in their writings.

The American founders believed in original sin and wrote a constitution that separated the powers of government into three branches to prevent too much power being concentrated in one individual. The French Revolution by contrast ultimately gave all power to Napoleon who went on to try to conquer Europe.

Rousseau greatly influenced Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Conservative Christian theologian RC Sproul has called Kant one of the most influential philosophers in all of world history. Kant really bridged the Enlightenment and the Romantics. Karl Marx, a political philosopher of immense and tragic influence, was also heavily influenced by Rousseau.

Rousseau's legacy was a major contribution to the philosophical optimism that asserts that man, through the advance of science and art, can perfect himself and build a perfect society on earth. This optimism continued for more than a century until it crashed on the shoals of the World Wars, Hitler's genocide and the abject failure of communism to succeed as a social experiment.

The Enlightenment rejection of the Bible has had tragic consequences that reverberate down to our own day. The Bible is God's revelation to us. In the Bible God's wisdom and truth is clearly stated. Furthermore the Bible is confirmed by more than 2,000 predictive prophecies that have been fulfilled or are being fulfilled down to our own day.

No other sacred writing of any other faith has anything to compare with the Bible's record of prophecy and fulfillment. The prophecies and their fulfillments give logical proof that the Bible is inspired by God.

The Bible gives clear guidance through commandments that lay the basis for orderly civil society. The Bible's commands regarding family life are particularly wise and essential for protection and care of children. The social chaos of western civilization today is a direct result of abandoning God's wisdom expressed in the Bible. I'm happy to say that many are returning to the Bible and receiving spiritual rebirth through Christ.

[ad_2]

Source by William Nugent

[ad_1]

"Office Politics" can be defined as using real OR perceived power and control to get what you want – be it tangible (a raise, corner office, etc.) or intangible (a promotion, visibility, influence over others) sometimes at the expense of others. This definition brings home the fact that office politics is inevitable.

What organization does not have a hierarchy of some type? What company does not have managers, supervisors, presidents, CEOs, etc. that exert some authority? 90 percent of our newsletter recipients and other respondents to a survey about the subject admitted to being aware of office politics in their organization. Many of them also admitted that they knew of conflicts in the organization caused by office politics.

4 Common Causes of Negative Office Politics

1. Scarcity of Resources – Not enough resources to go around and everyone wants to get "their share". This often causes back-stabbing and manipulation at varying degrees.

2. Extremely Competitive Work Environment – Performance not only based on production, skill or ability but mainly on "winning" from an individual perspective not an organizational one. Often work relationships are sabotaged and rampent burnout occurs due to the high level of competition.

3. An inordinate desire to advance in an organization – Wanting to advance not solely on merit but due to a need to have a "title" or certain position.

4. Abuse of power to manipulate others – Using a position of authority to manipulate others by any means.

Navigating the terrain of negative office politics can be daunting, but knowing exactly what they are truly all about at their root can give you some insight on how to respond.

[ad_2]

Source by Neca C. Smith

[ad_1]

The student community, being young and energetic, are a bundle of inflammable material, which at the touch of a spark ignites into a large uncontrollable fire like forest fire. They, being young have no patience, are lively and malleable.

In India, the trend of students actively participating in politics began in the early 20th century, when India was fighting for its freedom. The elders being busy with their bread earning, they actively encouraged the youngsters to enter the arena of politics. Besides, they were young and would be easily enthused to join the mass movement at the drop of a hat. Political parties at that time started enlisting the support of the young students who organized themselves happily, to help one party or the other. This trend started in the early years of 20th century and continued and even expanded up to date.

However, once independence was won, it was to be reconsidered if students should be allowed or couraged to enter politics. Some sections of society now started believing that students should stay away from politics and keep to their study schedules only. While the society kept debating on this issue, the politician took the younger generation as their work cum energy tanks and this participation of students in politics has come to stay.

The present scenario in India is thus a keen struggle of political parties engaged in enlisting support of students. This obviously results in the students getting sharply divided as if they were of this political party or that so much so, even the campus elections become tainted with a touch of politics.

There is of course nothing without advantages and disadvantages, so does this involvement of students in politics. There are both serious disadvantages and may be few advantages too of students being on the centre stage of politics. Disadvantages outnumber the advantages. Firstly, while the students, have primarily entered college for studies they get distracted from their prime objective and become entangled in the dirty game of politics. The energy and time they use or waster in masterminding political moves, could well be used to study. This entry of politics in the premises of educational institutions has caused many a damage to several students. Students have got rusticated owing to their active participation in politics, thus losing their hold on studies. Politics teaches students to put an end to all rules and regulations and become rowdy and violent.

This leads to closure of institutions which again take a toll of students' study time. The very innocent and loving appearance of children gets lost and they become rude, arrogant and disobedient. When there is too much of hooliganism entering into educational institutions, even police is to be called sometimes and there is utter disorder in the campus and even bullets find their way among the students. The disadvantages of students entering politics are numerous and destructive.

When we study the advantages of this system, they do exist but, are very few and hardly significant. Children entering the arena of politics learn the art of public speaking. They learn to be assertive and impressive. This medium is a good stepping stone to the art of leadership. The important and real advantage is that students in these prime years of life gain a lot of knowledge of politics which gives them training to enter the arena as trained politicians.

After studying the pros and cons of students' participation in politics, the disadvantages are more damaging than the gains acquired in the sequence. For, all the advantages students gain, can as well be achieved so in other ways also and there is no need for their entry into politics.
Students must stay away from politics and retain their interest in studies which alone can help them steer the ships of their lives.

[ad_2]

Source by Arun K

[ad_1]

It is easy to assume that all politics and peacemaking can be mutually exclusive. The truth is that there are many situations that in order to keep the peace, politics may be involved or even get in the way. Where there is a dispute of uncommon interests, whether it is to gain control, power or leadership that is politics. God teaches us on how "we should be" if we are to be His children. As human beings created by God we are asked to be images of the Father. In doing so, we bring peace to ourselves and to others.

In many organizations, there are internal conflicts, and even key leaders begin to make their case and use politics in what they hope may either bring the peace or put an end to what they believe is disrupting their peace. Vice Presidents will threaten other departments by flexing their control should those departments not do as they are told. When we discuss politics, we discuss the policies and processes that are brought up for debate. These same policies dictate the path towards peacemaking as a societal whole. But it is also important to remember that it also brings about additional conflict within the groups and hence another opportunity for peacemaking. Take a look at what took place in Ireland in 1997.

"In August of 1997, less than a month after the second cease-fire took hold in Northern Ireland, thousands of Presbyterian pastors and lay leaders gathered in Belfast to make a, historic public recommitment to peacemaking between Protestants and Roman Catholics.

Michael Cassidy, a South African evangelical influential in producing open elections and the end to apartheid in South Africa, challenged them to a new level of personal responsibility for bringing about reconciliation and tolerance. At his invitation, nearly two-thirds of the 3,000 in the audience stood up to signal their pledge to peacemaking. Earlier this year, the Anglican Church of Ireland took similar steps when its general synod voted to condemn the presence of sectarian views within their denomination and to conduct an inquiry to determine how severe the problem is "(Morgan, 1997).

Without politics they would not have taken the additional steps to really determine what the problem was and rededicate themselves towards peace. But there are other examples where politics and peacemaking are not mutually exclusive. Take the military for example. Our leaders wage war on other countries that have different political views than ours. We are sent to war using force. And only as the victor can we then define what we believe peace to be. Whose war were we fighting? Whose definition of peace were we attaining? Ours, the people, another nations?

[ad_2]

Source by Paul Resurreccion

[ad_1]

Politics professors require some of these books, while some are integrated as parts of college textbooks. Deepen your understanding of politics through these written works of prominent political figures.

1. The Federalist Papers. Written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, the Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 articles which aim to endorse the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. It is included in some college textbooks because it is considered a classic in the exposition of the Constitution.
2. Democracy in America. French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America. A book looks at the American democracy through a European man's eyes in the 1800s.
3. The Republic. Often a required as part of college textbooks on basic politics, The Republic, Plato's best known work, was written in the early 400 AD. It talks about justice, forms of government, and the characteristics of a just city-state, as well as the just man.
4. The Politics. The Politics was Aristotle's political philosophical work which regarded men as natural political animals. It discussed a range of political subjects including the community, citizenship, constitutions, and states.
5. Nichomachean Ethics. Another work by Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics is comprised of ten books, and has become an essential part of medieval philosophy. At the core, it attempts to answer the question: 'how should men best live?'
6. Leviathan. In this book, Thomas Hobbes constructed his social contract theory which questions the origin of any given society, and the legitimacy of the state's power over its citizens.
7. Animal Farm. George Orwell's novel is an allegory to the Russian revolution during the 1940s. Using farm animals as main characters, he addressed the how the revolution was corrupted by self-indulgence, ignorance, apathy, and even its own leaders.
8. Caesar's Commentaries. The Commentaries may refer to one or both of written works of Julius Caesar: Commentarii de Bello Gallico (58-50BC) and Commentarii de Bello Civili (49-48BC). The Commentaries contain Caesar's description of the battles he went through, including the intrigues he witnessed thereof.
9. Discourses on Livy. Written by Niccolo Machiavelli, the Discourses on Livy focuses on the structure and advantages of a republic. The novel is a contrast to Machiavelli's better-known work The Prince, which holds the total authority of monarchs over the people.
10. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Reflections shows intellectual opposition against the young French Revolution. Although written in the 1790 by Irish political theorist Edmund Burke, the book influenced many modern conservatives and classical liberalists who are against communism and socialism.

[ad_2]

Source by Jules Mariano

[ad_1]

To me, education is not just the matter of financial livelihood and social status, but why education is needed? Whether the provided education is authentic, what the lacks or loopholes of education are and to the final stage: would education make the absorbers immortal? These are some of the questions and rhetoric that make me view education very differently from those of my peers and even my parents and lecturers.

Law and Politics are usually confused with one another and can not be meticulously separated from each other; as we usually hear the Faculty of Law and Politics, Center for Political and Legal Tuition, Professor of Law and Politics, etc. These are the facts that initiate me an idea to bring the core difference between Law and Politics and put it on a public display. The core difference would help the student to deeper understand the subject matters.

Do you have such the wonder? If no, start to make yourself curious about the core difference between Law and Politics to initiate your mental vocation and if yes, this is an article to unveil you a unique difference between Law and Politics to make you deeply understand.

As a student of Law, newspaper columnist, expert author, media liaison officer, legal and political assistant, I have found one complete differences between Law and Politics. This difference is "the interpretation."

Most students of Law and Politics do not know that the most important theme of their education is "the interpretation." Why I dare to say this? Up to the present, we have billions of sources ranking from books and international media publication to the abstract sources, but these so-called information will not make us a true political analyst or lawyer.

What we are seeing on these sources is just "plain information", so what are these information are. If information is just all about information, University is not needed, because most of these sources are available everywhere and even free. The things that we have not found on these sources are "the interpretation" or the path to interpretational secretes. Let's now jump up to the very core of our article.

Legal interpretation must be "within": in interpreting the law, the lawyer of any party or the conflicting parties themselves can not interpret the law out of the law being enforced in the country where the trial is being heard. This may seem very vague and let us bring an example to clarify. If you commit or are accused of committing a crime in the country in which you are residing in, you or your lawyer are not entitled to interpret the law out of the laws being enforced in your residing country. To a stricter extent, the laws being used for interpretation must circumnavigate the crime that you did or are accused of committing. This case is different from "political interpretation."

Law and Politics may be equally broad, but interpretation in politics is much broader than in legal one. Have you ever noticed that a political analyst for a university in America would use approach in political interpretation by drawing examples from any country, any sources and any celebrities in the world. Political interpretation (analysis) is not as "within" as in law.

Politics is much more flexible and so much softer than law. Other merits why politics allow much broader interpretation, because we even see a huge similarities between socialist and capitalist states (similar political application), but the laws in these two separate kinds of state are totally different. I know the last one sentence is too vague for you, but let's start the legal and political interpretation.

[ad_2]

Source by Vicheka Lay