LIBERALISM 10 page

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 362.

Schmitter, P. C. and Lehmbruch, G. (eds), Trends Towards Corporatist Intermediation (London: Sage, 1979).

Tormey, S., Making Sense of Tyranny: Interpretations of Totalitarianism (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1995).

Verney, D. V., The Analysis of Political Systems (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1959).

-186-

Structures

This section examines concepts that stand for particular institutions or governmental bodies; these are often the component features of systems.

-187-

Structures

BICAMERALISM

Bicameralism is the fragmentation of legislative *power, established through the existence of two chambers or houses in the *parliament. Bicameral systems are usually classified according to the role, powers and composition of the ‘second' chamber or ‘upper' house. Most second chambers are constitutionally and politically subordinate to the first chamber, which is usually seen as the locus of popular *authority. This is particularly the case in *parliamentary systems in which government is generally responsible to, and drawn, largely or wholly, from the lower house. Second chambers often also exercise limited legislative power, meaning that they function essentially as ‘revising' chambers. Not uncommonly, such weaker versions of bicameralism reflect the restrictive representative basis of the upper house, which may be selected through indirect elections, partial elections, appointment or, though rarely, inheritance. A stronger version of bicameralism is found in assemblies with two popularly elected chambers that have broadly equal powers. The US Congress is perhaps the only example of a legislative that has a dominant upper chamber (although all taxation must be introduced in the House of Representatives, the Senate alone exercises ratification and confirmation powers).

Significance

Bicameralism is usually seen as a centrle principle of liberal *constitutionalism. The chief benefits of bicameralism are that second chambers can check the power of first chambers and prevent majoritarian rule; that bicameral assemblies more effectively check the power of the executive; that the existence of two chambers widens the basis of *representation and interest-articulation; that

-189-

the legislative burden of the first chamber can be relieved and legislation can be more thoroughly scrutinised; and that the second chamber can act as a constitutional safeguard, preventing or delaying the passage of controversial legislation. The representative advantages of bicameralism may be particularly important in systems in which *federalism or *devolution operate, as the second chamber can help to overcome conflict between the centre and the periphery by representing provincial or regional interests at national level.

However, there was a clear trend towards unicameralism in the post-1945 period (with second chambers being abolished in New Zealand, Denmark and Sweden). Bicameralism has been criticised for a number of reasons. Unicameral assemblies may be more efficient, because the existence of a second chamber can make the legislative process unnecessarily complex and difficult. Second chambers may act as a check on democratic rule, particularly when their members are non-elected or indirectly elected. Bicameral parliaments may be a recipe for institutional conflict in the parliament, and may make strong or effective government impossible. The existence of two, co-equal chambers may narrow access to policy-making by forcing joint committees to make decisions when there is disagreement between the chambers. Finally, second chambers may introduce a conservative political bias by upholding existing constitutional arrangements and, sometimes, the interests of social elites.

BILL OF RIGHTS

A bill of rights is a legal document that specifies the privileges, *rights and liberties of the individual. As such, it defines the relationship between the *state and the citizen and establishes the legal extent of *civil liberty. Bills of rights may either be entrenched or statutory. An entrenched bill of rights has the status of ‘higher' or constitutional law and often comprises part of a written *constitution. The first ten amendments of the US Constitution, which specify a collection of individual rights and freedoms, thus came to be known as the Bill of Rights, with the Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments subsequently being accorded the same status. Entrenched rights are binding on the legislature, can usually be introduced, amended or removed only through a complex, constitutional process, and are ultimately upheld by a supreme or

-190-

constitutional court. A statutory bill of rights has the same legal status as any other legislature-made *law and can therefore be changed through the normal legislative process. Sometimes called a statute of rights, such a bill of rights can operate in the absence of a written constitution and a constitutional court, as in the case of the Human Rights Act (1998) in the UK, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. In other cases advisory bills of rights may operate, which oblige *government formally to consider individual rights in the process of policy formulation without being bound to respect them.

Significance

Bills of rights are often considered a valuable, and perhaps essential, means of guaranteeing limited government and of protecting *freedom. Not only does a bill of rights provide the individual with a means of defence against overbearing public *authority, but it also has an educational value in heightening sensitivity towards individual rights within government, amongst the *judiciary and, most importantly, amongst the public at large. Underlying this argument is often a belief in the doctrine of *human rights, the idea that there are certain fundamental, inviolable human rights to which all human beings are entitled, and that these should enjoy the protection of both international and state law. Opponents of this view may either question the validity of the idea of human rights or suggest that rights are adequately protected by common law and, in relation to entrenched bills of rights, by statute law. Other criticisms are that bills of rights compromise the *neutrality of judges and inevitably draw them into political disputes; that rights are better left in the hands of elected politicians rather than non-elected judges; and that bills of rights legally embed ideological biases (for instance, in relation to property rights) that are difficult to remove and may precipitate conflict.

BUREAUCRACY

Bureaucracy (literally ‘rule by officials') is, in everyday language, a pejorative term meaning pointless administrative routine, or ‘red tape'. In the social sciences the concept of bureaucracy is used in a more specific and neutral sense, but refers to phenomena as different

-191-

Significance

The core function of the bureaucracy is to implement or execute *law and *policy. The broadening of the responsibilities of government has therefore been accompanied by a general increase in the size of bureaucracies across the globe. However, the political significance of the bureaucracy largely stems from its role as the chief source of policy information and advice available to governments. The principal sources of bureaucratic power therefore include the ability of civil servants to control the flow of information and thus determine what their political masters know; the logistical advantages that they enjoy as permanent and full-time public officials; and their status as experts and supposed custodians of the national interest. The growth in bureaucratic power during the twentieth century is usually explained in terms of the increased premium put upon expertise and specialist knowledge by the fact that the task of policy-making in modern societies has become increasingly complex and demanding. This has made the control of the bureaucracy an important issue in all political systems. The principal means through which this control is exerted include mechanisms of public accountability to ministers, assemblies, the courts or sometimes an ombudsman; the politicisation (either formally or informally) of senior bureaucratic posts; and the construction of counter-bureaucracies that provide politicians with alternative sources of advice.

The political role and impact of bureaucracy has been the source of considerable debate. Max Weber's (1864–1920) classic account of bureaucracy portrayed it as a reliable, efficient and, above all, rational means of social organisation that is characterised by rule-governed behaviour, an ordered hierarchy, the use of written documents and a filing system, and an impersonal authority system in which appointment and advancement are based upon professional

-192-

criteria. Socialists and particularly Marxists, on the other hand, have viewed bureaucracy as a power-bloc that can resist political control and reflects broader class interests, through either the social composition of the senior civil service or structural links between government departments and business interests. However, as communist regimes demonstrated, bureaucracy cannot be viewed as a narrowly capitalist phenomenon. Public choice theorists have interpreted bureaucracy in terms of career self-interest on the part of civil servants. In this view the growth of government intervention is essentially a manifestation of bureaucratic power and the extent to which top bureaucrats are able to resist political control.

CABINET

A cabinet is a *committee of senior ministers who represent the various government departments or ministries (it should not to be confused with cabinet, as used in France and the EU to denote groups of policy advisers who support individual ministers). In *presidential systems the cabinet usually exists to serve the *president by acting as a policy adviser rather than a policy-maker. Such cabinets function largely as an administrative tool and a ‘sounding board', but are constitutionally subordinate to the president who monopolises formal policy-making responsibility. In contrast, the cabinet, in theory at least, is the apex of the *executive in states that respect the principle of cabinet government. ‘Cabinet government' is characterised by two features. First, the cabinet constitutes the principal link between the legislative and executive branches of *government; its members are drawn from and accountable to the *parliament, but also serve as the political heads of the various government departments. Second, the cabinet is the senior executive organ and policy-making responsibility is shared within it, the *prime minister being merely ‘first' in name only. This system is usually underpinned by collective responsibility – all cabinet ministers (and sometimes non-cabinet ministers) are required to ‘sing the same song' and support official government policy.

Significance

The widespread use of cabinets reflects the political and administrative need for collective procedures within the political executive.

-193-

In the first place, cabinets enable government to present a collective face to parliaments and the public. Without a cabinet, government could appear to be a personal tool wielded by a single individual. Second, cabinets are an administrative device designed to ensure the effective co-ordination of government *policy. In short, in the absence of a cabinet, government would consist of rival bureaucratic empires each bent upon self-aggrandisement. The virtues of cabinet government are therefore that it encourages full and frank policy debate within the *democracy of a cabinet meeting, subjecting proposals to wide and effective scrutiny; and that it guarantees the unity and cohesion of government, since the cabinet makes decisions collectively, and collectively stands by them. Cabinet government has nevertheless been criticised because it acts as a cloak for prime-ministerial power by forcing dissenting ministers to support agreed government policy in public, and because it makes government policy incoherent and inconsistent, as decisions tend to be based upon compromises between competing ministers and departmental interests.

Whether or not cabinets are invested with formal policy-making responsibility, they have struggled to maintain their political role and status. This is largely a consequence of the growing prominence of the chief executive (whether a president or prime minister), resulting from the media's and particularly television's tendency to focus upon personality and image, and the need for clear policy *leadership in an era of complex and widespread government intervention and global interdependence. Cabinets have also been weakened by the increased size and importance of government departments and other agencies, meaning that policy proposals emerge pre-packaged, with meaningful debate and scrutiny having happened elsewhere. However, cabinets continue to fulfil a residual and irreducible function as a means of policy co-ordination, and, especially when they contain members with significant party or public support, or when the chief executive's *authority is weak, they may exert decisive policy influence.

COALITION

A coalition is a grouping of rival political actors brought together either through the perception of a common threat, or the recognition that their goals cannot be achieved by working separately.

-194-

Electoral coalitions are alliances through which *political parties agree not to compete against one another with a view to maximising their joint *representation. Legislative coalitions are agreements between two or more parties to support a particular bill or programme. Government coalitions are formal agreements between two or more parties that involve a cross-party distribution of ministerial portfolios. A ‘grand coalition' or ‘national government' comprises all the major parties, but they are usually formed only at times of national crisis or economic emergency.

Significance

Most debate about the political impact of coalitions centres upon the workings of government coalitions. These are usually formed to ensure majority control of the *parliament, and are therefore usually found in political systems that employ proportional representation, or which have fragmented party systems. Coalitions have been criticised on the grounds that, as they do not command a unified parliamentary majority, they result in weak and ineffective *government; that conflict between coalition partners tends to produce instability; and that they prevent the development of bold, if controversial, policy initiatives. However, coalition governments may have the advantage that they promote compromise and consensus-building across the political spectrum; that they command wide, if diverse, public support; and that they more rigorously and effectively scrutinise policy proposals. Successful coalition governments usually operate in the context of a broad ideological *consensus, in which parties act as ‘brokers' for particular interests and are accustomed to compromise and flexibility. Coalition government is often seen to be particularly appropriate to divided societies.

COMMITTEE

A committee is a small work group composed of members drawn from a larger body and charged with specific responsibilities. Whereas ad-hoc committees are set up for a particular purpose, and disbanded when that task is completed, permanent or standing committees have enduring responsibilities and an institutional role. However, the responsibilities entrusted to committees range from

-195-

formal decision-making (as in the case of some *cabinets), policy analysis and debate, to administrative co-ordination and information exchange. Not uncommonly, committees operate within a larger committee system of specialist committees, co-ordinating committees and sub-committees.

Significance

Committee structures have become increasingly prominent in legislative and executive branches of government, as deliberative and consultative forums and also as decision-making bodies. It is generally accepted that the wider and more formal use of committees has become an administrative necessity given the size and complexity of modern *government. The major advantages of committees include the following. They allow a range of views, opinions and interests to be represented; provide the opportunity for fuller, longer and more detailed debate; encourage decisions to be made more efficiently and speedily; and make possible a division of labour that encourages the accumulation of expertise and specialist knowledge. However, committees have also been criticised. For instance, they can easily be manipulated by those who set up and staff them, and they can encourage centralisation by allowing a chairperson to dominate proceedings behind a mask of consultation. Moreover, they may narrow the range of views and interests that are taken into account in decision-making, particularly as their members may become divorced from the larger body, creating a form of sham *representation.

CONSTITUTION

A constitution is, broadly, a set of rules that seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of the various institutions of *government, regulate the relationships between them, and define the relationship between the *state and the individual. Constitutions thus lay down certain meta-rules for the political system; in effect, these are rules that govern the government. Just as government establishes ordered rule in society at large, a constitution brings stability, predictability and *order to the actions of government. The most common way of classifying constitutions is to distinguish between codified and uncodified, or written and unwritten, constitutions.

-196-

Codified constitutions draw together key constitutional provisions within a single, legal document, popularly known as a ‘written' constitution or ‘the constitution'. These documents are authoritative in the sense that they constitute ‘higher' law – indeed, the highest law of the land. This, in turn, entrenches the provisions of the constitution, in that they can only be amended or abolished using a process more complicated than that employed for statute *law. Finally, the logic of the codification dictates that, as the constitution sets out the duties, powers and functions of government institutions in terms of ‘higher' law, it must be justiciable, meaning that all political bodies must be subject to the authority of the courts, and in particular a supreme or constitutional court.

Uncodified constitutions are now found in only two *liberal democracies (Israel and the UK) and a handful of non-democratic states. In the absence of a ‘written' constitution, uncodified constitutions draw upon a variety of sources (in the UK these include statute law, common law, conventions, works of authority and EU law). Laws of constitutional significance are thus not entrenched: they may be changed through the ordinary legislative process. Most importantly, this means that *sovereignty, or unchangeable legal *authority, is vested in the *parliament. The parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever, no body, including the courts, having the ability to override or set aside its laws. Alternative ways of classifying constitutions deal with the ease with which the constitution can be changed (whether it is rigid or flexible), the degree to which the constitution is observed in practice (whether it is effective, nominal or a façade constitution), or the basis of its contents (whether it is monarchical or republican, federal or unitary, or parliamentary or presidential).

Significance

Although the evolution of the British constitution is sometimes traced back to the Bill of Rights of 1689, or even the Magna Carta of 1215, it is more helpful to think of constitutions as late eighteenth-century creations. The ‘age of constitutions' was initiated by the enactment of the first ‘written' constitutions: the US Constitution in 1787 and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen in 1789. Constitutions play a number of vital roles in the workings of modern political systems. The most basic of these is

-197-

that they mark out the existence of a *state and make claims concerning its sphere of independent authority. Constitutions also establish, implicitly or explicitly, a broader set of political values, ideals and goals (in the case of ‘written' constitutions, this is usually accomplished in preambles that serve as statements of national ideals). Moreover, by serving as ‘organisational charts' or ‘institutional blueprints', constitutions introduce a measure of stability and predictability to the workings of government and enable conflicts to be resolved more speedily and efficiently.However, constitutions are chiefly valued because they are a means of constraining government and protecting *freedom. By laying down the relationship between the state and the individual, often through a *bill of rights, they mark out their respective spheres of government authority and individual liberty. Nevertheless, the mere existence of the constitution does not guarantee *constitutionalism. Constitutions are only a device of limited government when they fragment government authority and create effective checks and balances throughout the political system, and when, through whatever means, they ensure that *civil liberty is clearly defined and legally upheld.Other debates about the constitution focus upon the implications of codification. Codified or written constitutions are seen to have the following strengths:

However, codification may also have drawbacks, the most important of which include the following:

-198-

ELECTION

An election is a device for filling an office or post through choices made by a designated body of people, the electorate. Elections may nevertheless be either democratic or non-democratic. Democratic elections are conducted according to the following principles: universal adult suffrage (however ‘adult' is defined); one person one vote, one vote one value; the secret ballot; and electoral choice offered by competition between both candidates and *political parties. Non-democratic elections may therefore exhibit any of the following features: the right to vote is restricted on grounds such as property ownership, education, gender or racial origin; a system of plural voting is in operation or constituency sizes vary significantly; voters are subject to pressure or intimidation; or only a single candidate or single party can contest the election.

There are, however, a variety of democratic electoral systems. These differ in a variety of ways. Voters may be asked to choose between candidates or between parties; they may either select a single candidate, or vote preferentially, ranking the candidates they wish to support in order; the electorate may or may not be grouped into electoral units or constituencies; constituencies may return a single member or a number of members; and the level of support needed to elect a candidate may vary from a plurality (the largest single number of votes or a ‘relative' majority) to an overall or ‘absolute' majority or a quota of some kind. However, the most common way of distinguishing between electoral systems is on the basis of how they convert votes into seats.

Majoritarian systems enable larger parties to win a significantly higher proportion of seats than the proportion of votes they gain in the election. This increases the chances of a single party gaining a parliamentary majority and being able to govern on its own.

-199-

Examples of majoritarian systems include the simple plurality system (‘first-past-the-post'), the second ballot system and the alternative vote (AV). Proportional systems guarantee an equal, or at least more equal, relationship between seats and votes. In a pure system of proportional representation (PR), a party that gains 45 per cent of the votes would win exactly 45 per cent of the seats. Examples of proportional systems include the party list system, single transferable vote (STV) and the additional member system (AMS).

Significance

Elections are often seen as nothing less than *democracy in practice. The conventional view is that elections, when they are fair and competitive, are a mechanism through which politicians can be called to account and forced to introduce policies that somehow reflect public opinion. This emphasises the ‘bottom-up' functions of elections. In this view elections are the major source of political recruitment, a means of making *governments and of transferring government *power, a guarantee of *representation, and a major determinant of government *policy. On the other hand, the ‘radical' view of elections portrays them as largely a mechanism through which governments and political elites can exercise control over their populations. This view emphasises the ‘top-down' functions of elections. These are that they have the capacity to build *legitimacy for the regime, to enable the government to ‘educate' the electorate and shape public opinion, and to neutralise political discontent and opposition by channelling them in a constitutional direction. In reality, however, elections have no single character: they are neither simply mechanisms of public *accountability nor a means of ensuring political control. Like all channels of political communication, elections are a ‘two-way street' that provide the government and the people, the elite and the mass, with the opportunity to influence one another.

Much of the debate about elections centres upon the merits of different electoral systems, and in particular the choice between majoritarian and proportional systems. Majoritarian systems have the advantage that they allow governments to be formed that have a clear *mandate from the electorate. They also increase the likelihood of strong and effective government, in that a single party usually has majority control of the *parliament, and produce

-200-

stable government in that single-party governments rarely collapse through internal disunity. In contrast, proportional systems are ‘fairer' in that party representation is reliably linked to electoral support, and ensure that governments have broader and usually majority support amongst the electorate. Moreover, by increasing the likelihood of coalition government, they institutionalise checks on *power and encourage policy to be made through a process of bargaining and consensus-building. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as a ‘best' electoral system. The electoral systems debate is, at heart, a debate about the desirable nature of government, and about the respective merits of ‘representative' government and ‘effective' government. Finally, the impact of particular electoral systems will vary from *state to state, and possibly over time, depending upon factors such as the *political culture, the nature of the party system and the economic and social context within which politics is conducted.

EXECUTIVE

The executive, in its broadest sense, is the branch of *government responsible for the implementation of laws and policies made by the *parliament. The executive branch extends from the head of government, or chief executive, to the members of enforcement agencies such as the police and the military, and includes both ministers and civil servants. More commonly, the term is now used in a narrower sense to describe the smaller body of decision-makers who take overall responsibility for the direction and coordination of government policy. This core of senior figures is often called the political executive (roughly equivalent to the ‘government of the day', or, in presidential systems, ‘the administration'), as opposed to the official executive, or *bureaucracy. The term ‘core executive' is sometimes used to refer to the coordinating and arbitrating mechanisms that lie at the heart of central government and straddle the ‘political/ official' divide by including the chief executive, the *cabinet, senior officials in key government departments and the security and intelligence services, and networks of political advisers.