A “Tit-for-Tat” Political Order

Dissecting deeper the origins of politics and governance from the 1^st journal of Francis Fukuyama, the sub-topic of “the state of nature in politics” portrays the fundamental concepts as to how and why humans are political in nature.  Politics starts when human starts to interact each other as a group and eventually show identical behaviors that may lead to the creation of norm or culture in a certain group of people.    

The journal of Fukuyama F. further elaborates the evolution of human politics reflecting from the behavior of apes considering that our human behavior is about 99% from the natural group behavior of Apes.  The empirical observation of Apes gives the Anthropological and Sociological point of understanding that humans are collective. Likewise, the findings of Richard Wrangman prove the theory of Fukuyama that Apes and humans are parallel in nature considering the collectivism behavior affecting the daily living of both humans and Apes.  Considering the Apes, the study reveals that a group of Chimpanzees from a territory attacks the Chimpanzees from another side of the jungle which gives a hypothetical question to the observer as to why both species are fighting that by physical nature they are the same but only they are living from two given places.  As a result, the study concluded that man and apes by nature creates a certain unique character, norm, and eventually culture as the given group of apes will live together through the ages.  As a result, academicians try to relate this natural study to the modern civilization that we live today.  This fundamental theory applies in different sectors of governments and the world society as a whole.  In business for example, certain demographic of customer behave relatively identical opposite to other group of customer’s behavior. 

"Agora" (An analogy of the Conflicting Philosophy and Logic between Church and State)

But Fukuyama sites religion as the main demographic in politics knowing that religion and law by history are relative in terms of morality. The reflection of moral law used in our justice system today is fundamentally reflected from the religious moral law that our forefathers are using long time ago as a simple basis of good manners.  But the philosophical argument of today in our justice system argue the concept that if we base our legal morality in our justice system of today there are specific philosophical cases that cannot be covered from the old religious concept of morality.  Political Scientist and academicians on the other hand proves the revisions of some moral and civil laws being used by our governments based from scientific and empirical studies.  But on the contrary, the result of the latest political and judiciary research in terms of morality gives conflicting concepts in terms of the religious traditions we habitually follow from then and now. As a result, politicians and government leaders around the world are in an impasse situation were Fukuyama uses the theory of the prisoner’s dilemma using the concept of Tit-for-Tat that by practice in our current national and international governance leaders may tend to adhere both religious groups and the academe to get the right legislative concepts, and moreover religious groups itself are in a conflicting views of morality in terms of their respective beliefs and traditions. Politicians on the contrary are in a political pressure in terms of the political popularity towards the respective religious groups granting that congregation means vote to their respective offices.  To consider, the population mean is higher in terms of people whose basis of their moral values came from religious background rather than people who are academically inclined in terms of moral judgment and values.

Finally, the argument between the involvement of church and state will reemerge knowing that the majority of the world judiciaries and governments are still considering the old religious values merging with the new political and civil discoveries. When can we achieve the vortex of understanding between church and state? Try to consider the analogy of the movie “Agora” I believe it will enlighten the reader’s understanding in terms of the conflicting philosophical views between the debate of government moral laws based from religious and political science logic discoveries.   On the contrary, Michael Sandel’s view of the moral limits will give also the philosophical view of morality in the modern world.  The debate will still continue but the determinants and variables involved in the given philosophical conflict are still evolving until today.

Harvard Business School Professor Michael Sandel on Justice and Moral Limits

Reference: Fukuyama, F. (2012) The Origins of Political Order (from the Prehuman Times to the French Revolution) Profile Books Ltd. London 

Share this post