“A Revolutionist is not the kind of man who becomes a Pope, and that man who becomes the Pope has no wish to be a revolutionist” -AV Dicey Arvind Kejriwal is neither a revolutionary nor is a he a Pope. Yet his influence is as mesmerizing as either of the two. Kejriwal rode to a sweeping victory in the Delhi elections with a record margin of 67/70 assembly seats. No mean feat for a party in just its fourth year of existence. Actually, if viewed in the prevailing context, it’s a remarkable feat considering that the party was facing major crises post it’s previous government debacle and the massive infighting threatening to derail its election chances. So, how then did the AAP win so handsomely? The answer is a no-brainer but the interesting part is how it was achieved. How one man could mold the mindset of a collective to ring in “change”. How one man, despite obstacles both internal and external, was able to defend his position and defeat the more experienced and well-oiled political machinations. This is the story of Arvind Kejriwal- The Brand that India has loved to consume. …show more content…
STP analysis is one of the first exercises a company performs before launching a product. That the Aam Aadmi party is the medium of politics for the brand Kejriwal must be set in place. Kejriwal segmented the masses into well-defined voter groups such as women, rickshaw drivers, conservancy workers, etc. The common thread uniting these groups was the attribute of them being the “Aam Aadmi” and more importantly the “dukhi aadmi”. He carefully crafted a targeting strategy for each of these segments. While housewives were troubled by rising food and commodity prices, women in Delhi were harassed by safety issues and the middle and lower income groups were facing the wrath of electricity politics and water shortage. Kejriwal championed all these causes deftly under the umbrella slogan
Elected in 1958 as a ‘caretaker Pope’, Pope John XXIII implemented the greatest reforms in the Church’s history. His involvement within the Church had played a significant contribution to the reforming of social, political and liturgical Christian traditions. During the early twentieth century, the Catholic Church still held the century old conservative beliefs and traditions as they continued to separate the Church from the secular world, therefore, disadvantaging the Church to a world that was modernising. In addition to this, the Church restricted modernist thoughts due to the belief that new theologies would threaten the power and authority of the Church, but ...
He institution (the authorities) keeps correct doctrines and teach them to people when they are young, and nonconformists are silenced. When the doctrines change, the individuals don’t recognize it because it happens very slowly. Peirce argues that “this is the main and the best method to govern the masses, and especially theological and political doctrines are uphold by this method (i.e. we have a totalitarian system). It leads to peace, although slowly, and in the cost of individual freedom. It is also incomplete method, because everything cannot be regulated, but only the main opinions, and there will always exist dissident
middle of paper ... ... You don’t have a revolution in which you love your enemy, and you don’t have a revolution in which you are begging the system of exploitation to integrate you into it. Revolutions overturn the systems. Revolutions destroy the systems.”
In the end, although they come from two very different ends of the spectrum, free will and the secular state are places of common ground for Machiavelli and Luther, which is supported by their similar views of human nature and the order of how things should be. It is interesting that when each of their viewpoints is applied to the Catholic Church, it reveals a very different view of the Catholic Church; although Machiavelli would view it positively and Luther negatively, the juxtaposition truly emphasizes the success of Machiavelli's strategies. Although Luther's work did have an impact on the Church, it still continues to thrive. It is interesting that for two authors who have many similar views there would be a serious conflict in this area.
...ery discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow.” This reason means that he went to all these churches, and they all preached different things about God. That what they preached they would follow it even if not true.
... help herself) Napoleon is a timeless example of an enlightened despot. The bible still has not fully recovered from the rationality of his church. His codified law system is still active in France and the great state of Louisiana. Mankind today clutches desperately at his social ideologies. Though a modern thinker may say the only thing that keeps Napoleon from being enlightened is lack of democracy, the writer sitting in this chair thinks that the only thing that keeps democracy from being Napoleon is enlightenment. Had Napoleon been born merely fifty years earlier he may have been a trendsetter of the enlightenment. Or he might have been a fisherman. Regardless, Napoleon was a child of the enlightenment and not a parent. He followed the ideas presented by that period with such strategy and genius, people are still writing papers about it. (By choice?)
Through the years from the medieval ages up until now, the Roman Catholic Church has always had a major influential presence in all walks of life for European people, whether it was for taxation, the establishing of laws, the rise and fall of monarchs, and even daily social life. Furthermore, the Catholic Church held such power that they could even appoint and dispose of great kings with just the writing of the pen. However, their power started to wane once human curiosity overcome ignorance and blind obedience. For example, the Enlightenment Age brought a series of shocking blows to the Church’s power such as disproving the Church’s theory of geocentricism and presented an age of questioning and secularism. In essence, by looking at the Church’s
“To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom…” (2.8).
Machiavelli is undisputedly one of the most influential political philosophers of all time. In The Prince, his most well-known work, he relates clearly and precisely how a decisive, intelligent man can gain and maintain power in a region. This work is revolutionary because it flies in the face of the Christian morality which let the Roman Catholic Church hold onto Europe for centuries. Machiavelli's work not only ignores the medieval world's ethics: The Prince suggests actions which oppose the four most basic of Christianity's Ten Commandments.
Religion and human nature combined tend to create a superiority complex among those who perceive themselves as having better, or more, faith. Religion is generally perceived as singular, but humans choose to dynamically express their faith, whether that be by love or war. Gandhi, depicted the movie Gandhi directed by Richard Attenborough, in the face of Muslims protesting Hindus, declared: “I am a Muslim and a Hindu and a Christian and a Jew and so are all of you,” and that perception of himself and others influenced a mass ethnic and religious revolution that enlightened India. Gandhi opened the world to revolutionary ideas -- the strength in tolerance, the pluralism in religion, and the unification of all mankind.
A. “The Church in the Age of Enlightenment and Revolution”. Verbal Conscience. March 2012. Web. The Web.
Proving to be the paramount of the conflict between faith and reason, the European Enlightenment of the eighteenth century challenged each of the traditional values of that age. Europeans were changing, but Europe’s institutions were not keeping pace with that change.1 Throughout that time period, the most influential and conservative institution of Europe, the Roman Catholic Church, was forced into direct confrontation with these changing ideals. The Church continued to insist that it was the only source of truth and that all who lived beyond its bounds were damned; it was painfully apparent to any reasonably educated person, however, that the majority of the world’s population were not Christians.2 In the wake of witch hunts, imperial conquest, and an intellectual revolution, the Roman Catholic Church found itself threatened by change on all fronts.3 The significant role that the Church played during the Enlightenment was ultimately challenged by the populace’s refusal to abide by religious intolerance, the power of the aristocracy and Absolutism, and the rising popularity of champions of reform and print culture, the philosophes, who shared a general opposition to the Roman Catholic Church.
At the beginning of the sixteenth century church theologian, Martin Luther, wrote the 95 Theses questioning the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church. In this essay I will discuss: the practices of the Roman Catholic Church Martin Luther wanted to reform, what Martin’s specific criticism of the pope was, and the current practices Pope Francis I is interested in refining in the Roman Catholic Church today.
The contemporary Church is so often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is so often the arch-supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the Church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the Church's silent and often vocal sanction of things as they are.”
“When a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of the Kings, he need not wonder, that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven (Paine