Different Paradigms of Power and Politics.

A paradigm is a constellation of scientific theories, values, and methods shared by the members
of the scientific community, forging a disciplinary matrix and excluding any other theory. The
concept of a paradigm was formulated by Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions (1962).

There are four types Social theory can usefully be conceived in terms of four key
paradigms: functionalist, interpretive, radical humanist, and radical structuralism. The four
paradigms are founded upon different assumptions about the nature of social science and the
nature of society. A paradigm is a view of the world, a worldview that includes agreement on
what the basic units are, what the key problems to be explained are, and a theory to provide the
explanation. While scientists argue about paradigms in quite explicit terms, we should recognize
that we all have some worldview, about the international system as much as about the physical
world. If, in thinking about IR, the first thing that comes into your head are the nation-state,
government leaders, power, statecraft, alliances, conventional and nuclear weapons etc., you are
likely to be a realist.

If you think of trade, competition, MNCs, Microsoft, transnational interest groups, capital flows,
professional organizations and Alan Greenspan and the Secretary of Commerce rather than
Donald Rumsfeld and Condy Rice, chances are that you are a Liberal theorist. If in thinking
about issues of war and peace, you find yourself looking into the beliefs and stereotypes of
politicians, their prejudices, images of the enemy, and of operational codes (How does Henry
Kissinger think, or Slobodan Milosevic), you are implicitly subscribing to a psychological
paradigm of IR. Finally, if you think of international morality, the influence of religious and
transnational secular beliefs, of principles, ideas, norms, conventions, and international law, you
are what many have called at least until recently, an idealist. I'd like to begin to explore two
paradigms of IR – the Realist and Liberal paradigms. The Realist paradigm focuses on states in
their relations with one another. The theory is situational in that it seeks to explain outcomes and
actions of states in terms of the environment; in particular, realists like to look to shifting power
capabilities to explain international conflict and war. While realists will often appeal to second-
image variables (such as nationalism), they do so in a subsidiary way. Nationalism is always
there, realists will point out, but national passions get ignited only under certain circumstances,
and these circumstances are usually characterized by changes in the international distribution of
power. Liberal democratic theory, on the other hand, and liberal economics, look more to the
nature of the states themselves. These two paradigms prompt an important distinction in IR
theory, between unit-centered and systemic theories. Unit-centered theories look to the internal
organization of states, to the nature of key interest groups, to the form of government, to whether
national feelings are hostile, inward-looking, and exclusive or open and cosmopolitan. To a
Liberal, the fundamental problem of conflict in the Balkans today stems from the xenophobic,
hostile, illiberal nature of Serbian and Albanian one another because they are placed in a
competitive environment without the institutions to resolve conflict; this is more of a systemic
explanation.
 No Direct democracy, which is also called pure democracy is a democracy in which the
decisions are not taken by representatives. All decisions are voted on by the people. When a
budget or law needs to be passed, then the idea goes to the people. Large governments rarely
make decisions this way so democratic politics have fallen remarkably as courts increasingly
entertain first-order moving outward to the complicated role of political parties, campaign
finance, rules power sharing among specific groups in the society defined in the political science
cal uncertainty about the nature of collective decision making According to Parenti, the powerful
in society(those who control the government and the largest corporations) tend to come from
backgrounds of privilege and wealth. Their decisions tend to benefit the wealthy
disproportionately, but the power elite is not organized and conspiratorial When it comes to the
gnawing gap between the rich and poor, there is a resigned in difference. When it comes to the
gnawing gap between the rich and poor, there is a resigned indifference. ... In Pakistan the 18
million richest people's total consumption is 1.5 on non-income means to measure the level
of inequality in the society. Yawning inequality for "destructive, self-perpetrating spiral
of social. Everyone wants a "naya" Pakistan. Many dream it to be a Dubai-lookalike - a perfect
mix of east and west; others wish it to be more orderly like Singapore, where littering, daubing
graffiti, jaywalking, spitting, urinating anywhere but in a toilet are offences and come with a
penalty also because of gender inequality.