LIBERALISM 9 page

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 366.

However, the workings of parliamentary government depend upon a number of other factors, notably the nature of the party system and the *political culture. Parliamentary government can, for instance, become a form of party government. This occurs when the government is formed from a single, ideologically and organisationally cohesive party, which operates on the basis of a direct

-173-

*mandate from the electorate, rather than on the basis of parliamentary *authority. Parliamentary government is also often associated with the problem of executive domination, what Lord Hailsham (1976) , in the case of the UK system, referred to as ‘elective dictatorship'. If governments have majority control and can maintain party discipline (easier in the case of single-party government) the parliament can be reduced to little more than a ‘talking shop' and its members may become mere ‘lobby fodder'. Finally, parliamentary systems have also been linked with weak government and political instability. This usually occurs when the party system is fractured, and is often associated with highly proportional electoral systems. In the French Fourth Republic (1945–58), for instance, 25 governments came and went in little over 12 years, and Italy had no fewer than 52 governments between 1945 and 1996. Parliamentary government can thus, ironically, result in either excessive executive power or excessive legislative power.

PATRIARCHY

Patriarchy literally means rule by the pater (Latin) or father, and refers to the domination of the husband–father within the family, and the subordination of his wife and his children. However, the term is usually used in the more general sense of ‘rule by men', drawing attention to the totality of oppression and exploitation to which women are subject. The use of the patriarchy thus implies that the system of male power in society at large both reflects and stems from the domination of the father in the family. This is reflected in the radical feminist slogan: ‘the personal is the political'. Kate Millett (1970) argued that patriarchy contains two principles: ‘male shall dominate female, elder male shall dominate younger male', suggesting that a patriarchal society is characterised by interlocking systems of sexual and generational oppression.

Significance

The concept of patriarchy was introduced into wider political discourse through the emergence of so-called second-wave *feminism in the 1960s. Its value is that it draws attention to the political

-174-

significance of *gender and to the political relationship between women and men. Whereas conventional *political theory treats gender relations as natural, feminist theorists, through the notion of patriarchy, view them as part of the political institution of male power. However, patriarchy is interpreted differently by different schools of feminism. For radical feminists patriarchy is a key concept, in that it emphasises that gender inequality is systematic, institutionalised and pervasive; many radical feminists argue that patriarchy is evident in all social institutions and in every society, both contemporary and historical. Patriarchy thus expresses the belief that gender divisions are deeper and more politically significant than divisions based, say, upon nationality, *social class, *race or *ethnicity. Socialist feminists, in contrast, highlight links between gender inequality and social inequality, seeing patriarchy and *capitalism as interdependent systems of domination. Liberal feminists, on the other hand, are sometimes reluctant to use the term patriarchy, on the grounds that they are less likely to prioritise gender divisions over other forms of inequality, and because they understand it in terms of the unequal distribution of *rights and entitlements, rather than systematic and institutionalised oppression. Post-feminist theorists have also argued that the advances that women have made, in developed societies at least, mean that patriarchy is no longer a useful or appropriate term, patriarchal institutions and practices having been substantially reformed.

PLURALISM

Pluralism can broadly be defined as a belief in, or commitment to, diversity or multiplicity – the existence of many things. The term, however, is complex, because it can be used in both a normative and descriptive sense (and sometimes combines descriptive observations with normative endorsements), and because it has a variety of applications. As a normative term it implies that diversity is healthy and desirable in itself, usually because it safeguards individual *freedom and promotes debate, argument and understanding. As a descriptive term it can assume a variety of forms. Political pluralism denotes the existence of electoral choice and a competitive party system. Moral pluralism refers to a multiplicity of ethical values. Cultural pluralism suggests a diversity of lifestyles and cultural norms.

-175-

Pluralism, however, is used more narrowly as a theory of the distribution of political *power. Classical pluralism holds that power is widely and evenly dispersed in society, rather than concentrated in the hands of an elite or a ruling class. In this form pluralism is usually seen as a theory of group politics, in which individuals are largely represented through their membership of organised groups, and all such groups have access to the policy process.The main assumptions of the pluralist perspective are as follows:

Reformed pluralism, or neo-pluralism, has revised classical pluralism in that it acknowledges that the distribution of power in modern societies is imperfect, elite and privileged interests persisting within a broader context of group competition. Western democracies are thus viewed as ‘deformed polyarchies' in which major corporations in particular exert disproportionate influence.

Significance

Pluralist ideas can be traced back to early liberal *political philosophy, and notably to the ideas of John Locke (1632–1704) and C.-L. Montesquieu (1689–1775). Their first systematic development, however, was in the contributions of James Madison (1751–1836) to The Federalist Papers (1787– 89), in which he advocated a system of divided government based upon the *separation of powers, *bicameralism and *federalism in order to resist majoritarianism and to provide minority interests with a guaranteed

-176-

political voice. The link between pluralism and *democracy has been emphasised by modern pluralist theorists such as Robert Dahl (1956) . Political pluralism is widely regarded as the key feature of *liberal democracy, in that it both allows electors to express independent views and gives them a mechanism through which they can remove unpopular governments. Nevertheless, pluralist thinkers generally emphasise that democracy in modern societies operates less through formal or electoral machinery and more through a constant interplay between government and organised groups or interests. In this sense pluralist democracy can be seen as an alternative to parliamentary democracy and to any form of majoritarianism. Pluralist ideas and values have in many ways been revived by the emergence of *postmodernism, which rejects all monolithic theories of society and extols the virtues of debate and *discourse.

Pluralism has also been subject to a variety of criticisms, however. As a theory of the distribution of power, pluralism has been attacked by elitists, Marxists and the *New Right. Elitists point out that many interests in society, such as the unemployed, the homeless or consumers, have no meaningful political voice because they are either unorganised or poorly organised, and that business groups which control employment and investment decisions in society are invariably dominant. Marxists, for their part, highlight the structural inequalities that flow from the system of ownership within *capitalism, and argue that the state is invariably biased in favour of business interests. The New Right's critique of pluralism draws attention to the problem of ‘pluralistic stagnation', the growth of rival group pressures upon government resulting in ‘overload', and a spiralling increase in public spending and state intervention. In many ways neo-pluralism has emerged as a response to such criticisms.

Although the spread of liberal-democratic values means that political pluralism attracts near-universal approval, the same cannot be said of moral and cultural pluralism. While liberals believe that diversity in moral and cultural life is an essential expression of *toleration, traditional conservatives have argued that it may weaken the foundations of society which relies for its stability upon shared values and a common culture. Religious fundamentalists have developed a similar attack upon Western pluralism, believing that it fosters moral relativism and is unable to provide individuals with ethical guidance.

-177-

POPULISM

Populism (from the Latin populus, meaning ‘the people') has been used to describe both a particular tradition of political thought and distinctive political movements and forms of rule. As a political tradition, populism reflects the belief that the instincts and wishes of the people provide the principal legitimate guide to political action. Movements or parties described as populist have therefore been characterised by their claim to support the common people in the face of ‘corrupt' economic or political elites. Populist politicians thus make a direct appeal to the people and claim to give expression to their deepest hopes and fears, all intermediary institutions being distrusted.

Significance

The populist political tradition can be traced back to Rousseau's (1712–78) notion of a ‘general will' as the indivisible collective interest of society. Populism thus aims to establish an unmediated link between a leader and his or her people, through which the leader gives expression to the innermost hopes and dreams of the people. Populist *leadership can be seen in its most developed form in totalitarian *dictatorships that operate through the appeal of charismatic leaders, but it can also be found in democratic systems in which leaders cultivate a personal image and ideological vision separate from and ‘above' parties, *parliaments and other government institutions. Indeed, the wider use of focus groups and the increasing sophistication of political presentation and communication, particularly linked to the activities of so-called ‘spin doctors', have provided greater impetus for populism in modern politics generally.

If populism is defended, it is on the basis that it constitutes a genuine form of *democracy, intermediate institutions tending to pervert or misrepresent the people's will. More commonly, however, populism is subject to criticism. Two main criticisms are made of it. First, populism is seen as implicitly authoritarian, on the grounds that it provides little basis for challenging the leader's claim to articulate the genuine interests of the people. Second, it debases *politics both by giving expression to the crudest hopes and fears of the masses and by leaving no scope for deliberation

-178-

and rational analysis. ‘Populist democracy' is thus the enemy of both pluralist democracy and parliamentary democracy.

PRESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT

A presidential system of government is characterised by a constitutional and political *separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government. Executive *power is thus vested in an independently elected *president who is not directly accountable to, or removable by, the assembly or *parliament.The principal features of presidential government are the following:

Presidential government can clearly be distinguished from *parliamentary government. However, there are a number of hybrid systems that combine elements of the two, notably semi-presidential systems. Semi-presidential government operates on the basis of a ‘dual

-179-

Figure 6.2 Presidential government

executive', in which a separately elected president works in conjunction with a *prime minister and cabinet drawn from and accountable to the parliament. In some cases policy-making responsibilities are divided between the president and the cabinet, ensuring that the former is largely concerned with foreign affairs whilst the latter deals primarily with domestic issues.

Significance

Presidential government is the principal alternative to parliamentary government in the liberal-democratic world. However, presidentialism is rarer than parliamentarianism. The USA is the classic example of a presidential system, and it is a model that has been adopted in many parts of Latin America. Semi-presidential systems can be found in *states such as France and Finland. The principal strength of presidential government is that, by separating legislative power from executive power, it creates internal tensions that help to protect individual *rights and liberties. This, indeed, was the intention of the so-called ‘founding fathers' of the US Constitution, who wished to prevent the presidency assuming the mantle of the British *monarchy. In the USA the danger of executive domination is protected against by the range of powers that are vested in the Congress. For instance, Congress has the right to declare war and raise taxes, the Senate may ratify treaties and confirm presidential appointments, and the two houses can combine to charge and impeach the president. Further advantages are that the president, as both head of state and head of government and as the single politician who is nationally elected, serves as a strong focus for patriotic loyalty and national unity. The dispersal of power between the executive and the legislature also allows government to be more democratic in the sense that it is responsive to competing minorities.

However, presidential systems may also be ineffective and cumbersome, because they offer an ‘invitation to struggle' to the executive and legislative branches. Critics of the US system, for example, argue that, since ‘the president proposes and Congress disposes', it is nothing more than a recipe for institutional deadlock, or ‘government gridlock'. This may be more likely when the White House (the presidency) and Capitol Hill (Congress) are controlled by rival parties, but it can also occur, as the Carter administration (1977–81) demonstrated, when both branches are controlled by

-180-

the same party. To some extent semi-presidential systems were constructed to overcome this problem. However, similar institutional tensions have been generated in France when presidents have been forced to work with prime ministers and cabinets drawn from a rival party or parties, giving rise to the phenomenon of ‘cohabitation'.

REPUBLICANISM

Republicanism refers, most simply, to a preference for a republic over a *monarchy. However, the term republic suggests not merely the absence of a monarch but, in the light of its Latin root, res publica (meaning common or collective affairs), it implies a distinctively public arena and popular rule. Republicanism has thus developed into a broader school of *political theory that advocates certain moral precepts and institutional structures. The moral concern of republicanism is expressed in a belief in civic virtue, understood to include public spiritedness, honour and *patriotism. Above all, it is linked to a stress upon public activity over private activity. The institutional focus of republicanism has, however, shifted its emphasis over time. Whereas classical republicanism was usually associated with mixed government that combined monarchical, aristocratic and democratic elements, the American and French revolutions reshaped republicanism by applying it to whole nations rather than small communities, and by endorsing the implications of modern democratic government. In its US version this means an acceptance of divided government achieved through *federalism and the *separation of powers; in its French version it is more closely associated with radical democracy and the idea of the ‘general will'.

Significance

Republican political ideas can be traced back to the ancient Roman Republic, its earliest version being Cicero's (106–43) defence of mixed government developed in The Republic. It was revived in Renaissance Italy as a model for the organisation of Italian city-states that supposedly balanced civic *freedom against political stability. Further forms of republicanism were born out of the English, American and French revolutions. The major defence of republican forms of government, particularly in their anti-monarchical form, is their emphasis upon civic freedom. Republican freedom

-181-

combines liberty in the sense of protection against arbitrary and tyrannical government with the full and active participation of citizens in public and political life. In the form of ‘civic republicanism', advocated since the 1960s particularly by communitarian thinkers, it amounts to the attempt to re-establish the public domain as the principal source of personal fulfilment, and thus rejects the tendency towards privatisation and the ‘rolling back' of the political sphere, as advocated by the *New Right. Republicanism is therefore associated with the notion of active *citizenship. The main criticisms of republicanism are that it is politically incoherent, in that it has been associated with such a wide variety of political forms, and that it is illiberal in that it rejects the idea of freedom as privacy and non-interference, and has been used to justify the expansion of government responsibilities.

REVOLUTION

The term revolution, in its earliest usage, meant cyclical change (from the verb ‘to revolve'), as in the restoration of ‘proper' political order in the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England. The French Revolution (1789), however, established the modern concept of revolution as a process of dramatic and far-reaching change, involving the destruction and replacement of old order. Revolutions, nevertheless, may have a political, social or cultural character. Political revolutions are popular uprisings involving extralegal mass actions; they are often, although not necessarily, violent in character. This distinguishes a revolution from a coup d'état, a seizure of *power by a small band. Revolutions differ from rebellions and revolts in that they bring about fundamental change, a change in the political system itself, as opposed to merely the displacement of a governing elite or a change of policy.

Social revolutions are changes in the system of ownership or the economic system; in Marxist theory they are changes in the ‘mode of production', as when *capitalism replaced feudalism and when *communism replaces capitalism. For Marxists, social revolutions are more fundamental than political ones, the latter being the political manifestation of a deeper and more long-term transformation of the class system. Cultural revolutions involve the rooting out of values, doctrines and beliefs that supported the old order, and the establishment in their place of a set of new ones. All revolutions

-182-

have a crucial cultural dimension, reflecting the fact that any stable system of rule must, to some extent, be culturally and ideologically embedded. Many political revolutions are consolidated through a conscious process of re-education to establish a new set of system-sustaining values and aspirations.

Significance

The modern world has been formed through a series of crucial revolutions. These commenced with the English Revolution of the 1640s and 1650s, which overthrew monarchical *absolutism and established early principles of *constitutionalism and *parliamentary government. The American Revolution (1776) led to the creation of a constitutional republic independent from Britain, and gave practical expression to the principle of representation. The French Revolution set out to destroy the old order under the banner of ‘liberty, equality and fraternity', advanced democratic ideals and sparked an ‘age of revolution' in early nineteenth-century Europe. The Russian Revolution (1917), the first ‘communist' revolution, provided a model for many of the subsequent twentieth-century revolutions, including the Chinese Revolution (1949), the Cuban Revolution (1959), the Vietnamese Revolution (1972) and the Nicaraguan Revolution (1979).

Debate about revolutions centres upon their causes and their consequences. Amongst the general theories of revolutions are the following. The Marxist theory of revolution holds that they are essentially social phenomena that arise out of contradictions which exist in all class societies. Systems theorists argue that revolution results from ‘disequilibrium' in the political system, brought about by economic, social, cultural or international changes to which the system itself is incapable of responding – the ‘outputs' of government become structurally out of line with the ‘inputs'. The idea of a ‘revolution of rising expectations' suggests that revolutions occur when a period of economic and social development is abruptly reversed, creating a widening gap between popular expectations and the capabilities of government. The social-structural explanation implies that regimes usually succumb to revolution when, through international weakness and/or domestic ineffectiveness, they lose the ability, or the political will, to maintain control through the exercise of coercive power.

-183-

The consequences of revolution also cause deep disagreement. Revolutionaries themselves argue that revolution is by its nature a popular phenomenon, the unleashing of naked democratic pressure. They also tend to portray revolution as a purifying and ennobling struggle, a rooting-out of corruption, injustice and oppression; for this reason revolutionary movements usually subscribed to some form of *utopianism. Critics of revolution, however, point out that revolutions in practice invariably fail to live up to the high ideals of their perpetrators. This occurs for a variety of reasons. These include that, despite the image of popular revolt, revolutions are invariably brought about by small cliques which are typically unwilling to relinquish their newly won power; that any regime that is established through the use of force and violence is compelled to continue using them and is thus forced down the road of *authoritarianism; and that revolutions dismantle or crucially weaken institutions and governmental structures, leaving revolutionary leaders with potentially unchecked power.

TOTALITARIANISM

Totalitarianism is an all-encompassing system of political rule that is typically established by pervasive ideological manipulation and open terror and brutality. Totalitarianism differs from both autocracy and *authoritarianism, in that it seeks ‘total power' through the politicisation of every aspect of social and personal existence. Totalitarianism thus implies the outright abolition of *civil society: the abolition of ‘the private'. Friedrich and Brzezinski (1966) defined totalitarianism in terms of a six-point ‘syndrome of interrelated traits and characteristics':

Significance

The phenomenon of totalitarianism is usually believed to have arisen in the twentieth century, pervasive ideological manipulation and

-184-

systematic terror requiring the resources of a modern industrialised *state. The idea of totalitarianism originated in fascist Italy as a belief in the state as an all-consuming ‘ethical community' that reflects the altruism and mutual sympathy of its members. This was developed into the doctrine: ‘everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state'. The term was subsequently adopted to describe the perhaps uniquely oppressive character of twentieth-century *dictatorships, in particular Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR. Totalitarian analysis achieved greatest prominence in the 1950s and 1960s, when it was widely used to highlight totalitarian parallels between *fascism and *communism, and to divide the world into rival democratic (liberal democratic) and totalitarian states.

However, the totalitarian classification has a number of drawbacks. First, it became part of Cold War ideology and was used as a sometimes crude form of anti-communist propaganda. Second, it tended to obscure important differences between fascism and communism, particularly in relation to their ideological orientation and the degree to which they tolerated *capitalism. Third, the idea of ‘total' state power is misleading because some form of resistance or *opposition always persists, even in the most technologically advanced and brutal of states. Nevertheless, even though the apparent precision of the six-point syndrome is misleading, the concept of totalitarianism is useful in highlighting distinctions between modern and traditional dictatorships and in drawing attention to the importance of charismatic leadership. The latter consideration has given rise to the idea of ‘totalitarian democracy', the phenomenon whereby a leader justifies his unchecked power through a claim to possess a monopoly of ideological wisdom and to articulate the ‘true' interests of his people. A very different theory of totalitarianism was advanced by Herbert Marcuse (1964) , who identified totalitarian tendencies in advanced industrial societies, viewing them as ‘one-dimensional societies' in which rising affluence helps to subdue argument and debate and absorb all forms of opposition.

FURTHER READING

Beetham, D. (ed.), Defining and Measuring Democracy (London: Sage, 1994).

Birch, A. H., Representative and Responsible Government: An Essay on the British Constitution (London: Allen and Unwin, 1964).

-185-

Bottomore, T., Elites and Society (London: Routledge, 1993).

Bottomore, T., Theories of Modern Capitalism (London: Allen & Unwin, 1985).

Calvert, P., Revolution and Counter-Revolution (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1990).

Friedrich, C. J. and Brzezinski, Z. (eds), Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966).

Holden, B., Understanding Liberal Democracy (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993).

Lijphart, A., Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977).

McLennan, G., Pluralism (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1995).

Millett, K., Sexual Politics (London: Virago, 1970).

Pettit, P., Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).

Pinkney, R., Right-Wing Military Government (London: Pinter, 1990).

Saunders, P., Capitalism: A Social Audit (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1995).