LIBERALISM 13 page

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 388.

-226-

and sense of distinctiveness, usually by focusing upon their origins and descent.

Significance

The link between race and *politics was first established by the European *racialism of the nineteenth century. This preached doctrines of racial superiority/inferiority and racial segregation, in the twentieth century mixing with *fascism to produce *Nazism, and helping to fuel right-wing nationalist or anti-immigration movements. The central idea behind such movements is that only a racially or ethnically unified society can be cohesive and successful, multiculturalism and multiracialism always being sources of conflict and instability. Very different forms of racial or ethnic politics have developed out of the struggle against *colonialism in particular and as a result of racial discrimination and disadvantage in general. However, the conjunction of racial and social disadvantage has generated various styles of political activism.

These range from civil-rights movements, such as that led in the USA in the 1960s by Martin Luther King, to militant and revolutionary movements, such as the Black Power movement and the Black Moslems (now the Nation of Islam) in the USA, and the struggle of the African National Congress (ANC) against apartheid in South Africa up to 1994. Ethnic politics, however, has become a more generalised phenomenon in the post-1945 period, associated with forms of *nationalism that are based upon ethnic consciousness and regional identity. This has been evident in the strengthening of centrifugal tendencies in *states such as the UK, Belgium and Italy, and has been manifest in the rise of particularist nationalism. In the former USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, it led to state collapse and the creation of a series of new *nation-states. The two main forces fuelling such developments are uneven patterns of social development in so-called ‘core' and ‘peripheral' parts of the world, and the weakening of forms of ‘civic' nationalism resulting from the impact of *globalisation.

REFERENDUM

A referendum is a vote in which the electorate can express a view on a particular issue of public *policy. It differs from an *election in

-227-

that the latter is essentially a means of filling a public office and does not provide a direct or reliable method of influencing the content of policy. The referendum is therefore a device of direct *democracy. However, it is typically used not to replace representative institutions, but to supplement them. Referendums may either be advisory or binding; they may also raise issues for discussion, or be used to decide or confirm policy questions (propositions or plebiscites). Whereas most referendums are called by the government, initiatives (used especially in Switzerland and California) are placed on the ballot through some form of popular petition.

Significance

The use of the referendum can be traced back to sixteenth-century Switzerland. However, referendums have always had a dual character. On the one hand, they are a form of popular government in that they give expression to ‘bottom-up' pressures within the political system. On the other hand, they have been used as ‘top-down' instruments of political control. This was clearest in the case of Hitler and other 1930s dictators, who used plebiscites as a means of legitimising *dictatorship, but it has also applied to democratic politicians who wish to neutralise opposition within representative institutions.The wider use of referendums is supported for a number of reasons, including the following:

On the other hand, referendums have been associated with the following disadvantages and dangers:

-228-

SEPARATION OF POWERS

The separation of powers is a doctrine that proposes that the three chief functions of *government (legislation, execution and adjudication) should be entrusted to separate branches of government (the legislature, the *executive and the *judiciary, respectively). In its formal sense the separation of powers demands independence, in that there should be no overlap of personnel between the branches. However, it also implies interdependence, in the form of shared powers to ensure that there are checks and balances. The

-229-

Figure 7.1 Separation of power

separation of powers is applied most strictly in *presidential systems of government, as in the USA, where it is the basis of the *constitution, but the principle is respected in some form in all *liberal democracies, notably in the principle of judicial independence. A full separation of powers requires the existence of a written constitution to define the formal powers and responsibilities of each of the branches of government.

Significance

The principle of the separation of power can be found in the writings of Locke (1632–1704) but was more fully elaborated by Montesquieu (1689–1775). The separation of powers is one of the classic means of fragmenting government *power in order to defend liberty and keep tyranny at bay. An important feature of liberal *constitutionalism, its advantages are that it both cuts the power of any branch of government down to size and establishes a network of internal tensions that ensure that the exercise of power is never unchecked. This is evident in Richard Neustadt's (1980) description of the US system as ‘separated institutions sharing powers'. However, few liberal democracies operate on the basis of a strict separation of powers. Its major drawback is that it offers an ‘invitation to struggle' to the executive and legislative branches of government. It may therefore be nothing more than a recipe for institutional conflict, or ‘government gridlock'. From this point of view it is a device which may suit only large and highly differentiated societies such as the USA, in which political stability requires that competing groups and interests have a wide variety of access points to government. Elsewhere, institutionalised links have been forged between the legislature and executive through *parliamentary systems or hybrid semi-presidential systems.

SOCIAL CLASS

A social class is, broadly, a group of people who share a similar social and economic position. For Marxists, class is linked to economic power, which is defined by the individual's relationship to the means of production. From this perspective, class divisions are

-230-

divisions between capital and labour, that is, between the owners of productive wealth (the bourgeoisie) and those who live off the sale of their labour power (the proletariat). Non-Marxist definitions of class are usually based upon income and status differences between occupational groups. The most common notion of occupational class distinguishes between ‘middle' class, white-collar (or non-manual) workers and ‘working' class, blue-collar (or manual) workers. A more sophisticated marketing-based distinction, used, with variations, by sociologists and political scientists, is made between higher professionals (class A), professionals (B), clerical workers (C1), skilled manual workers (C2), semi-skilled and unskilled workers (D), and those who are unemployed, unavailable for work or unable to work (E).

Significance

The leading proponents of the theory of class politics have been Marxists. Marxists regard social class as the most fundamental, and politically the most significant, social division. In Marx's (1818–83) view, classes are the key actors on the political stage, and they have the ability to make history. The proletariat was destined to be the ‘grave digger' of *capitalism. It would fulfil this destiny once it had achieved ‘class consciousness' and became aware of its genuine class interests, thus recognising the fact of its own exploitation. The proletariat would therefore be transformed from a ‘class in-itself ‘ (an economically defined category) to a ‘class for-itself ‘ (a revolutionary force). This, Marx believed, would be a consequence of the deepening crisis of capitalism and the declining material conditions, or immiseration, of the working class. The Marxist two-class model has, however, been discredited by the failure of Marx's predictions to materialise, and by declining evidence of class struggle, at least in advanced capitalist societies. Modern Marxists have attempted to refine the crude two-class model, while still emphasising the importance of wealth ownership, accepting, for instance, that an ‘intermediate' class of managers and technicians has emerged, and that there are internal divisions within both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

The decline in class politics is usually linked to the emergence of a post-industrial society, a society no longer dependent upon manufacturing industry, but more reliant upon knowledge and

-231-

communication. The solidaristic class culture that was rooted in clear political loyalties and, usually, strong union organisation has thus been displaced by more individualistic and instrumentalist attitudes. For some this is reflected in a transition from a ‘Fordist' to a ‘post-Fordist' era, from a system of mass production and mass consumption to one characterised by social and political fragmentation. One aspect of this has been the phenomenon of class de-alignment, the weakening of the relationship between social class and party support, evident in the UK, the USA and elsewhere since the 1970s. Another aspect is growing political interest in the so-called ‘underclass', those who suffer from multiple deprivation (unemployment or low pay, poor housing, inadequate education and so on) and are socially marginalised – ‘the excluded'. However, whereas left-wing commentators define the underclass in terms of structural disadvantage and the changing balance of the global economy, right-wing commentators tend to explain the emergence of the underclass largely in terms of welfare dependency and personal inadequacy.

SOCIAL MOVEMENT

A social movement is a particular form of collective behaviour in which the motive to act springs largely from the attitudes and aspirations of members, typically acting within a loose organisational framework. Being part of a social movement requires a level of commitment and political activism, rather than formal or card-carrying membership; above all, movements move. A movement is different from spontaneous mass action (such as an uprising or rebellion) in that it implies a measure of intended or planned action in pursuit of a recognised social goal. Not uncommonly, social movements embrace *pressure groups and may even spawn *political parties; trade unions and socialist parties, for instance, can be seen as part of a broader labour movement. So-called new social movements – the women's movement, the ecological or green movement, the peace movement, and so on – differ from more traditional social movements in three respects. First, they typically attract support from the young, the better-educated and the relatively affluent, rather than the oppressed or disadvantaged. Second, they usually have a post-material orientation, being more concerned with ‘quality of life' issues than with material

-232-

advancement. Third, while traditional movements had little in common and seldom worked in tandem, new social movements subscribe to a common, if not always clearly defined, set of *New Left values and beliefs.

Significance

Social movements can be traced back to the early nineteenth century. The earliest were the labour movement, which campaigned for improved conditions for the growing working class, various nationalist movements, usually struggling for independence from multinational European empires, and, in central Europe in particular, a Catholic movement that fought for emancipation through the granting of legal and political rights to Catholics. In the twentieth century it was also common for fascist and right-wing authoritarian groups to be seen as movements rather than as conventional political parties. However, the experience of *totalitarianism in the inter-war period encouraged mass society theorists such as Erich Fromm (1900–80) and Hannah Arendt (1906–75) to see movements in distinctly negative terms. From the mass society perspective, social movements reflect a ‘flight from freedom', an attempt by alienated individuals to achieve security and identity through fanatical commitment to a cause, and obedience to a (usually fascist) leader.

In contrast, new social movements are generally interpreted as rational and instrumental actors, whose use of informal and unconventional means merely reflects the resources available to them. The emergence of new social movements is widely seen as evidence of the fact that *power in postindustrial societies is increasingly dispersed and fragmented. The class politics of old has thus been replaced by a ‘new politics', which turns away from ‘established' parties, pressure groups and representative processes towards a more innovative and theatrical form of protest politics. Not only do new movements offer new and rival centres of power, but they also diffuse power more effectively by resisting bureaucratisation and developing more spontaneous, effective and decentralised forms of organisation. Nevertheless, although the impact of movements such as the women's movement and the gay and lesbian movement cannot be doubted, it is difficult to assess in practical terms because of the broad nature of their goals and the less tangible character of the cultural strategies they tend to adopt.

-233-

FURTHER READING

Baggott, R., Pressure Groups Today (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1995).

Ball, A. and Millward, F., Pressure Politics in Industrial Societies (London: Macmillan, 1986).

Blau, P. and Meyer, M. (eds), Bureaucracy in Modern Society (New York: Random House, 1987).

Bogdanor, V. (ed.), Constitutions in Democratic Politics (Aldershot: Gower, 1988).

Elgie, R., Political Leadership in Liberal Democracies (London: Macmillan, 1995).

Gibbins, J. (ed.), Contemporary Political Culture: Politics in a Post-Modern Age (London: Sage, 1989).

Graham, B. D., Representation and Party Politics: A Comparative Perspective (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993).

Hague, R., Harrop, M. and Breslin, S., Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction (London: Macmillan, 1992).

Hennessy, P., Cabinet (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986).

Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C., Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (London: Verso, 1985).

LeDuc, L., Niemi, R. and Norris, P. (eds), Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective (London: Sage, 1996).

Lijphart, A. (ed.), Parliamentary versus Presidential Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992).

McDowell, L. and Pringle, R. (eds), Defining Women: Social Institutions and Gender Divisions (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992).

Nairn, T., The Enchanted Glass: Britain and its Monarchy (London: Picador, 1988).

Negrine, R., The Communication of Politics (London: Sage, 1996).

Norton, P. (ed.), Legislatures (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).

Norton, P. (ed.), Parliaments in Western Europe (London: Frank Cass, 1990).

Pakulski, J., Social Movements: The Politics of Protest (Melbourne: Longman, 1990).

Rex, J. and Mason, D. (eds), Theories of Race and Ethnic Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

Rose, R., The Postmodern Presidency: The White House Meets the World (New York: Chartham House, 1991).

Rose, R. and Suleiman, E. N. (eds), Presidents and Prime Ministers (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1980).

Sartori, G., Parties and Party Sytems: A Framework for Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).

Saunders, P., Social Class Stratification (London: Routledge, 1990).

Thompson, G., Frances, J., Levacic, R. and Mitchell, J., Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: The Coordination of Social Life (London: Sage, 1991).

Waltman, J. and Holland, K. (eds), The Political Role of Law Courts in Modern Democracies (New York: St Martin's Press, 1988).

Weller, P., First Among Equals: Prime Ministers in Westminster Systems (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1985).

-234-

Part eight
Levels

This section examines concepts that relate to the territorial organisation of political power and the different levels at which government authority is, or should be, exercised.

Levels

CENTRALISATION/DECENTRALISATION

Centralisation is the concentration of political *power or government *authority within central institutions. These institutions are normally considered to be central because they operate at the national level; however, the term centralisation is sometimes used to describe the concentration of power or authority within the national level of government, as, for instance, when *executives dominate legislatures or *parliaments, or when *cabinets are subordinate to chief executives. Decentralisation is usually understood to refer to the expansion of local *autonomy through the transfer of powers and responsibilities away from national bodies. Centralisation and decentralisation thus highlight different territorial divisions of power within the *state between central (national) and peripheral (regional, provincial or local) institutions.

Significance

All modern states contain territorial divisions. The nature of these divisions nevertheless varies enormously. The divisions are structured by the constitutional framework within which centre – periphery relationships are conducted; the distribution of functions and responsibilities between the levels of *government; the means by which their personnel are appointed and recruited; the political, economic, administrative and other powers the centre can use to control the periphery; and the independence that peripheral bodies enjoy. What is clear, however, is that neither central nor peripheral bodies can be dispensed with altogether. In the absence of central government a state would not be able to function as an actor on the international or world stage.

-237-

The case for centralisation is that:

The case for decentralisation includes the following:

DEVOLUTION

Devolution is the transfer of power from central government to subordinate regional institutions (to ‘devolve' means to pass powers or duties down from a higher authority to a lower one). Devolved bodies thus constitute an intermediate level of *government between central and local government. Devolution differs from *federalism in that, although their territorial jurisdiction may be similar, devolved bodies have no share in *sovereignty; their

-238-

responsibilities and powers are devolved from, and are conferred by, the centre. In its weakest form, that of administrative devolution, devolution implies only that regional institutions implement policies decided elsewhere. In the form of legislative devolution (sometimes called ‘home rule'), devolution involves the establishment of elected regional assemblies invested with policy-making responsibilities and, usually, a measure of fiscal independence.

Significance

Devolution, at least in its legislative form, establishes the greatest possible measure of *decentralisation within a unitary system of government; that is, one in which sovereign power is vested in a single, national institution. Devolved assemblies have usually been created in response to increasing centrifugal tensions within a *state, and as an attempt, in particular, to conciliate growing regional and sometimes nationalist pressures. Spain and France both adopted forms of devolved government in the 1970s and 1980s, and, in the UK, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly assumed their powers in 1999. Despite their lack of entrenched powers, once devolved institutions have acquired a political identity of their own, and possess a measure of democratic *legitimacy, they are very difficult to weaken and, in normal circumstances, impossible to abolish. Northern Ireland's Stormont Parliament was suspended in 1972, but only when it became apparent that its domination by the predominantly Protestant Unionist parties prevented it from stemming the rising tide of communal violence in the province. The newly created Northern Ireland Assembly was also temporarily suspended in early 2000.

The central issue in evaluating devolution is its impact upon the integrity of the state and the strength of centrifugal pressures. Its supporters argue that devolution satisfies the desire of regional or ethnic groups or constituent nations for a distinctive political identity whilst (unlike federalism) upholding the larger unity of the state by maintaining a single source of sovereignty. Critics, however, warn that devolution may fuel centrifugal pressures by strengthening regional, ethnic and national identities, leading to federalism or even state breakdown. What is clear is that devolution is a process and not an event, in the sense that it sets in train a re-working of political identities and relationships whose ultimate shape may not

-239-

emerge for several years or maybe generations. A further factor is the potential for institutionalised conflict between national government and devolved bodies. Although the constitutional supremacy of the centre ultimately enables it to resolve disputes in its favour, the fact that devolved bodies may exercise significant legislative and fiscal powers and enjoy political entrenchment through their democratic legitimacy means that the system as a whole may acquire a quasi-federal character, requiring the development of linking institutions to foster cooperation between the two levels.

FEDERALISM

Federalism (from the Latin foedus, meaning ‘pact', or ‘covenant') usually refers to the legal and political structures that distribute power territorially within a *state. Nevertheless, in accordance with its original meaning, it has been taken to imply reciprocity or mutuality (as in the anarchist ideas of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–65)) or, in the writings of Alexander Hamilton (1755–1805) and James Madison (1751–1836), to be part of a broader *ideology of *pluralism. As a political form, however, federalism requires the existence of two distinct levels of government, neither of which is legally or politically subordinate to the other. Its central feature is therefore the notion of shared *sovereignty. On the basis of this definition, ‘classical' federations are few in number: the USA, Switzerland, Belgium, Canada and Australia. However, many more states have federal-type features. Federalism differs from *devolution in that devolved bodies have no share in sovereignty, and it differs from confederations in that the latter are qualified unions of states in which each state retains its independence, which is typically guaranteed by the requirement of unanimous decision-making.

There are differences within federalism, between federal states that operate a *separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government (typified by the US *presidential system), and *parliamentary systems in which executive and legislative power is ‘fused'. The former tend to ensure that government power is diffused both territorially and functionally, meaning that there are multiple points of contact between the two levels of government. Parliamentary systems, however, often produce what is called executive federalism (notably in Canada and Australia) in which the federal balance is largely determined by the relationship

-240-

between the executives of each level of government. In states such as Germany and Austria so-called administrative federalism operates in which central government is the key policy-maker and provincial government is charged with the responsibility for the details of policy implementation.Nevertheless, certain features are common to most, if not all, federal systems:

Significance

It is widely argued that the federal principle is more applicable to some states than to others. In the first place, federations have often been formed by the coming together of a number of established political communities which nevertheless wish to preserve their separate identities and, to some extent, their *autonomy. This clearly applies in the case of the world's first federal state, the USA, which was formed by former colonies that each possessed a distinctive political identity but jointly recognised their need for a new, more centralised, constitutional framework. A second factor influencing the formation of federations is the existence of an external threat or a desire to play a more effective role in international affairs. Small, strategically vulnerable states, for instance, have a powerful