EPIK Journals Online
Politics of Community Building (Vol. 1 Iss. 01)
Politics of Community Building
Author: Philip Do Youn Kim, University College London
Released Date: August 2010
Abstract:
Building a stable community has been and still is the leitmotiv of modern politics but individuals have diverse opinions as to how and what should be achieved when building a community. This paper will seek to elucidate essential conditions which are necessary for community building.
The first part of this paper will clarify the meaning of the terms ‘community’ and ‘community building’ and give minimal definitions to these terms to understand the subject matter. After this, a common ground in all arguments related to community building is determined for analytical focus. The second part of this paper will consider the concept of the rule of law which is an essential foundation of a political system. There are two main theories – the formal and the substantive theories of the rule of law and this part will reach a conclusion as to which theory should be adopted for community building. The final part of this paper will establish common goals that politics should seek to achieve when building a community and will propose Finnis’ objective goods as those goals.
Full Context: PDF [원문보기]
Key Words: Community, Community Building, Rule of Law, Formal and Substantive Concepts of the Rule of Law, Peck, Finnis, Objective Goods, Politics, Rules, Adjudication
A New Conservatism: As a Community Building Ideology
2010 EPIK Young Leaders Essay Competition Award-Winning Work (2nd Prize)
Author: Shin Woo Kang, University of Oxford
Released Date: August 2010
Introduction:
In May this year, the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom made history by forming a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats. Of course, given the indecisive election results that returned a hung parliament, the Conservatives’ choice may be dismissed as that of political expediency. Yet to brush off the British Conservatives’ handshake with their traditional rival as purely an act of desperation would be to miss the big picture.
For there has been a noticeable shift in the way political conservatism is debated, understood and practiced. David Cameron, since his rise to the UK Conservative party leadership in 2005, has taken every opportunity to reinvent his party from the old Thatcherism of the previous century. Ditching the traditional torch of freedom and hugging an oak tree is one such example, perhaps Cameron’ symbolic answer to Tony Blair’s Clause IV Moment.
Much of it, no doubt, has been shrewd re-branding for Cameron himself and his party. Nevertheless, there seems to be an important sense in which the recent developments have been a concerted campaign to reclaim the post-ideological political landscape, hitherto dominated by the ‘Third Way’ politics of the New Labour in the United Kingdom. Indeed, for those who study political ideas, there is something profoundly puzzling about a conservative party leader who speaks more about the quality of life and climate change than freedom and market economy, and sings from the same hymn sheet with a centre-left social liberal party.
The curious case of Britain, however, is just one illustration of an interesting insight of global relevance. Conservatism, one of the oldest of political ideologies, has been an indispensible part of political discourse in almost every nation across different political systems and contexts. What the British example shows is how conservatism needs constant readjustment and sometimes even radical redefinition to prevent it from degenerating into a merely reactionary opposition to any and every change.
This point is particularly relevant for young democracies such as South Korea where the short history of democracy makes it difficult for conservatives to see themselves as subscribing to an evolutionary, not a stationary, school of thought. Conservatism should not be misunderstood, as appears to be the case in Korea, as an anachronistic and dogmatic emphasis on security and free market economy. For too long, such confusions about conservatism have had unconstructive consequences on domestic politics as well as international policy matters.
Hence the primary objective of this paper is to contribute to the redefinition of conservatism for the twenty-first century. In particular, my thesis is that a new understanding of conservatism should place a restored emphasis on the notion of fraternity as respect and care for community. I would like to argue that such conception of the conservative ideology is capable of discussing the most critical challenges of the day in a pragmatic light.
My discussion comes in two parts. First, I offer a theoretical reinterpretation of conservatism as an ideology of fraternity. This is an attempt, albeit in brevity, to bring some lucidity to what conservatism stands to conserve; drawing from some of the common beliefs held by conservatives, I argue that fraternity is the proper desideratum of conservatism.
Second, I make tentative suggestions as to how a conservatism based on fraternity may address some of the most important challenges of our time. Briefly deliberating on topics such as social integration, sustainable growth, and national identity, my aim is not to proffer a political manifesto, but to demonstrate how a new language of conservatism may offer a more consensual and forward-looking framework. I note that, throughout my discussion, I draw from British politics and relate to South Korean politics whenever appropriate. Yet my subject is conservatism as a community-building ideology of universal relevance.
Full Context: PDF [원문보기]
Key Words: Conservatism, Fraternity, New Right, Tradition, Human Imperfection, Organic Entity, Compassionate Conservatism, Environment, National Identity