I am thinking about authors like Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, as well as current debates about e.g. negative and positive freedom or liberal and republican notions of freedom. Are there political parties or political leaders that take those ideas and work with them?

Edit: I don't really see how I should edit this, as none of the suggestions Joseph made really fit my question. However, here are some possible answers that would help me:

There is this interview with political figure xy who says that his conception of freedom is much inspired, or even identical to, the liberal notion of negative freedom, as proposed by e.g. Ian Carter and Matthew Cramer.

Or: There is this government, or big governmental institution, that formulated some laws according to the capability-approach of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. Or Rawls for that matter.

The names really don't matter here. I am interested in persons, institutions, parties etc. who base their decisions/laws/ideologies/whatever on contemporary political philosophy (so Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau et al don't count).

  • 2
    The question is really broad; is there any chance I might be able to persuade you to focus on some particular problem you're encountering in your study of these authors? What exactly are you looking for someone here to explain to you (in a few paragraphs)? What hypotheses have you formed and what has your research uncovered so far? – Joseph Weissman Feb 4 '14 at 19:31
  • As a first thought, my answer is tenuous, but I agree with @JosephWeissman – virmaior Feb 5 '14 at 1:27
  • Rawls wrote A Theory of Justice during the throes of the Civil Rights movement; suffice to say there's a dialogue between political philosophy and politics "proper". At any rate it's not particularly clear to me exactly what you're looking for someone to explain to you here -- or what sort of research you've done so far -- or what problems you're encountering in your study of philosophy that might be motivating the question... – Joseph Weissman Feb 6 '14 at 13:32
  • 1
    I am not looking for an explanation, but for an example or a list of evidence that suggest that there is a relation what so ever from contemporary political philosophy to politics. The motivation behind my question is this: Why spent so many hours researching and writing, if noone reads it and adapts it. And it can be solved by pointing towards examples of people, who confess to read contemporary political philosophy and act accordingly, adapt their concepts, and transfer contemporary political philosophy into political action. – Lukas Feb 6 '14 at 16:07
  • 1
    I already formulated token answers, so I don't know what your problem with this question is. And it doesn't boil down to 'why theory' because I see that Locke and Hobbes found their way into politics. The question is: Have the people living today, thinking about contemporary political philosophy, any influence on politics? And I stated this quite often now in the course of my question and this comment section. – Lukas Feb 9 '14 at 17:15

Here is a quote from a book on political theory which touches on many of the points you refer to: a (successful) political leader who works on a basis of theory (clarified by the author in retrospect); issues of freedom. The quote is from "Group Psychology & Political Theory" (1994) by C. Fred Alford. The quoted section can be read on page 164 here on Google Books.

Note: Václav Havel "was voted 4th in Prospect magazine's 2005 global poll of the world's top 100 intellectuals." - Wikipedia

Though Havel did not succeed in holding the federation together, its separation has been a velvet one-—at least compared to the situation in former Yugoslavia—-and not a little of the credit belongs to the former president.

  1. "I assume you did not propose me for this office so that I, too, would lie to you." [10] Probably nothing is more important than this as far as good leadership is concerned, because it helps citizens and members integrate their split perceptions of the good and bad leader. They need not agree with the leader. They must know where he stands and have confidence that where he says he stands is where he actually stands. Havel's trustworthiness stems, of course, not just from his words, though they ring of truth, but from his life, his willingness to "live in truth," as he calls it, at great personal cost for many years.

  2. "Our country is not flourishing." Contrast this statement with that of former President Bush in his 1992 acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, where he states that presidents (actually, presidential candidates) should not say bad things about their country-—in this case, that the standard of living in the United States has fallen behind that of its economic competitors. Especially interesting is the "personal observation" that accompanies Havel's statement. He recently flew over Bratislava and was appalled at the ugliness and pollution. That is, he simply stood back and looked. "This view was enough for me to understand that for decades our statesmen and political leaders did not look or did not want to look out of the windows of their airplanes." No one does, and no one wants to, which is why leaders must.

  3. "The worst thing is that we live in a contaminated moral environment. We fell mortally ill because we became used to saying something different from what we thought. We learned not to believe in anything." The illness stems from within, not without. We have ourselves to blame, the way we split ourselves off from reality. "We have to accept this legacy as a sin we committed against ourselves. If we accept it as such, we will understand that it is up to us all, and up to us only, to do something about it. We cannot blame the previous rulers for everything." Paranoid projection, scapegoating, the sacrifice of failed leaders, the discovery of new enemies: all this is contained, rather than encouraged, by Havel.

  4. But if the responsibility stems from within, so too will the solution. "Freedom and democracy include participation and therefore responsibility from us all." ...

Note 10. Václav Havel, "New Year's Address," in Open Letters: Selected Writings, 1965-1990, ed. Paul Wilson (New York: Vintage Books, 1992), pp. 390-396.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.