LIBERALISM 8 page

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 398.

Significance

Capitalist economic forms first emerged in seventeenth-century and eighteenth-century Europe, developing from within predominantly feudal societies. Capitalist practices initially took root in the form of commercial agriculture that was orientated towards the *market, and increasingly relied upon waged labour instead of bonded serfs. Developed or industrial capitalism started to emerge from the

-160-

mid-nineteenth century onwards, first in the UK but soon in the USA and across Europe, with the advent of machine-based factory production and the gradual shift of populations from the land to the expanding towns and cities. Having defied socialist predictions about its inevitable demise, and withstood the twentieth-century ideological battle against *communism, capitalism has, since the Eastern European Revolutions of 1989–91, emerged as a global system without serious rivals. The dual secrets of its success have been its flexibility, which has enabled it to absorb non-capitalist ‘impurities' and adapt to a variety of cultures, and its seemingly relentless capacity to generate technological development, which has enabled it to deliver widespread, if uneven, prosperity.

Few issues have polarised political debate so effectively as capitalism; indeed, the *left/right ideological divide is commonly interpreted as a battle between anti-capitalist and pro-capitalist positions. Three broad stances have been adopted in relation to capitalism. The first, taken up by fundamentalist socialists, rejects capitalism out of hand on the grounds that it amounts to a system of mass exploitation. Karl Marx (1818–83) was undoubtedly the foremost exponent of this view, arguing that capitalism, like all other class societies, is doomed because it is based upon a fundamental contradiction between oppressors (the bourgeoisie) and the oppressed (the proletariat). The second stance, adopted in different ways by parliamentary socialists, modern liberals and paternalist conservatives, can be summed up in the assertion that capitalism is a good servant but a bad master. This view accepts that capitalism is the most reliable, perhaps only reliable, mechanism for generating wealth, but emphasises that unregulated capitalism is chronically unstable and prone to high unemployment and wide material inequalities. Associated with the ideas of J. M. Keynes (1883–1946), this perspective suggests that the issue is not so much capitalism but how and to what extent the capitalist system should be reformed or ‘humanised'. The third stance, adopted by classical liberals, the *New Right and, in its most extreme form, by anarcho-capitalists, is that capitalism is a self-regulating mechanism and should therefore be encumbered as little as possible by external controls, an idea summed up in the principle of laissez-faire, literally meaning ‘leave to do'. The earliest and most influential exponent of this view was Adam Smith (1723–90), who argued that the market is regulated by ‘an invisible hand' and so tends towards long-run equilibrium.

-161-

COLLECTIVISATION

Collectivisation is a system in which *property is owned and controlled by a collective body, usually through the mechanism of the *state. Collectivisation is therefore a comprehensive form of nationalisation, in that it brings the entirety of economic life, and not merely selected industries, under state control. Collectivised economies are organised on the basis of planning rather than the *market, and therefore seek to allocate resources on a rational basis in accordance with clearly defined goals.

Significance

The best examples of collectivisation were found in orthodox communist states, such as the USSR, which operated a system of central planning. Collectivisation was introduced in the USSR under Stalin through a series of Five Year Plans, the first of which was announced in 1928. All Soviet enterprises – factories, farms, shops and so on – were set planning targets, ultimately by Gosplan (the State Planning Committee), and these were administered by a collection of powerful economic ministries. The attraction of collectivisation was that it promised to achieve an important range of socialist goals, notably to gear the economy to the wider needs of society, as opposed to private profit, and to ensure that material inequalities were abolished or substantially reduced. However, collectivisation effectively collapsed with the Eastern European Revolutions of 1989–91 and, where communism survived, as in China and Cuba, it did so in part by abandoning collectivisation. The major criticisms of collectivisation are that it is inherently inefficient because it is not orientated around profit and allows little scope for material incentives, and that it is implicitly totalitarian because state control of the economy is a fundamental threat to *civil society, the absence of economic freedom imposing an inevitable threat to political freedom.

CONSOCIATIONALISM

Consociationalism is a form of *government that contrasts with the majoritarianism of Westminster-style systems and is particularly suited to the needs of divided or plural societies. Lijphart (1977)

-162-

identified two major features of what he called ‘consociational democracy'. The first is executive power-sharing, usually through a grand coalition that represents all significant segments of society, although in *presidential systems this may be accomplished through the distribution of other high offices. The second is that the various segments of society enjoy a large measure of autonomy, guaranteed, for instance, by territorial divisions such as *federalism or *devolution. Two more minor features may also be present. These are, first, representative mechanisms that ensure proportionality and guarantee that minorities have a political voice, and second, a minority veto to prevent the vital interests of small sections of society being violated by the will of the majority.

Significance

Consociationalism has been widely practised, particularly in continental Europe since 1945. Examples include Austria in the 1945–66 period, Belgium since 1918, Netherlands and Luxembourg in the 1917–67 period, and, in certain respects, modern-day Israel and Canada. The conditions that particularly favour consociationalism are the existence of a relatively small number (ideally between three and five) of roughly equal-sized and geographically concentrated segments; a disposition to seek national *consensus based upon overarching loyalties; the absence of major socio-economic inequalities; and a relatively small total population.

The strength of consociationalism is that it offers an institutional solution to the problems of divided societies that is both stable and democratic. This it achieves by balancing compromise against *autonomy: matters of common or national concern are decided jointly by representatives of all key segments, whilst allowing the segments the greatest possible independence in relation to other concerns. Two main criticisms have been advanced of consociationalism. First, the combination of conditions that favour it is so complex that it is appropriate only to very particular societies, and for limited periods of time. In other words, it may not be a solution that is suitable for all divided societies. Second, consociationalism has been criticised as being inherently unstable, its emphasis upon power-sharing and the protection of minority interests having the potential to create an arena for struggle amongst rival segments rather than the basis for compromise.

-163-

CORPORATISM

Corporatism, in its broader sense, is a means of incorporating organised interests into the processes of *government. The core bases of corporatism are therefore a recognition of the political significance of functional or socio-economic divisions in society, and the notion that these divisions can be reconciled through institutions that aim to map out a higher national interest. However, there are two faces of corporatism: authoritarian corporatism and liberal corporatism. Authoritarian corporatism (sometimes termed state corporatism) is an *ideology or economic form closely associated with Italian *fascism. It set out to establish what Mussolini called a ‘corporate state', which claimed to embody the organic unity of Italian society but, in practice, operated through the political intimidation of industry and the destruction of independent trade unions. Liberal corporatism (sometimes termed ‘societal' corporatism or neo-corporatism) refers to the tendency found in mature *liberal democracies for organised interests to be granted privileged and institutionalised access to policy formulation. The mechanisms through which this form of group politics is achieved vary considerably, as does the degree of integration between groups and government. In contrast to its authoritarian variant, liberal corporatism is often viewed as a ‘bottom-up' form of corporatism that strengthens groups in relation to government, not the other way round.

Significance

The idea of corporatism originated in Mussolini's Italy and was associated with a fascist version of Catholic social theory. This emphasised the importance of groups rather than individuals and stressed the need for social balance or harmony. In practice, however, fascist corporatism amounted to little more than a means through which the Mussolini state could exercise control over the Italian economy. Attempts to export this authoritarian model of corporatism to Salazar's Portugal or to post-1964 Brazil, Mexico and Peru proved to be similarly short-lived and unsuccessful, at least in terms of promoting economic growth.

Liberal corporatism, on the other hand, proved to be politically much more significant, especially in the early post-1945

-164-

period. Some commentators regard corporatism as a state-specific phenomenon, shaped by particular historical and political circumstances. They thus associated it with countries such as Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands and, to some extent, Germany and Japan in which the government has customarily practised a form of economic management. Others, however, view corporatism as a general phenomenon that stems from tendencies implicit in economic and social development, and therefore believe that it is manifest, in some form or other, in all advanced industrial societies. From this perspective, corporatist tendencies may merely reflect the symbiotic relationship that exists between groups and government. Groups seek ‘insider' status because it gives them access to policy formulation, which enables them better to defend the interests of their members. Government, for its part, needs groups both as a source of knowledge and information and because the compliance of major economic interests is essential if *policy is to be workable. Supporters of corporatism have thus argued that a close relationship between groups and government facilitates both social stability and economic development.

However, the general drift towards corporatism in advanced capitalist states has been reversed since the 1970s, with corporatist ideas and structures being subject to growing criticism. Concerns about corporatism have been many and various. It has been criticised for narrowing the basis of representation by leading to a form of tripartitism that binds together government, business and the unions but leaves consumer and promotional groups out in the cold and restricts institutionalised access to so-called ‘peak' associations. A second problem is that the distinction between liberal and authoritarian corporatism may be more apparent than real, in that the price that group leaders pay for privileged access to government is a willingness to deliver the compliance of their members. Thirdly, corporatism may weaken the formal processes of representation by allowing decisions to be made outside the reach of democratic control and through a process of bargaining that is in no way subject to political scrutiny. Finally, New Right theorists argue that corporatism is responsible for the problem of government ‘overload', in which government is effectively ‘captured' by consulted groups and is unable to resist their demands. Corporatism thus fuels interventionism, which, in turn, stifles competition and the natural vigour of the *market.

-165-

DICTATORSHIP

A dictatorship is, strictly, a form of rule in which absolute *power is vested in a single individual; in this sense dictatorship is synonymous with autocracy. Originally, the term was associated with the unrestricted emergency powers granted to a supreme magistrate in the early Roman Republic, which created a form of constitutional dictatorship. In the modern usage of the term, however, dictators are seen as being above the *law and acting beyond constitutional constraints. More generally, dictatorship is characterised by the arbitrary and unchecked exercise of power, as in the ideas of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat', ‘military dictatorship' and ‘personal dictatorship'. A distinction is sometimes drawn between traditional dictatorships and totalitarian dictatorships. Traditional dictatorships aim to monopolise government power and conform to the principles of *authoritarianism. Totalitarian dictatorships seek ‘total power' and extend political control to all aspects of social and personal existence.

Significance

Dictators have been found throughout political history. Classic examples include Sula, Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar in Rome, Cromwell after the dissolution of Parliament in 1653, Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon III and Bismarck in the nineteenth century, and in the twentieth century Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein. Although all dictators depend upon fear and operate through the control of coercive power, the modern phenomenon of dictatorship is often linked to charismatic leadership and the idea that the leader in some way embodies the destiny or ‘general will' of the people. Totalitarian dictatorships may thus masquerade as ‘perfect democracies' and enjoy a significant measure of popular support based, crucially, upon strict control of the means of mass communication. However, the personal aspect of dictatorship should not be over-emphasised, as most modern dictatorships are usually military dictatorships or operate through a monopolistic party. In these cases unrestrained power is vested in the armed forces or the party–state apparatus (or a combination of the two), with leadership sometimes being shared amongst a group of people, the classic example of which is the military junta. There is evidence,

-166-

nevertheless, that dictatorship as the principal alternative to *democracy is of declining significance. Its impact upon the twentieth century was linked to the, now largely spent, ideological forces of *fascism and *communism, meaning that dictatorship is now mainly a developing-world phenomenon. The glaring moral defect of dictatorship is its link to repression and tyranny; its major structural defect is its inability to generate or deal with the pressures generated by social and economic development.

ELITISM

The term elite originally meant, and can still mean, the highest, the best or the excellent. Used in a neutral or empirical sense, however, it refers to a minority in whose hands *power, wealth or privilege is concentrated, justifiably or otherwise. Elitism is a belief in, or practice of, rule by an elite or minority. At least three forms of elitism can exist. Normative elitism is a political theory that suggests that elite rule is desirable, usually on the grounds that power should be vested in the hands of a wise or enlightened minority (in this sense, elitism could be regarded as a value or even an ideology). This implies that *democracy is undesirable, and is, for example, evident in Plato's (427–347 BCE) belief in rule by a class of benign philosopher-kings. Classical elitism claimed to be empirical (although normative beliefs often intruded), and saw elite rule as being inevitable, an unchangeable fact of social existence. This implies that egalitarian ideas such as democracy and *socialism are impossible. The chief exponents of this view were Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923), Gaetano Mosca (1857–1941) and Robert Michels (1876–1936). Modern elitism has also developed an empirical analysis, but it is more critical and discriminating about the causes of elite rule, usually linking these to particular economic and political structures rather than the inevitable structure of society. Modern elitists, such as C. Wright Mills (1916 – 62) have often been concerned to highlight elite rule in the hope of both explaining and challenging it. What is called variously ‘pluralist', ‘competitive' or ‘democratic' elitism is a development within modern elitism that acknowledges that modern elites are typically fractured or divided rather than unified and coherent, and that rivalry amongst elites can, to some extent, ensure that non-elite groups are given a political voice.

-167-

Significance

Normative elitism has largely been abandoned given the advance of democratic values and practices, although representative democracy can be seen to embody residual elitist assumptions, in that it ensures that government decisions are made by educated and well-informed professional politicians rather than by the public directly. Classical elitism has had a considerable impact upon social and *political theory, being used, amongst other things, to reject the Marxist idea of a classless, communist society. Mosca argued that the resources or attributes that are necessary for rule are always unequally distributed, and that a cohesive minority will always be able to manipulate and control the masses, even in a parliamentary democracy. Pareto linked elite rule to two psychological types: ‘foxes', who rule by cunning and manipulation, and ‘lions', who dominate through coercion and violence. Michels developed what he termed the ‘iron law of oligarchy', the idea that in all organisations power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of leaders. However, such arguments have been criticised for generalising on the basis of assumptions about *human nature or organisation, and because they are difficult to reconcile with modern democratic practices.

Modern elitism nevertheless offers an important critique of both *pluralism and democracy. The democratic elitism of Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950) offered a ‘realistic' model of democracy, which emphasises that although elections can decide which elite rules, they cannot change the fact that power is always exercised by an elite. This gave rise to the ‘economic theory of democracy', which applies *rational choice theories to *politics by treating electoral competition as a political market. The ‘power elite' model advanced by theorists such as Mills (1956) departed from Marxism insofar as it rejected the idea of an economically defined ‘ruling class', but nevertheless drew attention to the disproportionate influence of the military–industrial complex. Attempts to provide empirical support for elite theory have been provided by a variety of community power studies. However, although it is still influential in the USA in particular, the elitist position has its drawbacks. These include that it is less theoretically sophisticated than, say, *Marxism or pluralism, and that empirical evidence to sustain elitist conclusions, especially about the distribution of power at national level, is as yet unconvincing.

-168-

LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

Liberal democracy is a form of democratic rule that balances the principle of limited *government against the ideal of popular *consent. Its ‘liberal' features are reflected in a network of internal and external checks upon government that are designed to guarantee liberty and afford citizens protection against the *state. Its ‘democratic' character is based upon a system of regular and competitive elections, conducted on the basis of universal suffrage and political *equality. Although it may be used to describe a political principle, the term liberal democracy more commonly describes a particular type of regime.The core features of a liberal-democratic regime are the following:

Significance

Liberal democracy is the dominant political force found in the developed world, and increasingly in the developing world. Indeed, the collapse of *communism and the advance of ‘democratisation' (usually understood to imply liberal-democratic reforms, that is, electoral democracy and economic liberalisation) in Asia, Latin America and Africa, especially during the 1980s, led ‘end of history' theorists such as Francis Fukuyama (1989) to proclaim the worldwide triumph of Western liberal democracy. In Fukuyama's view, liberal democracy is ‘the final form of human government'. The remarkable success of liberal democracy stems from two chief factors. First, liberal democratic systems are highly responsive, in

-169-

that they establish a number of channels of communication between government and the governed. Second, because liberal democracy invariably goes hand-in-hand with *capitalism, it is associated with widespread consumer prosperity. Liberal-democratic theorists point out that it is the only political system that is capable of delivering both political *freedom and economic opportunity, and that liberal-democratic processes are sufficiently responsive and robust to articulate the concerns of all significant sections of society. Amongst the strongest advocates of liberal democracy have been pluralist theorists, who praise its capacity to ensure a wide distribution of political power amongst competing groups.

Nevertheless, liberal democracy does not command universal approval or respect. Its principal critics have been elitists, Marxists, radical democrats and feminists. Elitists have drawn attention to the capacity of electoral democracy to replace one elite with another, but not challenge the fact of elite rule. From this perspective, the principle of political *equality and the process of electoral competition upon which liberal democracy is founded are nothing more than a sham. The traditional Marxist critique of liberal democracy has focused upon the inherent contradiction between democracy and capitalism. The egalitarianism of political democracy merely masks a reality of unequal class power; the dominant economic class ‘rules' democratic governments through its control of wealth and other resources. Radical democrats object to the limited and non-participatory character of liberal democracy, pointing out that the act of voting every few years is a poor manifestation of popular rule and no means of securing genuine *accountability. Feminists, for their part, have drawn attention to the patriarchal character of liberal-democratic systems that apply democracy only to traditionally male realms such as government and the *state, whilst ignoring the structures of male power that traditionally operate through the family and domestic life.

MILITARISM

The term militarism can be used in two ways. First, it refers to the achievement of ends by the use of military force. Any attempt to solve problems by military means can be described as militarism in this sense. Second, and more commonly, militarism is a cultural and ideological phenomenon in which military priorities, ideals and

-170-

values come to pervade the larger society. This typically includes the glorification of the armed forces, a heightened sense of national *patriotism, the recognition of war as a legitimate instrument of *policy, and an atavistic belief in heroism and self-sacrifice. In some cases, but not all, militarism is characterised by the abuse by the military of its legitimate functions, and its usurpation of responsibilities normally ascribed to civilian politicians.

Significance

Militarism, in it cultural or ideological sense, is a common feature of military regimes and totalitarian *dictatorships. The defining feature of military rule is that members of the armed forces displace civilian politicians, meaning that the leading posts of government are filled on the basis of the person's position within the military chain of command. However, military rule may take a variety of forms, including collective military government, classically in the form of a military junta (from the Spanish junta, meaning ‘council' or ‘board'), a military dictatorship dominated by a single individual (for example, Colonel Papadopoulis in Greece, 1974–80, General Pinochet in Chile, 1973 –90, and General Abacha in Nigeria, 1993–98), and situations in which the armed forces ‘pull the strings' behind the scenes whilst allowing civilian political leaders to retain formal positions of power.

In such circumstances militarism is a direct means of legitimising the military's control of political life. In the case of totalitarian dictatorships, charismatic leaders such as Mussolini, Hitler and Saddam Hussein have used militarism in more subtle ways to consolidate power. By wearing military uniforms, associating themselves with the armed forces and using martial and militaristic rhetoric, they have attempted to imbue their regimes and societies with military values such as discipline, obedience and a heightened sense of collective purpose, usually linked to chauvinist *nationalism. However, militarism as a mechanism of regime consolidation is likely to be effective only in a context of war or intensifying international conflict, as is demonstrated by the fact that militarism is invariably accompanied by terroristic policing and widespread repression. Marxists have sometimes highlighted a link between militarism, in the limited sense of a disposition towards war and the use of military means, and *capitalism, on the grounds that

-171-

only high levels of defence spending, justified by the regular use of the military, ensure that domestic demand is buoyant and that profit levels remain high.

PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT

A parliamentary system of government is one in which the *government governs in and through the *parliament or assembly, thereby ‘fusing' the legislative and executive branches. Although they are formally distinct, the parliament and the *executive (usually seen as the government) are bound together in a way that violates the doctrine of the *separation of powers, setting parliamentary systems of government clearly apart from *presidential government.The chief features of a parliamentary system are as follows:

Figure 6.1 Parliamentary government

-172-

Significance

Most *liberal democracies have adopted some form of parliamentary government. These are often seen as ‘Westminster model' systems of government, in that they are based upon the example of the UK Parliament, sometimes portrayed as the ‘mother of parliaments'. However, the full ‘Westminster model' also relies upon features such as a two-party system, parliamentary *sovereignty and collective *responsibility that may be absent in other parliamentary systems, such as those in Germany, Sweden, India, Japan, New Zealand and Australia. The chief strength of parliamentary government is that it supposedly delivers strong but responsible government. Government is strong in that it rests upon the confidence of the parliament and so can, in most cases, ensure that its legislative programme is passed. In short, governments can get things done. However, responsible government is maintained because the government can govern only as long as it retains the confidence of the parliament. In theory the parliament has the upper hand because it has a power it does not possess in a presidential system: the ability to remove the government or executive. Moreover, parliamentary government is often seen to promote *democracy, parliamentary democracy being a form of responsible and representative government in which the parliament plays a vital deliberative role as a forum for national debate, constituting a popular check upon government.