Origins of Political Systems: A Study of Power, Law and Everyday Living - Essay Sample

Introduction

Explore the origins of political systems. Where and how do they need and desire for law and rules for behavior originate, and how and for what purposes are they incorporated into everyday living? Use examples of cultural groups/actual societies we have talked about, past or present

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

A political system can be defined as a collection of formal legal institutions and state functions that constitute a state or a government. It is made up of social groups who are in power and always seek to maintain order and rationality in a state. As already mentioned, in the millennia of humanity's existence, there have been many civilizations, each of which has had their own distinct political systems, from simple monarchies to fully flesh out democracies. The origins of political systems are then, as old as the first dynasties themselves.

The first trace of a political system was perhaps in the Uruk period, where the early dynasties of the Sumer existed. The first traces of Predynastic Egypt in 3000BC is also a proper consideration. These political systems were formed strictly around stratified chiefdoms and tribes, growing into states that honored geographical boundaries. Mesopotamia came into existence as well, with its borders stretching from the Euphrates and the Tigris to the Persian Gulf. More civilizations formed after these, the Indus Valley Civilization which reigned in modern-day Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2500BC, for one. What all these civilizations had in common was the strict adherence to boundaries. They all had legal systems that dictated their economy, social order, cultural systems, and geographical reach.

The need to formulate laws and rules of behavior come in when there is a threat of chaos due to unpreparedness. There are countless benefits to having a working political system. The most important is that political systems offer an avenue for translating support and demands for a system into authoritative allocations. These include the formation of laws to govern the state.

Describe the differences and similarities between bands, tribes, chiefdomships, and state systems, and how and where hunter/gatherers (foragers), horticulturists, agriculturists, and pastoralists fit in. Please make sure you include in your answer at least one real cultural group/society example for each of these four types of political systems.

Societies around the world have different political structures and systems that define them as people (Lewellen, 2003). Among these structures are bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states. These four are distinct from each other. Despite this, they do share some similarities across the board.

Bands are the smallest of these structures and are usually made up of families. They are egalitarian political societies that are independent (Lewellen, 2003). They do not have a centralized leader and instead follow a strict code of peers and age stratification. Hunters, gatherers, and pastoralists who subscribe to a nomadic lifestyle make up a huge number of bands (Lewellen, 2003). The Turkana of East Africa form bands that travel across the northern parts of Kenya in search of pasture for their animals.

A tribe, on the other hand, is made up of a number of smaller kin or non-kin groups linked by the culture they consider common (Lewellen, 2003). They contain larger communities as compared to bands, and they support horticulturists, agriculturists, and just like bands, pastoralists. Similar to bands, most tribes are egalitarian in nature. The Maasai tribe of East Africa is a good example of a pastoralist tribe that lives between Kenya and Tanzania.

Chiefdoms, on the other hand, are headed by chiefs. They are made up of larger communities and follow a strict social rank with the chief and those around him, namely his family, holding rank (Lewellen, 2003). This is a big difference from bands and tribes where the political structure is egalitarian in nature. Power in chiefdoms falls in the chief's household, where the son of the chief takes power after the father passes. Chiefdoms are usually made up of horticultural and sometimes pastoral communities. The Luo and Luhya communities of modern-day Kenya are staunch chiefdoms found in East Africa.

States which form the largest polities are centralized political systems that can either by sovereign or hegemonies. Unlike tribes, bands, and chiefdoms, states can be democratic or monarchies (Lewellen, 2003). They have more formalized political structures. The leaders sometimes have term positions to lead. They can also house all types of cultural groups. Many countries today are states, including countries like Nigeria, Chad, and Congo.

Compare and contrast the Torah (Jewish Law) with Sharia (Islamic Law). How do these two religious codes differ in spirit and letter, and how are they also similar? Please include in your answer a brief synopsis of how these two systems originated and the cultural context for their origins.

Torah and Sharia laws share much in common. This includes guidelines, values, and principles of how their faithful should conduct themselves (Lewellen, 2003). Sharia law also borrows a lot from Torah law in terms of narrative origin. Important figures like Moses can be found in both Jewish and Sharia laws.

Both Judaism and Islam originate from Abraham. Judaism was the first Abrahamic religion, which at the time was practiced in the wilderness of the Sinai Peninsula (Lewellen, 2003). It spread through the ages following the kingdoms of Israel and Judah at the beginning of the 1st millennium AD. In Islam, the first son of Abraham, Ishmael, is considered to be the father of Arabs, while Isaac is called the father of Hebrews. As an extension of this then, they both originate from the same lineage i.e., Abraham.

Both law systems are personal, formal casuistic, and relevant to all areas of human behavior. They also do not care for a distinction in law and religion (Lewellen, 2003). The rules of both transcend those of the state and offer not only a way to deal with fellow citizens but a way to interact with God. Both Sharia and Torah laws include prescription of harsh penalties in case an individual violates moral decrees e.g., stoning if one committed adultery.

The similarities between these two laws are as such, mainly because of their geographical proximity. Most Arab traditions, such as washing their lower parts of excreta, are mere borrowings from their Hebrew counterparts (Lewellen, 2003). Such practices persisted as even the Quran admits that some of its practices are guided by those of early Judaism.

The differences between Torah and Sharia laws are many. Jewish law recognizes an array of legal sources like several and takkanah, in its constitution (Lewellen, 2003). There are rules of equity-like lifnim mi-shurat ha-din, which are not recognized in Islamic law. Islamic law lacks appropriate tools of jurisprudence and is thus static, whereas Jewish law is dynamic and can be adapted to changing realities.

Trace the origins and development of Political Anthropology. Who were some of the early pioneers, and what were their theories? Cite some examples of fieldwork studies done where analyzing political systems was an integral part of the fieldwork. Include in your answer, a clear understanding of Structural/Functionalism.

Political Anthropology is a mixture of cultural and social studies concerned with the fieldwork-based study of politics. Its origin is in the 19th century, where Lewis H. Morgan and Sir Henry Maine, inspired by C. Darwin's evolution, were keen to formulate a chronological order of society's development over the course of history (Lewellen, 2003). Morgan and Maine mainly followed a speculative approach to their study. In 1940, a more scientific approach was taken, spearheaded by Meyer Fortes and E.E. Evans-Pritchard. To them, "a scientific study of political institutions must be inductive and comparative and aim solely at establishing and explaining the uniformities found among them and their interdependencies with other features of social organization" (Lewellen, 2003).

The underlying rules of structural functionalism under Radcliffe-Brown then became relevant in this discipline as it was firmly rooted in the study of society (Lewellen, 2003). Through Structural functionalism, there was an establishment that societies were distinct bodies that sought to keep their social order and equilibrium. Another pioneer, Edmund Leach, viewed that it was vital to understand the dynamic nature of societies through time (Lewellen, 2003). In this same spirit, the Manchester school of political anthropology, a school of thought, was established by Max Gluckman. His main focus was political system analyses and social processes. In 1960, the subdiscipline of political anthropology was born. It was canonized in print media in 1966 by Marc Swartz and Victor Turner.

Describe the Yanomami political structure. How does their system help them settle disputes, make alliances, go to war? Describe some of the methods a Yanomami chief might use to settle a dispute between members of his own village. What are some of the reasons for Yanomami aggression and violence? How is this aggression a functional part of the overall Yanomami social structure?

The Yanomami are a unique people. Their political system is un-centralized (Lewellen, 2003). They have a village head who does not inherit the seat but must earn it through a number of community-oriented feats. The village head forms the dominant political figure and is known for settling disputes amongst his tribesmen and also with their enemies and allies (Lewellen, 2003). The Yanomami are a collection of smaller units with kinship ties. They don't follow formal sanctions as their villages don't have formal leaders and instead rely on a political system based on kinship (Lewellen, 2003).

They are very violent between themselves and also towards others. They are aggressive and like to raid and fight. They believe the strong should out power the weak (Lewellen, 2003). One of the ways their heads use to solve disputes is actually by warfare and violence as they find this to be the easiest means of solving problems for them and those around them.

This aggression found among the Yanomami is seen as an integral part of their social and political structure (Lewellen, 2003). The men are very violent, and the women submissive. Raids and death are commonplace among them as they fight for natural resources, among other things.

References

Lewellen, T. (2003). Political anthropology (2nd ed., p. 276). Praeger.