LIBERALISM 11 page

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 356.

However, the organisation of the political executive differs significantly depending upon whether it operates in a *parliamentary or a *presidential system of government. Parliamentary executives have the following features:

-201-

Presidential executives are characterised by the following features:

Semi-presidential executives are headed by a separately elected president who presides over a government drawn from, and accountable to, the parliament. The balance of *power between the president and the prime minister, in such circumstances, depends upon factors such as the formal powers of the presidency, which may include the ability to dissolve the parliament, and the party composition of both institutions.

Significance

The executive is the irreducible core of government. Political systems can operate without *constitutions, parliaments, *judiciaries and even *political parties, but they cannot survive without an executive branch. This is because the key function of the political

-202-

executive is to direct and control the policy process, both formulating government *policy and ensuring that it is implemented. In short, the executive is expected to ‘govern'. The political executive is looked to, in particular, to develop coherent economic and social programmes that meet the needs of complex and politically sophisticated societies, and to control the *state's various external relationships in an increasingly interdependent world. One important consequence of this has been the growth of the executive's legislative powers, and its encroachment upon the traditional responsibilities of the parliament. Other important functions of the political executive include overseeing the implementation of policy and strategic control of the bureaucratic machinery of government, the provision of leadership in the event of either domestic or international crises, and the carrying out of various ceremonial and diplomatic responsibilities in which heads of state, chief executives and, to a lesser extent, senior ministers ‘stand for' the *state. Moreover, the popularity of the political executive, more than any other part of the political system, is crucial to the character and stability of the regime as a whole. The ability of the executive to mobilise support ensures the compliance and cooperation of the general public, and, more importantly, the political executive's popularity is a crucial determinant of the *legitimacy of the broader regime.

Such is the potential power of executives that much of political development has taken the form of attempts to check or constrain them, either by forcing them to operate within a constitutional framework, or by making them accountable to a popularly elected parliament or democratic electorate. Nevertheless, as the source of political leadership, the executive's role has been greatly enhanced by the widening responsibilities of the state in both domestic and international realms, and the media's tendency to portray politics in terms of personalities. This, in turn, has led to contradictory shifts in the location of executive *power. The official executive, as the source of expertise and specialist knowledge, has been strengthened at the expense of the political executive, but, regardless of the parliamentary/presidential distinction, power has also been concentrated in the hands of the chief executive as the popular face of modern politics. However, the hopes and expectations focused upon executives may also prove to be their undoing. In many political systems, leaders are finding it increasingly difficult to ‘deliver the goods'. This is linked both to the growing complexity of modern society and to the fact that, through the impact of

-203-

*globalisation, the capacity of national governments to solve problems has declined.

GENDER

Gender refers to distinctions between males and females in terms of their social role and status. Although the terms gender and sex are often used interchangeably in everyday language, the distinction between them is crucial to social and political analysis. Gender highlights social or cultural differences between women and men, while sex denotes biological, and therefore ineradicable, differences. Gender is thus a social construct and usually operates through stereotypes of ‘femininity' and ‘masculinity'.

Significance

Gender was largely ignored by political thinkers until the re-emergence of the women's movement and the revival of *feminism in the 1960s. Since then, it has become a central concept in feminist theory and has received wider attention in mainstream political analysis. For most feminists, gender highlights the fact that biological or physical differences between women and men (‘sexual' differences) do not imply, or legitimise, their different social roles and positions (‘gender' differences). In short, the quest for gender *equality, which is basic to most forms of feminism, reflects the belief that sexual differences have no political or social significance; biology is not destiny. Radical feminists view gender divisions as the deepest and most politically significant of all social cleavages; gender is thus a ‘political' category imposed by *patriarchy and reproduced through a process of conditioning that operates mainly through the family. Gender, for radical feminists, plays the same role as *social class does in Marxist analysis, ‘sisterhood' being equivalent to ‘class consciousness'. Socialist feminists, on the other hand, argue that gender divisions are intrinsically linked to *capitalism, and therefore treat gender and class as interrelated social cleavages. Liberal feminists and mainstream political analysts understand gender divisions less in terms of structural oppression and more in terms of an unequal distribution of *rights and opportunities that prevents the full participation of women in the ‘public' realm.

-204-

From this perspective, gender politics draws attention to issues such as women's rights and the under-representation of women in *politics and in general professional and managerial positions.

HEGEMONY

Hegemony (from the Greek hegemonia, meaning ‘leader') is, in its simplest sense, the ascendancy or domination of one element of the system over others. For example, a *state which is predominant within a league, confederation or region can be said to enjoy hegemony. In Marxist theory the term is used in a more technical and specific sense. In the writings of Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937), hegemony refers to the ability of a dominant *social class to exercise *power by winning the consent of those it subjugates, as an alternative to the use of coercion. As a non-coercive form of class rule, hegemony is typically understood as a cultural or ideological process that operates through the dissemination of bourgeois values and beliefs throughout society. However, it also has a political and economic dimension: consent can be manipulated by pay increases or by political or social reform.

Significance

The idea of ideological hegemony is used by Marxist theorists as an alternative to the more conventional notion of *political culture. It is based upon Marx's (1818–83) concept of *ideology, which acknowledges that the ruling class is not only the ruling material force in society, but also its ruling intellectual force. This implies both that ideas, values and beliefs are class-specific, in the sense that they reflect the distinctive social existence of each class, and that the ideas of the ruling class enjoy a decisive advantage over those of other classes, thereby becoming the ‘ruling ideas of the age'. Capitalist societies are thus dominated by bourgeois ideology. Gramsci's Prison Notebooks ([1929 –35] 1971) drew attention to the degree to which the class system is upheld not simply by unequal economic and political power, but also the ruling class's spiritual and cultural supremacy, understood as hegemony. Bourgeois values and beliefs pervade *civil society (the *mass media, churches, youth movements, trade unions and so on), extending beyond formal learning

-205-

and education and becoming the very common sense of the age. For *socialism to be achieved, a ‘battle of ideas' therefore has to be waged through which proletarian principles, values and theories displace, or at least challenge, bourgeois ones. The main criticisms of the idea of hegemony are that it overestimates the role of ideas in *politics, amounting to a form of ‘ideologism', and that it underestimates the cultural diversity of capitalist societies that have, over time, become increasingly complex and pluralistic.

JUDICIARY

The judiciary is the branch of *government that is empowered to decide legal disputes. The central function of judges is therefore to adjudicate the meaning of *law, in the sense that they interpret or ‘construct' law. Although the role of the judiciary varies from *state to state and from system to system, the judiciary is often accorded unusual respect and is regarded as distinct from other political institutions. This is because of the supposed link between law and *justice, reflected in the capacity of judges to decide disputes in a fair and balanced fashion. Judiciaries and court systems are invariably structured in a hierarchical fashion, reflecting the different types and levels of law, allowing for an appeals process and ensuring consistency of interpretation through the overriding authority of a supreme or high court. Increasingly, however, national judiciaries are subject to the authority of supranational courts, such as the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights and the World Court.

Significance

The two chief issues concerning the judiciary are whether judges are political and whether they are policy-makers. Certain political systems make no pretence of judicial *neutrality or impartiality. For example, in orthodox communist regimes the principle of ‘socialist legality' dictated that judges interpret law in accordance with Marxism–Leninism, subject to the ideological authority of the *state's communist party. Judges thus became mere functionaries who carried out the political and ideological objectives of

-206-

the regime itself, as was demonstrated by the ‘show trials' of the 1930s in the USSR. The German courts during the Nazi period were similarly used as instruments of ideological repression and political persecution.

Liberal-democratic states, however, have emphasised the principles of judicial independence and neutrality. Judicial independence is the principle that there should be a strict separation between the judiciary and other branches of government, and is thus an application of the *separation of powers. Judicial neutrality is the principle that judges should interpret law in a way that is uncontaminated by social, political and other biases. Taken together, these principles are meant to establish a strict separation between law and *politics, and to guarantee that the rule of law is upheld. The devices used to ensure judicial objectivity range from security of tenure and the independence of the legal profession (as in the USA and the UK) to specialised professional training (as widely adopted in continental Europe). However, the image of judicial objectivity is always misleading. The judiciary is best thought of as a political, not merely a legal, institution. The main ways in which political influences intrude into judicial decision-making are through breaches in independence, often linked to the appointment system or the wider use of judges in state roles, and to the threat to neutrality that is posed by the fact that judges everywhere are socially and educationally unrepresentative of the larger society.

The image of judges as simple appliers of law has also always been a myth. Judges cannot apply the so-called ‘letter of the law', because no law, legal term or principle has a single, self-evident meaning. In practice, judges impose meaning on law through a process of ‘construction' that forces them to choose amongst a number of possible meanings or interpretations. In this sense all law is judge-made law. However, two major factors affect the degree to which judges make *policy. The first is the clarity and detail with which law is specified. Generally, broadly framed laws or constitutional principles allow greater scope for judicial interpretation. The second factor is the existence of a codified or ‘written' *constitution. The existence of such a document significantly enhances the status of the judiciary, investing it with the power of judicial review. Judicial review is the ability of the judiciary to consider and possibly invalidate laws, decrees and the actions of other branches of government if they are incompatible with the constitution. In its classical sense this implies that the judiciary is the supreme constitutional

-207-

arbiter. A more modest form of judicial review, found in uncodified constitutional systems, is restricted to the review of executive actions in the light of ordinary law, using the principle of ultra vires (beyond the powers).

MANDATE

A mandate is an instruction or command from a higher body that demands compliance. Policy mandates can be distinguished from governing mandates. A policy mandate arises from the claim on behalf of a winning party in an *election that its manifesto promises have been endorsed, giving it authority to translate these into a programme of government. This is sometimes portrayed as a ‘popular' mandate or ‘democratic' mandate. A governing mandate is, in effect, a mandate to govern. It is more flexible in that it attaches to an individual leader (in the case of a ‘personal' mandate) or to a *political party or *government, rather than a set of *policies. Whereas policy mandates bind politicians and parties and limit their freedom of manoeuvre, it is difficult to see how governing mandates in any way restrict politicians once they are in power.

Significance

The doctrine of the mandate is an important model of *representation. It holds that politicians serve their constituent not by thinking for themselves or acting as a channel to convey their views, but by remaining loyal to their party and its policies. The strength of the mandate doctrine is that it takes account of the undoubted practical importance of party labels and party policies. Moreover, it provides a means of imposing some kind of meaning upon election results, as well as a way of keeping politicians to their word. The doctrine of the mandate thus guarantees responsible party government, in that the party in power can only act within the mandate it has received from the electorate. Nevertheless, the doctrine has also stimulated fierce criticism. First, it is based upon a highly questionable model of voting behaviour, insofar as it suggests that voters select parties on the grounds of policies and issues, rather than on the basis of ‘irrational' factors such as the personality of leaders, the image of parties, habitual allegiances and social conditioning.

-208-

Second, the doctrine imposes a straitjacket upon government, in that it leaves no scope for policies to be adjusted in the light of changing circumstances. What guidance do mandates offer in the event of, say, international or economic crises? Third, the doctrine of the mandate can be applied only in the case of majoritarian electoral systems in which a single party wins power, and its use even there may appear absurd if the winning party fails to gain 50 per cent of the vote. Fourth, policy mandates are always in danger of being translated into governing mandates, which are open to clear abuse and have only a tenuous link to representation.

MARKET

A market is a system of commercial exchange which brings buyers wishing to acquire a good or service into contact with sellers offering the same for purchase. In all but the most simple markets, money is used as a convenient means of exchange rather than barter. Markets are impersonal mechanisms in that they are regulated by price fluctuations that reflect the balance of supply and demand, so-called market forces. The terms market economy and *capitalism are often used interchangeably, but market forms may also develop in other social systems (as the idea of market *socialism demonstrates), and capitalist systems themselves subject markets to a greater or lesser degree of regulation.

Significance

The market is the central organising principle within a capitalist economy. It has been applied to the organisation of some socialist societies, as well as to public services such as education and health (using the idea of ‘internal markets'). Market forms and market structures have become increasingly prominent in modern society given the failure of alternative planning arrangements, most spectacularly in the collapse of *communism in the revolutions of 1989–91, and also because *globalisation has gone hand-in-hand with marketisation. This has occurred through the market's capacity to regulate highly complex interactions amongst human beings in a way that balances dynamism against equilibrium, a capacity that appears to outstrip that of rational human agents, however well informed and technologically advanced they may be.

-209-

Nevertheless, although support, sometimes grudging, for the market now extends to many socialists, the market continues to stimulate deep political and ideological controversy. Supporters of the market argue that its advantages include the following:

Critics nevertheless point out that the market has serious disadvantages, including the following:

MASS MEDIA

The media comprises those societal institutions that are concerned with the production and distribution of all forms of knowledge, information and entertainment. The ‘mass' character of mass media is derived from the fact that the media channel communication towards a large and undifferentiated audience using relatively advanced technology. Grammatically and politically, the mass media are plural. The broadcast media, including television, radio and, increasingly, electronic forms of communications such as the internet, can be distinguished from the print media, which encompass newspapers, magazines and publishing generally. Similarly, different messages may be put out by, for instance, public and private television channels and by tabloid and broadsheet newspapers.

Significance

Interest in the political impact of the mass media burgeoned during the twentieth century, initially through the growth of the popular

-210-

press, but subsequently because of the growing penetration of television in particular throughout modern society. There can be no doubt that most political information is now disseminated by the mass media. When communication systems are subject to formal political control – as in state socialist, fascist or authoritarian regimes – the media become little more than a propaganda machine. However, there is considerable debate about its impact in liberal-democratic regimes. Some view the media's influence as broadly positive. Pluralist theorists, for instance, tend to argue that, so long as the media are independent from the *state, they serve to promote *democracy and protect *freedom by providing a forum that allows a variety of political views to be debated and discussed. Moreover, as most forms of media are privately owned and so are sensitive to market demand, the media do not impose their own views but merely reflect those of their audience, listeners or readers.

Nevertheless, both left-wing and right-wing critics have complained about media bias, stemming from the fact that all forms of communication involve the selection, prioritisation and interpretation of information. The most common version of this view, advanced especially by Marxists, regards the mass media as perhaps the key means of propagating bourgeois ideas and maintaining capitalist *hegemony. Such ideas generally highlight the political *power that flows from media ownership. An alternative version of the media bias argument holds that the mass media articulate the values of groups that are disproportionally represented amongst its senior professionals, be they left-leaning intellectuals, middle-class conservatives, or men. A more subtle, but nevertheless important form of media influence is summed up in Marshall McLuhan's famous aphorism – ‘the medium is the message'. For example, the political impact of television may be less related to its content and more linked to its tendency to privatise leisure time and reduce achievement levels in children, thereby creating a ‘post-civic' generation.

MONARCHY

A monarchy is a system of rule dominated by a single individual (it literally means ‘rule by one person'). In general usage, however, it is the institution through which the post of head of state is filled through inheritance or dynastic succession. Absolute monarchies

-211-

nevertheless differ from constitutional monarchies. Absolute monarchies are ones in which the monarch claims a monopoly of political *power; the monarch is thus literally a sovereign. The classical basis of monarchical *absolutism is the doctrine of divine right, the belief that the monarch has been chosen by God and so rules with God's *authority on earth. Constitutional monarchies are ones in which *sovereignty is vested elsewhere, and the monarch fulfils an essentially ceremonial role largely devoid of direct political significance. In some cases constitutional monarchs may carry out residual political functions, such as selecting the *prime minister, while in other cases they serve as nothing more than formal heads of state.

Significance

Absolute monarchy was the dominant form of government from the sixteenth century to the nineteenth century, but now only exists in a handful of *states, examples including Saudi Arabia, Nepal and Morocco. The dynamics of monarchical absolutism are complex, however. Although the monarch is in theory absolute, in practice power is usually shared between the monarch, economic elites (generally the landed aristocracy), and the established church, the formal source of the monarch's authority. Absolute monarchy was nevertheless unable to withstand the pressures generated by the modernisation process, meaning that when monarchy survived in developed states such as the UK, the Netherlands and Spain, it has done so in a strictly constitutional form. In the UK, although the royal prerogative is now exercised by the prime minister and other ministers accountable to Parliament, the monarch retains potentially significant political influence in her or his ability to choose a prime minister and dissolve Parliament in the event of a ‘hung' Parliament (when no party has majority control of the House of Commons).The advantages associated with the constitutional monarchy include the following:

-212-

cases it refers to political groupings, movements or parties that reject established political procedures and challenge, sometimes through *revolution, the principles upon which the political system is based.

Significance

Opposition is a vital feature of liberal-democratic government. It serves three major functions. First, it helps to ensure limited government and so protect *freedom by serving as a formal check upon the government of the day. Second, it guarantees scrutiny and oversight, improving the quality of public *policy and making government accountable for its blunders. Third, it strengthens democratic *accountability by creating a more informed electorate and offering a choice between meaningful parties of government. In addition, especially in two-party systems, parliamentary opposition ensures a smooth and immediate transfer of power because an alternative government is always available. There are, nevertheless, concerns about the effectiveness and value of constitutional opposition. Some argue that parliamentary opposition is merely tokenistic, in that, behind a façade of debate and antagonism, both government and opposition support the existing constitutional arrangements and, as long as power alternates, both benefit from them. Much opposition is therefore a parliamentary ritual that has little impact upon the content of public policy. An alternative concern is that opposition, particularly in a two-party context, may result in adversary politics, a style of politics that turns political life into an ongoing battle between major parties aimed at winning electoral support. When oppositions oppose for the sake of opposing, political debate is reduced to what has sometimes been called ‘ya-boo politics'.