بررسي و نقد نظريه‌هاي الزام سياسي

A Critical Remark on the Theories of Political Obligation

مفاد الزام سياسي كه عبارت از تعهد اخلاقي شهروندان به رعايت قوانين و اطاعت از فرامين حكومت در قبال عضويت در جامعه سياسي است، بر اساس بنيادهاي متمايز نظري، مورد توجيه، تبيين و تحليل متفاوتي قرار مي‌گيرد. نظريه‌هاي الزام سياسي را مي‌توان در دو قسمِ نظريه‌هاي نافي الزام سياسي و نظريه‌هاي مثبِت الزام سياسي، دسته‌بندي كرد. نظريه‌هاي آنارشيستي و فلسفه تحليلي مدافع نفي الزام سياسي و نظريه‌هاي اختيارگرا، وظيفه‌گرا و غايت‌گرا، سه طيف عمده مثبِت الزام سياسي با رهيافت‌هايي متمايز مي‌باشند. اين مقاله، در صدد است تا نقد و ارزيابي هر يك از اين نظريه‌ها را مورد توجه قرار دهد.

Political obligation implying that citizens are morally obliged to comply with laws in general and obey the laws of the government under which they live in particular,for they are considered as members of a political society,is justified, explained, and analyzed on distinctive theoretical foundations. The theories of political obligation can be classified under two categories: theories that reject or negate political obligation and those that affirm political obligation. Anarchic theories and analytical philosophy maintain that there is no political obligation whatsoever and those who advocate the theories based on voluntarism, deontology, and teleology are the three mainstream theories that affirm political obligation. The latter groups have taken different approaches to the issue in question. This article seeks to take into account the criticisms and observations levelled against each of the theories on political obligation.