قدرت تمامیت خواه و رابطه آن با مسولیت مطلق: گفتاری فلسفی و نگرشی اجتماعی به حقوق سیاسی
Is total power equal to total responsibility? In the context of family organizations and governments
Perhaps, the relationship between power and responsibility is a mostly controversial debate where politicians and lawmakers are standing to make an approach or design a conceptual structure reshaping all social elements as requested from them or obliged to do by the necessities of the real life of individuals and the nature of their society as a whole. Consequently, this content has been expanded into all fields of human life including international phenomena, interior governing styles, the management of families as well as today’s personal mindsets. Then, a practical adjudication depends upon analyzing the boundaries between power and responsibility. It will provide a significant spur to further research as an introductory subject assisting academics with structuring an encouraging political culture of “good governance”. The breath and complexity of the issue is tightly interwoven with both philosophy and the history of science. Finally, power is blended with responsibility inseparably. Therefore, the deep and current suspicious about dictatorship which is threatening the outlook of “good governance” is offering authors to intervene against power without any responsibility. Conversely, no one is allowed constitutionally to judge those who do not have any authorities or different kinds of power. Whereas all proponents and others agree with a predictable chaos if no tightened ring is preserved between power and responsibility, they are suffering from many critical attitudes about the scale and model of facing them. The main question is whether total power means total responsibility.
To have responsibility is defined as to be in a position of authority over someone and to have a duty to make certain that particular elements are done. On the other hand, power is defined as ability to control people and events. Responsibility is categorized as a word nominated ‘duty’ often ‘a duty of care’. It means those held responsible have a duty to carry out their duties responsibly. The key concept to this discussion is how leaders exercise authority, because responsibility should be taken into account as a two-way street. A cultivated brain will challenge current theories about to what extent responsible players has liability. The reason of this question is the roles of others in the occurrence of events or the speed of the development.
While the majority of people think the role of schools is fundamental about their children’s destination, other players or factors affect their lives vastly. Nonetheless, the education is a long term process. It is not possible to be restricted to a special period or even players. Therefore, they are seriously overlooking the vital role of social media, for example, to shape pupils’ lives. To approve, whereas the supervision and treatment services for juveniles has been programmed fully and performed precisely in New York State’s high schools, a serious increasing trend presenting the huge scale of perversion in 16-year-old students has been observed officially. Hence, parents not only must expect teachers to preserve their children, it is a must to ask their state’s officials who are obliged to observe and perform any controlling programs to limit social media as well. Although educational officers and teachers are fully authorized persons, others like governments, civil societies as well as NGOs are fully responsible to notify them of ongoing problems endangering their future. Nonetheless, parents and other members of student’s families are undoubtedly in charge with their shortcomings about preserving pupils and educating them in relation to their problems which they are facing including perversion, sexual harassments or other kinds of crimes. In conclusion, people are responsible like their states similarly, while both of them can assert total power to control their children’s atmosphere.
In the field of constitutional law, when we hold those with responsibility accountable for their actions and decisions the states and their players are acknowledged directly. It results in recognizing their fully power as a principal rule: “The principle of non-intervention”. It means the interior power across national border is not limited to anything. In addition, the prohibition of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state are acceptable legally (Article 2.4 of the UN Charter). All international instruments of human rights and humanitarian rules define such a must as an instrumental and categorical need. It is likely to acknowledge a state’s action or decision as a kind of threatening behavior against international security, if it includes the breach of this rule. Meanwhile, the “responsibility to protect” notion (R2P) is applicable internationally by any governor who does not have any legal authorized action approved already by UN Security Council. The right of access to information belongs to everyone. In principle, every person has the right to request access to information held by the State. This right is accepted by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights established expressly the rights to seek and receive information as components of freedom of expression. It is ruled by many international and regional conventions and treaties. Therefore, legally and internationally, states are fully responsible to prepare all kinds of infrastructure to achieve this right. Hence, citizens have a right to criticize their states about to what extent this right are objectively guaranteed. Conversely, if their states are unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out preapproved strategies or rules or even to make legal decisions or regulations to protect this right, other players constitutionally are authorized to act. There is no legal evidence to defend the idea supporting a horizontal duty between the states and other players. They play roles in a parallel path. For example, Media, newspapers and TVs are accounted in private sectors. They have no governmental budget. They have been organized to play in non-governmental zones. Therefore, they are private. In the social conscience, they are fully responsible to perform all abilities and capabilities in order to prepare a safe and secure line for information requested or needed by citizens. A simple search on Africa shows some serious actions developing this right. While Liberia, specifically, was the first country in Africa to adopt an access to information law in 2020, this movement was not successful completely. Due to the fact that private players like NGOs and civil societies have not been ready yet to move in a parallel path with their governments. In addition, people cannot understand this necessity culturally. Irrespective of the fact that over 60 percent of Liberians do not believe in the right and do not know in a real concept about its impact on their lives. Their priority is defined on the right of life including food, home, health and so on. Whereas after Liberia, some countries in West Africa followed Liberia, namely Benin and Burkina-Faso. In addition, they have full power to protect people against being on the verge of damages, if they have an entire access to public information. On the other hand, law and sociology colleges and faculties are fully responsible to perform their functions resulting in educating players including lawyers, judges, advocates, law makers and other thinkers who are able to guarantee these rights in their actions or decisions. In conclusion, states, private sectors and universities are responsible, while each of them is not only in charge of the lack of action or decision.
To sum up, there are some examples presenting different kinds of power and responsibilities expected from states, private sectors or even citizens. The above points are obviously present that all players have their power as long as they have their liabilities. It is not accepted at all to decline only responsibility or power. Hence, both of them are acknowledged in a parallel way. Of course, it is not possible to define that total power means total responsibility as well. If not, this is a legal trick to ignore others’ responsibilities. It is an illegal approach to allow all players to escape from their duties, because they do not have full power authorization.