POLS 101 Fundamentals of Political Science PDF

POLS 101 Prepared by. Associate Prof. Elmer M. Soriano Table of Contents Table of Contents i Definition and Scope of Political Science ii The Importance of Political Science...

POLS 101 Prepared by. Associate Prof. Elmer M. Soriano Table of Contents Table of Contents i Definition and Scope of Political Science ii The Importance of Political Science ii Political Science and Other Social Sciences iii Politics 1 Approaches to the study of Politics 2 Power: Its uses and Abuses in the Practice of Political Science 4 Political Ideologies 4 Defining the State 13 Theories of State 14 The Role of The State 16 State Formation 18 State Development 18 Changes in State Processes 18 The Phenomenon of Failed States 18 Nations and Nationalism 19 Varieties of Nationalism 21 The Political Systems 22 Presidential or Parliamentary? 27 Parliamentary System 27 Presidential Government 30 Unitary Government 34 Federal System 35 Political Systems Around the World 37 Reasons for Variety of Political Systems 38 Executives in the Presidential Government 42 Executives in Parliamentary Governments 42 Semi Presidential Government 45 The Executive In Authoritarian States 46 The Totalitarian Executive 46 Rise Of Identity Politics 47 Political Revolutions 51 Social Contract and its Relevance to Political Science 52 The Concept of Sovereignty 53 i Fundamentals of Political Science Definition and Scope of Political Science Political science is that branch of the social sciences that studies the state, politics, and government. Political Science deals extensively with the analysis of political systems, the theoretical and practical applications to politics, and the examination of political behavior. The Greek thinker, Aristotle, defined political science as the study of the state. Many political scientists view themselves as being engaged in fleshing out the connections between political events and conditions, and by this understanding they hope to construct a system of general principles that posit the way the world of politics works. Political science is not a standalone field and it intersects many other branches like sociology, economics, history, anthropology, public policy among others. Political scientists are much sought after these days because of the changing landscape of politics across the world and since the society wants to understand how the political world works, they need someone to explain the nuances of the political economy. Any casual perusal of the newspapers and the television channels reveals that political scientists are at the forefront of debates and discussions for their knowledge and expertise. Scope of Political Science The scope of political science is vast and experts have divided the field of political science into five sub-disciplines that are political theory, public administration, comparative politics, international relations, and public law. It needs to be noted that these sub-disciplines cover the entire gamut of the modern political economy and provide the basis for the study and understanding of how the global political economy works. The study of the matters concerning the allocation and distribution as well as the transfer of power is one of the main preoccupations of political scientists. The success or otherwise of the governance structures is gauged by political scientists who examine the multifaceted and multilayered factors at work that contribute to good or bad governance. The scope of the political scientists has now been broadened to include the realm of the study of the democratic elections across the world. In other words, with the explosion in the political systems all over the world, political scientists, and their scope of study has been considerably enhanced. The Importance of Political Science The importance of political science lies in the fact that all of us live within political systems and we are affected by the changes in the global political economy. With the advent of globalization, there has been a concomitant rise in the interest taken by the people of the world in understanding the political systems of other countries. Hence, political scientists become valued and important as they provide the lens through which we can understand the global political economy. There are many universities that provide graduate and higher-level degrees in ii political science and in recent years, because of the renewed interest in political science as a field of study, there are many takers for these courses. Political Science and Other Social Sciences As mentioned in the introductory article in this module, political science is the systematic study of the state and the workings of the political economy. The study of political science gives people the ability to influence and persuade the authorities to conform to broad developmental thrusts and to steer the direction in which the government is headed. Since political science is concerned with the study of the global political economy, it has links to other social sciences like history, sociology, philosophy, and psychology. It needs to be mentioned that political science is that branch of the social sciences that is concerned with the workings of the global political economy and hence, shares a symbiotic relationship with the other social sciences that study the other parts of the global political economy. We have chosen history, sociology, philosophy and psychology in this article as these are the disciplines that have a bearing on how political scientists go about their work. History, Sociology, and Political Science Political science is intimately linked to history as the patterns of the past provide clues to the future. There can be no better guide to understanding the present and to predict the future than by studying the events in the past and extrapolating them to the future. For instance, when political scientists try to predict the likely direction, which the global political economy takes, they would be relying on history to predict political behavior. Next, political science is closely intertwined with sociology as both branches attempt to study human behavior in groups. Whereas sociology studies the entire societies, political science is concerned with the political systems that are part of the larger society. The study of the interactions between the people and the state is something that both sociology and political science aim to do and hence, there is a symbiotic relationship between sociology and political science. Philosophy, Psychology, and Political Science The next aspect is to do with philosophy. Since political behavior and governance are studied in terms of political philosophy which deals with abstract notions of the role of the state and the relationship of people and the state with an emphasis on understanding the concepts of public welfare and larger social good, both political science and philosophy have common grounds in these aspects. The final social science discipline chosen is psychology and as this discipline studies human behavior in society, there are meeting points between political science and psychology as they both are concerned with the examination of why people in the larger political economy behave the way they do. Political science cannot be a standalone or isolated field as all branches of the social sciences purport to explain the larger questions concerning people and the state. Hence, there are symbiotic relationships between political science and other sub-disciplines of social sciences as they have common ground in their quest to understand how political systems work and how politics and governance play themselves out. iii Politics ‘Man is by nature a political animal.’ Aristotle Definitions Politics, in its broadest sense, is the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live. Although politics is also an academic subject, it is then clearly the study of this activity. Politics is thus inextricably linked to the phenomena of conflict and cooperation For Heywood, politics is “who gets what, when and how”. Politics is defined in such different ways: as the exercise of power, the science of government, the making of collective decisions, the allocation of scarce resources, the practice of deception and manipulation, and so on. ‘Politics is not a science... but an art’, Chancellor Bismarck is reputed to have told the German Reichstag. The art Bismarck had in mind was the art of government, the exercise of control within society through the making and enforcement of collective decisions. This is perhaps the classical definition of politics, developed from the original meaning of the term in Ancient Greece. The word ‘politics’ is derived from polis, meaning literally ‘city-state’. Ancient Greek society was divided into a collection of independent city-states, each of which possessed its own system of government. The largest and most influential of these city-states was Athens, often portrayed as the cradle of democratic government. In this light, politics can be understood to refer to the affairs of the polis – in effect, ‘what concerns the polis’ US political scientist David Easton (1979, 1981), who defined politics as the ‘authoritative allocation of values. By this, he meant that politics encompasses the various processes through which government responds to pressures from the larger society, in particular by allocating benefits, rewards or penalties. However, what is striking about this definition is that it offers a highly restricted view of politics. Politics is what takes place within a polity, a system of social organization centered on the machinery of government. Politics is therefore practiced in cabinet rooms, legislative chambers, government departments and the like; and it is engaged in by a limited and specific group of people, notably politicians, civil servants and lobbyists. This means that most people, most institutions and most social activities can be regarded as being ‘outside’ politics. Businesses, schools and other educational institutions, community groups, families and so on are in this sense ‘non-political’, because they are not engaged in ‘running the country’. Negative view of politics reflects the essentially liberal perception that, as individuals are self- interested, political power is corrupting, because it encourages those ‘in power’ to exploit their position for personal advantage and at the expense of others. This is famously expressed in 1 Lord Acton’s (1834–1902) aphorism: ‘power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Nevertheless, few who view politics in this way doubt that political activity is an inevitable and permanent feature of social existence. Famous Greek philosopher Aristotle. In Politics, Aristotle declared that ‘man is by nature a political animal’, by which he meant that it is only within a political community that human beings can live the ‘good life’. From this viewpoint, then, politics is an ethical activity concerned with creating a ‘just society’; it is what Aristotle called the ‘master science’ As a compromise and consensus, conception of politics relates not to the arena within which politics is conducted but to the way in which decisions are made. Specifically, politics is seen as a particular means of resolving conflict: that is, by compromise, conciliation and negotiation, rather than through force and naked power. This is what is implied when politics is portrayed as ‘the art of the possible’. Such a definition is inherent in the everyday use of the term. For instance, the description of a solution to a problem as a ‘political’ solution implies peaceful debate and arbitration, as opposed to what is often called a ‘military’ solution. Politics is the activity by which differing interests within a given unit of rule are conciliated by giving them a share in power in proportion to their importance to the welfare and the survival of the whole community. (Crick, 2000). In this view, the key to politics is therefore a wide dispersal of power. Accepting that conflict is inevitable, Crick argued that when social groups and interests possess power they must be conciliated; they cannot merely be crushed. This is why he portrayed politics as ‘that solution to the problem of order which chooses conciliation rather than violence and coercion’. Another definition of politics is both the broadest and the most radical. Rather than confining politics to a particular sphere (the government, the state or the ‘public’ realm), this view sees politics at work in all social activities and in every corner of human existence. As Adrian Leftwich proclaimed in “What is Politics? The Activity and Its Study (2004)”, ‘politics is at the heart of all collective social activity, formal and informal, public and private, in all human groups, institutions and societies’. In this sense, politics takes place at every level of social interaction; it can be found within families and amongst small groups of friends just as much as amongst nations and on the global stage. Approaches to the study of Politics Philosophical Approach The origins of political analysis date back to Ancient Greece and a tradition usually referred to as ‘political philosophy’. This involved a preoccupation with essentially ethical, prescriptive or normative questions, reﬂecting a concern with what ‘should’, ‘ought’ or ‘must’ be brought about, rather than with what ‘is’. Plato and Aristotle are usually identiﬁed as the founding fathers of this tradition. Their ideas resurfaced in the writings of medieval theorists such as Augustine (354–430) and Aquinas (1225–74). The central theme of Plato’s work, for instance, was an attempt to describe the nature of the ideal society, which in his view took the form of a benign dictatorship dominated by a class of philosopher kings. Such writings have formed the basis of what is called the ‘traditional’ approach to politics. This involves the analytical study of ideas and doctrines that have been central to political thought. This approach has the character of 2 literary analysis: it is interested primarily in examining what major thinkers said, how they developed or justiﬁed their views, and the intellectual context within which they worked. Although such analysis may be carried out critically and scrupulously, it cannot be objective in any scientiﬁc sense, as it deals with normative questions such as ‘Why should I obey the state?’, ‘How should rewards be distributed?’ and ‘What should the limits of individual freedom be?’ Empirical Approach The empirical approach to political analysis is characterized by the attempt to offer a dispassionate and impartial account of political reality. The approach is ‘descriptive’, in that it seeks to analyze and explain, whereas the normative approach is ‘prescriptive’, in the sense that it makes judgements and offers recommendations. Descriptive political analysis acquired its philosophical underpinning from the doctrine of empiricism, which spread from the seventeenth century onwards through the work of theorists such as John Locke and David Hume (1711–76). The doctrine of empiricism advanced the belief that experience is the only basis of knowledge and that, therefore, all hypotheses and theories should be tested by a process of observation. By the nineteenth century, such ideas had developed into what became known as ‘positivism’, an intellectual movement particularly associated with the writings of Auguste Comte (1798–1857). This doctrine proclaimed that the social sciences, and, for that matter, all forms of philosophical enquiry, should adhere strictly to the methods of the natural sciences. Once science was perceived to be the only reliable means of disclosing truth, the pressure to develop a science of politics became irresistible. Behavioralism Since the mid-nineteenth century, mainstream political analysis has been dominated by the ‘scientific’ tradition, reflecting the growing impact of positivism. In the 1870s, ‘political science’ courses were introduced in the universities of Oxford, Paris and Columbia, and by 1906 the American Political Science Review was being published. However, enthusiasm for a science of politics peaked in the 1950s and 1960s with the emergence, most strongly in the USA, of a form of political analysis that drew heavily on behaviouralism. Forthe ﬁrst time, this gave politics reliably scientiﬁc credentials, because it provided what had previously been lacking: objective and quantiﬁable data against which hypotheses could be tested. Political analysts such as David Easton (1979, 1981) proclaimed that politics could adopt the methodology of the natural sciences, and this gave rise to a proliferation of studies in areas best suited to the use of quantitative research methods, such as voting behavior, the behavior of legislators, and the behaviour of municipal politicians and lobbyists. The basis of the assertion that behaviouralism is objective and reliable is the claim that it is ‘value-free’: that is, that it is not contaminated by ethical or normative beliefs. However, if the focus of analysis is observable behaviour, it is difficult to do much more than describe the existing political arrangements, which implicitly means that the status quo is legitimized. This conservative value bias was 3 demonstrated by the fact that ‘democracy’ was, in effect, redefined in terms of observable behaviour. Rational Choice Theory Amongst recent theoretical approaches to politics is what is called ‘formal political theory’, variously known as ‘rational-choice theory’, ‘public-choice theory’ and ‘political economy’. This approach to analysis draws heavily on the example of economic theory in building up models based on procedural rules, usually about the rationally self-interested behaviour of the individuals involved. By no means, however, has the rational-choice approach to political analysis been universally accepted. While its supporters claim that it introduces greater rigor into the discussion of political phenomena, critics have questioned its basic assumptions. Power: Its uses and Abuses in the Practice of Political Science The Uses and Abuses of Power No discussion on political science is complete without a study of how power is wielded, its uses and abuses in the modern nation states. Indeed, power is the glue that holds nations together and gives them a semblance of control, as without the exercise of power, it would be difficult to keep chaos at bay. The point here is that unless power is exercised by the rulers, there are no standards to follow and no order to be enforced. Of course, this does not mean that power is the only thing that is relevant in modern nation states. On the contrary, the abuse of power is a serious issue that often leads to revolutions and social movements. In other words, power has to be exercised with great responsibility and accountability and unless, there is a judicious application of power, there cannot be a viable and functioning modern nation state. Hence, the implications for modern nation states are that power must be accompanied by accountability and a chance for the people to either vote in or vote out those whom they feel responsible and sagacious and those whom they feel are abusing their power. Political Ideologies Ideology is one of the most controversial concepts encountered in political analysis. Although the term now tends to be used in a neutral sense, to refer to a developed social philosophy or world-view, it has in the past had heavily negative or pejorative connotations. During its sometimes-tortuous career, the concept of ideology has commonly been used as a political weapon to condemn or criticize rival creeds or doctrines. The term ‘ideology’ was coined in 1796 by the French philosopher Destutt de Tracy (1754– 1836). He used it to refer to a new ‘science of ideas’ (literally, an idea-ology) that set out to uncover the origins of conscious thought and ideas. De Tracy’s hope was that ideology would 4 eventually enjoy the same status as established sciences such as zoology and biology. However, a more enduring meaning was assigned to the term in the nineteenth century in the writings of Karl Marx. For Marx, ideology amounted to the ideas of the ‘ruling class’, ideas that therefore uphold the class system and perpetuate exploitation. In their early work The German Ideology, Marx and Engels wrote the following: The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force in society, is at the same time the ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of mental production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production. (Marx and Engels, 1970:64) Classical Traditions Political ideology arose out of the transition from feudalism to industrial capitalism. In simple terms, the earliest, or ‘classical’ ideologies – liberalism, conservatism and socialism – developed as contrasting attempts to shape emerging industrial society. This meant that the central theme in ideological debate and argument during this period and beyond was the battle between two rival economic philosophies: capitalism socialism. Political ideology thus had a strong economic focus. Liberalism Any account of political ideologies must start with liberalism. This is because liberalism is, in effect, the ideology of the industrialized West, and is sometimes portrayed as a meta-ideology that is capable of embracing a broad range of rival values and beliefs. Although liberalism did not emerge as a developed political creed until the early nineteenth century, distinctively liberal theories and principles had gradually been developed during the previous 300 years. Early liberalism certainly, reflected the aspirations of a rising industrial middle class, and liberalism and capitalism have been closely linked (some have argued intrinsically linked) ever since. In its earliest form, liberalism was a political doctrine. As reflected in the ideas of thinkers such as John Locke, it attacked absolutism and feudal privilege, instead advocating constitutional and, later, representative government. By the early nineteenth century, a distinctively liberal economic creed had developed that extolled the virtues of laissez-faire all forms of government intervention. This became the centerpiece of classical, or nineteenth-century, liberalism. From the late nineteenth century onwards, however, a form of social liberalism emerged that looked more favorably on welfare reform and economic intervention. Such an emphasis became the characteristic theme of modern, or twentieth-century, liberalism.  Key Ideas  Individualism  Freedom  Reason  Equality  Toleration  Consent  Constitutionalism 5 Classical liberalism The central theme of classical liberalism is a commitment to an extreme form of individualism. Human beings are seen as egoistical, self-seeking and largely self-reliant creatures. In what C. B. Macpherson (1962) termed ‘possessive individualism’, they are taken to be the proprietors of their own persons and capacities, owing nothing to society or to other individuals. This atomist view of society is underpinned by a belief in ‘negative’ liberty, meaning non- interference, or the absence of external constraints on the individual. This implies a deeply unsympathetic attitude towards the state and all forms of government intervention. In Tom Paine’s words, the state is a ‘necessary evil’. It is ‘necessary’ in that, at the very least, it establishes order and security, and ensures that contracts are enforced. However, it is ‘evil’ in that it imposes a collective will on society, thus limiting the freedom and responsibilities of the individual. The classical liberal ideal is therefore the establishment of a minimal or ‘night watchman’ state, with a role that is limited to the protection of citizens from the encroachments of fellow citizens. In the form of economic liberalism, this position is underpinned by a deep faith in the mechanisms of the free market and the belief that the economy works best when left alone by government. Laissez-faire capitalism is thus seen as guaranteeing prosperity, upholding individual liberty, and, as this allows individuals to rise and fall according to merit, ensuring social justice. Modern Liberalism Modern liberalism is characterized by a more sympathetic attitude towards state intervention. Indeed, in the USA, the term ‘liberal’ is invariably taken to imply support for ‘big’ government rather than ‘minimal’ government. This shift was born out of the recognition that industrial capitalism had merely generated new forms of injustice and left the mass of the population subject to the vagaries of the market. Influenced by the work of J. S. Mill, the so-called ‘New Liberals’ (figures such as T. H. Green (1836–82), L. T. Hobhouse (1864–1929) and J. A. Hobson (1858–1940)) championed a broader, ‘positive’ view of freedom. From this perspective, freedom does not just mean being left alone, which might imply nothing more than the freedom to starve. Rather, it is linked to personal development and the flourishing of the individual; that is, the ability of the individual to gain fulfilment and achieve self-realization. This view provided the basis for social or welfare liberalism. This is characterized by the recognition that state intervention, particularly in the form of social welfare, can enlarge liberty by safeguarding individuals from the social evils that blight individual existence. These evils were identified in the UK by the 1942 Beveridge Report as the ‘five giants’: want, ignorance, idleness, squalor and disease. In the same way, modern liberals abandoned their belief in laissez-faire capitalism, largely as a result of J. M. insight that growth and prosperity could be maintained only through a system of managed or regulated capitalism, with key economic responsibilities being placed in the hands of the state. Nevertheless, modern liberals’ support for collective provision and government intervention has always been conditional. Their concern has been with the plight of the weak and vulnerable, those who are literally not able to help themselves. Their goal is to raise individuals to the point where they are able, once again, to 6 take responsibility for their own circumstances and make their own moral choices. The most influential modern attempt to reconcile the principles of liberalism with the politics of welfare and redistribution was undertaken by John Rawls. Neoliberalism Neoliberalism is an updated version of classical political economy that was developed in the writings of free-market economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, and philosophers such as Robert Nozick. The central pillars of neoliberalism are the market and the individual. The principal neo liberal goal is to ‘roll back the frontiers of the state’, in the belief that unregulated market capitalism will deliver efficiency, growth and widespread prosperity. In this view, the ‘dead hand’ of the state saps initiative and discourages enterprise; government, however well-intentioned, invariably has a damaging effect on human affairs. CONSERVATISM Conservative ideas and doctrines first emerged in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century. They arose as a reaction against the growing pace of economic and political change, which was in many ways symbolized by the French Revolution. In this sense, conservatism harked back to the ancient régime. In trying to resist the pressures unleashed by the growth of liberalism, socialism and nationalism, conservatism stood in defense of an increasingly embattled traditional social order. However, from the outset, divisions in conservative thought were apparent. In continental Europe, a form of conservatism emerged that was characterized by the work of thinkers such as Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821). This conservatism was starkly autocratic and reactionary, rejecting out of hand any idea of reform. A more cautious, more flexible and, ultimately, more successful form of conservatism nevertheless developed in the UK and the USA, characterized by Edmund Burke’s belief in ‘change in order to conserve’. This stance enabled conservatives in the nineteenth century to embrace the cause of social reform under the paternalistic banner of ‘One Nation’. The high point of this tradition in the UK came in the 1950s as the Conservative Party came to accept the postwar settlement and espouse its own version of Keynesian social democracy. Paternalistic Conservatism The paternalistic strand in conservative thought is entirely consistent with principles such as organicism, hierarchy and duty, and it can therefore be seen as an outgrowth of traditional conservatism. Often traced back to the early writings of Benjamin Disraeli (1804–81), paternalism draws on a combination of prudence and principle. In warning of the danger of the UK being divided into ‘two nations: The Rich and the Poor’, Disraeli articulated a widespread fear of social revolution. This warning amounted to an appeal to the self-interest of the privileged, who needed to recognize that ‘reform from above’ was preferable to ‘revolution from below’. This message was under pinned by an appeal to the principles of duty and social obligation rooted in neo feudal ideas such as noblesse oblige. In effect, in this view, duty is the price of privilege; the powerful and propertied inherit a responsibility to look after the less well- off in the broader interests of social cohesion and unity.  Key Ideas  Tradition 7  Pragmatism  Human Imperfection  Organicism  Hierarchy  Authority  Property Neo-conservatism Neo-conservatism reasserts nineteenth-century conservative social principles. The conservative New Right wishes, above all, to restore authority and return to traditional values, notably those linked to the family, religion and the nation. Authority is seen as guaranteeing social stability, on the basis that it generates discipline and respect, while shared values and a common culture are believed to generate social cohesion and make civilized existence possible. Another aspect of neo-conservatism is the tendency to view the emergence of multicultural and multireligious societies with concern, on the basis that they are conflict-ridden and inherently unstable. This position also tends to be linked to an insular form of nationalism that is skeptical about both multiculturalism (see p. 167) and the growing influence of supranational bodies such as the UN and the EU. Socialism Although socialist ideas can be traced back to the Levellers and Diggers of the seventeenth century, or to Thomas More’s Utopia ( 1965), or even Plato’s Republic, socialism did not take shape as a political creed until the early nineteenth century. It developed as a reaction against the emergence of industrial capitalism. Socialism first articulated the interests of artisans and craftsmen threatened by the spread of factory production, but it was soon being linked to the growing industrial working class, the ‘factory fodder’ of early industrialization. In its earliest forms, socialism tended to have a fundamentalist (see p. 53), utopian and revolutionary character. Its goal was to abolish a capitalist economy based on market exchange, and replace it with a qualitatively different socialist society, usually to be constructed on the principle of common ownership. The most influential representative of this brand of socialism was Karl Marx, whose ideas provided the foundations for twentieth-century communism.  Key Ideas  Community  Fraternity  Social Equality  Need  Social Class  Common Ownership 8 Marxism As a theoretical system, Marxism has constituted the principal alternative to the liberal rationalism that has dominated western culture and intellectual enquiry in the modern period. As a political force, in the form of the international communist movement, Marxism has also been seen as the major enemy of western capitalism, at least in the period 1917–91. This highlights a central difficulty in dealing with Marxism: the difference between Marxism as a social philosophy derived from the classic writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1820–95), and the phenomenon of twentieth-century communism, which in many ways departed from and revised classical principles. Thus, the collapse of communism at the end of the twentieth century need not betoken the death of Marxism as a political ideology; indeed, it may give Marxism, now divorced from the vestiges of Leninism and Stalinism, a fresh lease of life. Marx’s ideas and theories reached a wider audience after his death, largely through the writings of his lifelong collaborator Engels, the German socialist leader Karl Kautsky (1854–1938) and the Russian theoretician Georgi Plekhanov (1856–1918). A form of orthodox Marxism, usually termed ‘dialectical materialism’ (a term coined by Plekhanov, not Marx), came into existence that was later used as the basis for Soviet communism. This ‘vulgar’ Marxism undoubtedly placed a heavier stress on mechanistic theories and historical determinism than did Marx’s own writings. Classical Marxism The core of classical Marxism – the Marxism of Marx – is a philosophy of history that Engels described as the ‘materialist conception of history’, or historical materialism. This highlights the importance of economic life and the conditions under which people produce and reproduce their means of subsistence. Marx held that the economic ‘base’, consisting essentially of the ‘mode of production, or economic system, conditions or determines the ideological and political ‘superstructure’ Following Hegel (see p. 59), Marx believed that the driving force of historical change was the dialectic, a process of interaction between competing forces that results in a higher stage of development. In its materialist version, this model implies that historical change is a consequence of internal contradictions within a ‘mode of production’, reflected in class conflict. Like all earlier class societies, capitalism is therefore doomed to collapse; in this case, as a result of conflict between the bourgeoisie or capitalist class, the owners of productive wealth, and the proletariat, who are, in effect, ‘wage slaves’. This conflict is irreconcilable, because the proletariat is necessarily and systematically exploited under capitalism, the bourgeoisie living by extracting ‘surplus value’ from its labor. Social Democracy Social democracy stands for a balance between the market and the state, a balance between the individual and the community. At the heart of social democracy there is a compromise between, on the one hand, an acceptance of capitalism as the only reliable mechanism for generating wealth and, on the other, a desire to distribute wealth in accordance with moral, rather than market, principles. For socialists, this conversion to the market was a difﬁcult, and at times painful, process that was dictated more by practical circumstances and electoral advantage than by ideological conviction. 9 The chief characteristic of modern social democratic thought is a concern for the underdog in society, the weak and vulnerable. There is a sense, however, in which social democracy cannot simply be conﬁned to the socialist tradition. It may draw on a socialist belief in compassion and a common humanity, a liberal commitment to positive freedom and equal opportunities, or, for that matter, a conservative sense of paternal duty and care. Whatever its source, it has usually been articulated on the basis of principles such as welfarism, redistribution and social justice. The New Social Democracy ‘New’ social democracy (sometimes called ‘neo-revisionism’ or the ‘third way’) is a term that refers to a variety of attempts by social-democratic parties, in countries ranging from Germany, Italy and the Netherlands to the UK and New Zealand, to reconcile old-style social democracy with, at least, the electorally attractive aspects of neoliberalism. Although ‘new’ social democracy is imprecise and subject to a number of interpretations, certain characteristic themes can nevertheless be identified. The first of these is the belief that socialism, at least in the form of ‘top-down’ state intervention, is dead. A further feature of ‘new’ social-democratic politics is that it has broken with socialist egalitarian ism (which is seen as a form of ‘levelling’) and embraced, instead, the liberal ideas of equality of opportunity and meritocracy. Neorevisionist politicians typically endorse welfare reform. Fascism Liberalism, conservatism and socialism are nineteenth-century ideologies, fascism is a child of the twentieth century. Some would say that it is speciﬁcally an interwar phenomenon. The two principal manifestations of fascism were Mussolini’s Fascist dictatorship in Italy in 1922–43, and Hitler’s Nazi dictatorship in Germany in 1933–45. Forms of neo fascism and neo-Nazism have also resurfaced in recent decades, taking advantage of the combination of economic crisis and political instability that often followed the collapse of communism or, more widely, of increased anxieties over immigration and multiculturalism. In many respects, fascism constituted a revolt against the ideas and values that had dominated western political thought since the French Revolution: in the words of the Italian Fascist slogan, ‘1789 is dead’. Values such as rationalism, progress, freedom and equality were thus overturned in the name of struggle, leadership, power, heroism and war. In this sense, fascism has an ‘anti-character’. It is deﬁned largely by what it opposes: it is a form of anti-capitalism, anti- liberalism, anti-individualism, anticommunism, and so on. A core theme that, nevertheless, runs throughout fascism is the image of an organically uniﬁed national community. This is reﬂected in a belief in ‘strength through unity’. The individual, in a literal sense, is nothing; individual identity must be absorbed entirely into that of the community or social group. The fascist ideal is that of the ‘new man’, a hero, motivated by duty, honour and self-sacriﬁce, prepared to dedicate his life to the glory of his nation or race, and to give unquestioning obedience to a supreme leader. Not all fascists, however, think alike. Italian Fascism was essentially an extreme form of statism (see p. 71) that was based on unquestioning respect Adolf Hitler (1889–1945) German Nazi dictator. Hitler was the son of an Austrian customs official. He joined the German Worker’s Party 10 (later the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP), or Nazi Party) in 1919, becoming its leader in 1921. He was appointed Chancellor of Germany in 1933, and declared himself Führer (Leader) the following year, by which time he had established a one-party dictatorship. The central feature of Hitler’s world-view, outlined in Mein Kampf ( 1969), was his attempt to fuse expansionist German nationalism and virulent anti-Semitism into a theory of history in which there was an endless battle between the Germans and the Jews, who represented, respectively, the forces of good and evil. Hitler’s policies contributed decisively to both the outbreak of World War II and the Holocaust and absolute loyalty towards a ‘totalitarian’ state. As the Fascist philosopher Gentile (1875–1944) put it, ‘everything for the state; nothing against the state; nothing outside the state’. German National Socialism (or Nazism), on the other hand, was constructed largely on the basis of racialism. Its two core theories were Aryanism (the belief that the German people constitute a ‘master race’ and are destined for world domination), and a virulent form of anti-Semitism. that portrayed the Jews as inherently evil, and aimed at their eradication. This latter belief found expression in the ‘Final Solution’. Anarchism Anarchism is unusual amongst political ideologies in that no anarchist party has ever succeeded in winning power, at least at national level. Nevertheless, anarchist movements were powerful in, for example, Spain, France, Russia and Mexico through to the early twentieth century, and anarchist ideas continue to fertilize political debate by challenging the conventional belief that law, government and the state are either wholesome or indispensable. Anarchist thinking has also been influential within the modern anti-capitalist, or anti-globalization, movement. The central theme within anarchism is the belief that political authority in all its forms, and especially in the form of the state, is both evil and unnecessary (anarchy literally means ‘without rule’) Nevertheless, the anarchist preference for a stateless society in which free individuals manage their own affairs through voluntary agreement and cooperation has been developed on the basis of two rival traditions: liberal individualism, and socialist communitarianism. Anarchism can thus be thought of as a point of intersection between liberalism and socialism: a form of both ‘ultraliberalism’ and ‘ultrasocialism’. Feminism Although feminist aspirations have been expressed in societies dating back to Ancient China, they were not underpinned by a developed political theory until the publication of Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women ( 1985). Indeed, it was not until the emergence of the women’s suffrage movement in the 1840s and 1850s that feminist ideas reached a wider audience, in the form of so-called ‘first-wave feminism’. The achievement of female suffrage in most western countries in the early twentieth century deprived the women’s movement of its central goal and organizing principle. ‘Second-wave feminism’, however, emerged in the 1960s. This expressed the more radical, and sometimes revolutionary, demands of the growing Women’s Liberation Movement (WLM). Feminist theories and doctrines are diverse, but their unifying feature is a common desire to enhance, through whatever means, the social role of women. The underlying themes of feminism are therefore, first, that society 11 is characterized by sexual or gender inequality and, second, that this structure of male power can, and should be, overturned. Feminist thinking has traditionally been analyzed in terms of a division between liberal, socialist and radical schools of thought. Liberal feminists, such as Wollstonecraft and Betty Friedan (see p. 263), have tended to understand female subordination in terms of the unequal distribution of rights and opportunities in society. This ‘equal-rights feminism’ is essentially reformist. It is concerned more with the reform of the ‘public’ sphere; that is, with enhancing the legal and political status of women, and improving their educational and career prospects, than with reordering ‘private’ or domestic life. The distinctive ﬂavor of second-wave feminism results mainly from the emergence of a feminist critique that is not rooted in conventional political doctrines; namely, radical feminism. Radical feminists believe that gender divisions are the most fundamental and politically signiﬁcant cleavages in society. Green Politics Although green politics, or ecologism (see p. 51), is usually seen as a new ideology that is linked to the emergence of the environmental movement since the late twentieth century, its roots can be traced back to the nineteenth-century revolt against industrialization. Green politics therefore reﬂects concern about the damage done to the natural world by the increasing pace of economic development (exacerbated since the second half of the twentieth century by the advent of nuclear technology, acid rain, ozone depletion, global warming and so on), and anxiety about the declining quality of human existence and, ultimately, the survival of the human species. Such concerns are sometimes expressed through the vehicle of conventional ideologies. For instance, eco-socialism explains environmental destruction in terms of capitalism’s rapacious desire for proﬁt. Eco-conservatism links the cause of conservation to the desire to preserve traditional values and established institutions. what gives green politics its radical edge is the fact that it offers an alternative to the anthropocentric, or human-centered, stance adopted by all other ideologies; it does not see the natural world simply as a resource available to satisfy human needs. By highlighting the importance of ecology, green politics develops an eco-centric world-view that portrays the human species as merely part of nature. One of the most inﬂuential theories in this ﬁeld is the Gaia hypothesis, advanced by James Lovelock (1979, 2006). This portrays the planet Earth as a living organism that is primarily concerned with its own survival. Others have expressed sympathy for such radical holism by drawing on the ideas of Eastern religions that emphasize the oneness of life, such as Taoism and Zen Buddhism (Capra, 1983). ‘Shallow’ or humanist ecologists, such as those in some environmental pressure groups, believe that an appeal to self-interest and common sense will persuade humankind to adopt ecologically sound policies and lifestyles, usually in line with the principle of sustainable development ‘Deep’ ecologists, on the other hand, insist that nothing short of a fundamental reordering of political priorities, and a willingness to place the interests of the ecosystem before those of any individual species, will ultimately secure planetary and human survival. 12 Religious Fundamentalism The idea that an intense and militant faith that Islamic beliefs constitute the overriding principles of social life and politics ﬁrst emerged in the writings of thinkers such as Sayyid Qutb (1906– 66) and through the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood. Their goal was the establishment of an Islamic state based on the principles of shari’alaw. Political Islam was brought to prominence by the Iranian revolution of 1979, which led to the founding of the world’s ﬁrst Islamic state, under Ayatollah Khomeini. It subsequently spread throughout the Middle East, across North Africa, and into parts of Asia. Although the Shi’a fundamentalism of Iran has generated the ﬁercest commitment and devotion, Islamism in general has been a vehicle for expressing anti- westernism, reﬂecting both antipathy towards the neo-colonial policies of western powers and anxiety about the ‘imposition’ of permissive and materialist values. This was clearly reﬂected in the Taliban regime of Afghanistan (1997–2001), and also in the growth of jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda, for whom the spiritual quest became synonymous with militant politics, armed struggle and possibly martyrdom. Asian Values Other non-western ideological trends have had no connection with fundamentalist religion, however. During the 1980s and 1990s, for example, the idea of so called ‘Asian values’ gained growing currency, fueled by the emergence of Japan as an economic superpower and the success of the ‘tiger’ economies of Hong Kong, South Korea, Thailand and Singapore. While not rejecting the idea of universal human rights, Asian values drew attention to supposed differences between western and Asian valuesystems, highlighting the extent to which human rights had traditionally been constructed on the basis of culturally biased western assumptions. Asian values had sought to rectify this by offering a vision of social harmony and cooperation grounded in loyalty, duty and respect for authority. Although their inﬂuence declined markedly following the 1997– 98 Asian ﬁnancial crisis, they have resurfaced through their association with Confucianism, bolstered by the rise of China. Defining the State The state is a political association that establishes sovereign jurisdiction within defined territorial borders, and exercises authority through a set of permanent institutions. These institutions are those that are recognizably ‘public’, in that they are responsible for the collective organization of communal life, and are funded at the public’s expense. The state thus embraces the various institutions of government, but it also extends to the courts, nationalized industries, social security system, and so forth; it can be identified with the entire ‘body politic’.  Five key features of the State o The state is sovereign. It exercises absolute and unrestricted power, in that it stands above all other associations and groups in society. Thomas Hobbes conveyed the idea of sovereignty by portraying the state as a ‘leviathan’, a gigantic monster, usually represented as a sea creature. o State institutions are recognizably ‘public’, in contrast to the ‘private’ institutions of civil society. Public bodies are responsible for making and enforcing collective 13 decisions, while private bodies, such as families, private businesses and trade unions, exist to satisfy individual interests. o The state is an exercise in legitimation. The decisions of the state are usually (although not necessarily) accepted as binding on the members of society because, it is claimed, they are made in the public interest, or for common good; the state supposedly reﬂects the permanent interests of society. o The state is an instrument of domination. State authority is backed up by coercion; the state must have the capacity to ensure that its laws are obeyed and that transgressors are punished. For Max Weber (see p. 82), the state was deﬁned by its monopoly of the means of ‘legitimate violence’. o The state is a territorial association. The jurisdiction of the state is geographically deﬁned, and it encompasses all those who live within the state’s borders, whether they are citizens or non-citizens. On the international stage, the state is therefore regarded (at least, in theory) as an autonomous entity. o The classic definition of the state in international law is found in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of the State (1933). According to Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, the state has four features:  a defined territory  a permanent population  an effective government  the capacity to enter into relations with other states Theories of State What is the nature of state power, and whose interests does the state represent? From this perspective, the state is an ‘essentially contested’ concept. There are various rival theories of the state, each of which offers a different account of its origins, development and impact on society. Indeed, controversy about the nature of state power has increasingly dominated modern polit ical analysis and goes to the heart of ideological andtheoretical disagreements in the discipline. These relate to questions about whether, for example, the state is autonomous and independent of society, or whether it is essentially a product of society, a reﬂection of the broader distribution of power or resources. Moreover, does the state serve the common or collective good, or is it biased in favour of privileged groups or a dominant class? Similarly, is the state a positive or constructive force, with responsibilities that should be enlarged, or is it a negative or destructive entity that must be constrained or, perhaps, smashed altogether? Four contrasting theories of the state can be identiﬁed as follows:  The pluralist state- The pluralist theory of the state has a very clear liberal lineage. It stems from the belief that the state acts as an ‘umpire’ or ‘referee’ in society. This view has also dominated mainstream political analysis, accounting for a tendency, at least within Anglo-American thought, to discount the state and state organizations and focus instead on ‘government’. Indeed, it is not uncommon in this tradition for ‘the state’ to be dismissed as an abstraction, with institutions such as the courts, the civil service and the military being seen as independent actors in their own right, rather than as elements of a broader state machine. Nevertheless, this approach is possible only because it is based on underlying, and often unacknowledged, 14 assumptions about state neutrality. The state can be ignored only because it is seen as an impartial arbiter or referee that can be bent to the will of the government of the day.  The Capitalist State-The Marxist notion of a capitalist state offers a clear alternative to the pluralist image of the state as a neutral arbiter or umpire. Marxists have typically argued that the state cannot be understood separately from the economic structure of society. This view has usually been understood in terms of the classic formulation that the state is nothing but an instrument of class oppression: the state emerges out of, and in a sense reﬂects, the class system. Nevertheless, a rich debate has taken place within Marxist theory in recent years that has moved the Marxist theory of the state a long way from this classic formulation. In many ways, the scope to revise Marxist attitudes towards the state stems from ambiguities that can be found in Marx’s own writings. The leviathan state- The image of the state as a ‘leviathan’ (in effect, a self-serving monster intent on expansion and aggrandizement) is one associated in modern politics with the New Right. Such a view is rooted in early or classical liberalism and, in particular, a commitment to a radical form of individualism. The New Right, or at least its neoliberal wing, is distinguished by a strong antipathy towards state intervention in economic and social life, born out of the belief that the state is a  parasitic growth that threatens both individual liberty and economic security. In this view, the state, instead of being, as pluralists suggest, an impartial umpire or arbiter, is an overbearing ‘nanny’, desperate to interfere or meddle in every aspect of human existence. The central feature of this view is that the state pursues interests that are separate from those of society (setting it apart from Marxism), and that those interests demand an unrelenting growth in the role or responsibilities of the state itself. New Right thinkers therefore argue that the twentieth century tendency towards state intervention reﬂected not popular pressure for economic and social security, or the need to stabilize capitalism by ameliorating class tensions but, rather, the internal dynamics of the state.  The patriarchal state- Modern thinking about the state must, ﬁnally, take account of the implications of feminist theory. However, this is not to say that there is a systematic feminist theory of the state. feminist theory encompasses a range of traditions and perspectives, and has thus generated a range of very different attitudes towards state power. Moreover, feminists have usually not regarded the nature of state power as a central political issue, preferring instead to concentrate on the deeper structure of male power centered on institutions such as the family and the economic system. Some feminists, indeed, may question conventional deﬁnitions of the state, arguing, for instance, that the idea that the state exercises a monopoly of legitimate violence is compromised by the routine use of violence and intimidation in family and domestic life. 15 The Role of the State Contrasting interpretations of state power have clear implications for the desirable role or responsibilities of the state. What should states do? What functions or responsibilities should the state fulﬁl, and which ones should be left in the hands of private individuals? In many respects, these are the questions around which electoral politics and party competition revolve. With the exception of anarchists, who dismiss the state as fundamentally evil and unnecessary, all political thinkers have regarded the state as, in some sense, worthwhile. Even revolutionary socialists, inspired by the Leninist slogan ‘smash the state’, have accepted the need for a temporary proletarian state to preside over the transition from capitalism to communism, in the form of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Nevertheless, there is profound disagreement about the exact role the state should play, and therefore about the proper balance between the state and civil society. Among the different state forms that have developed are the following:  Minimal States-The minimal state is the ideal of classical liberals, whose aim is to ensure that individuals enjoy the widest possible realm of freedom. This view is rooted in social-contract theory, but it nevertheless advances an essentially ‘negative’ view of the state. From this perspective, the value of the state is that it has the capacity to constrain human behavior and thus to prevent individuals encroaching on the rights and liberties of others. The state is merely a protective body, its core function being to provide a framework of peace and social order within which citizens can conduct their lives as they think best. In Locke’s famous simile, the state acts as a night watchman, whose services are called upon only when orderly existence is threatened. This nevertheless leaves the ‘minimal’ or ‘nightwatchman’ state with three core functions. First and foremost, the state exists to maintain domestic order. Second, it ensures that contracts or voluntary agreements made between private citizens are enforced, and third it provides protection against external attack.  Developmental States- A developmental state is one that intervenes in economic life with the speciﬁc purpose of promoting industrial growth and economic development. This does not amount to an attempt to replace the market with a ‘socialist’ system of planning and control but, rather, to an attempt to construct a partnership between the state and major economic interests, often underpinned by conservative and nationalist priorities. The classic example of a developmental state is Japan. During the Meiji Period (1868– 1912), the Japanese state forged a close relationship with the zaibutsu, the great family- run business empires that dominated the Japanese economy up until World War II. Since 1945, the developmental role of the Japanese state has been assumed by the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), which, together with the Bank of Japan, helps to shape private investment decisions and steer the Japanese economy towards international competitiveness. More recently, economic globalization (see p. 142) has fostered the emergence of ‘competition states’, examples of which are found amongst the tiger economies of East Asia. Competition states are distinguished by their recognition of the need to strengthen education and training as the principal guaranteeing economic success in a context of intensifying transnational competition.  Social Democratic States- Developmental states practice interventionism in order to stimulate economic progress, social-democratic states intervene with a view to bringing about broader social restructuring, usually in accordance with principles such as fairness, 16 equality and social justice. The social-democratic state is thus the ideal of both modern liberals and democratic socialists. Rather than merely laying down the conditions of orderly existence, the social-democratic state is an active participant; in particular, helping to rectify the imbalances and injustices of a market economy. It therefore tends to focus less upon the generation of wealth and more upon what is seen as the equitable or just distribution of wealth. In practice, this boils down to an attempt to eradicate poverty and reduce social inequality. The twin features of a social democratic state are therefore Keynesianism and social welfare. The aim of Keynesian economic policies is to ‘manage’ or ‘regulate’ capitalism with a view to promoting growth and maintaining full employment. The adoption of welfare policies has led to the emergence of so called ‘welfare states’, whose responsibilities have extended to the promotion of social well- being amongst their citizens. In this sense, the social-democratic state is an ‘enabling state’, dedicated to the principle of individual empowerment. Collectivized States- While developmental and social-democratic states intervene in economic life with a view to guiding or supporting a largely private economy, collectivized states bring the entirety of economic life under state control. The best examples of such states were in orthodox communist countries such as the USSR and throughout Eastern Europe. These sought to abolish private enterprise altogether, and set up centrally planned economies administered by a network of economic ministries and planning committees. So-called ‘command economies’ were therefore established that were organized through a system of ‘directive’ planning that was ultimately controlled by the highest organs of the communist party. The justiﬁcation for state collectivization stems from a fundamental socialist preference for common ownership over private property. However, the use of the state to attain this goal suggests a more positive attitude to state power than that outlined in the classical writings of Marx and Engels (1820–95).  Totalitarian states- The most extreme and extensive form of interventionism is found in totalitarian states. The essence of totalitarianism is the construction of an all- embracing state, the inﬂuence of which penetrates every aspect of human existence. The state brings not only the economy, but also education, culture, religion, family life and so on under direct state control. The best examples of totalitarian states are Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s USSR, although modern regimes such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq arguably have similar characteristics. The central pillars of such regimes are a comprehensive process of surveillance and terroristic policing, and a pervasive system of ideological manipulation and control. In this sense, totalitarian states effectively extinguish civil society and abolish the ‘private’ sphere of life altogether. This is a goal that only fascists, who wish to dissolve individual identity within the social whole, are prepared openly to endorse.  Religious states- On the face of it, a religious state is a contradiction in terms. The modern state emerged largely through the triumph of civil authority over religious authority, religion increasingly being confined to the private sphere, through a separation between church and state. The advance of state sovereignty thus usually went hand in hand with the forward march of secularization. 17 State Formation The basic concepts of political science including how the concepts of nation states and sovereignty came into being. This article takes the discussion further by examining how states have formed and developed over the decades as well as the changes occurring in the way states are governed and managed. The first aspect of state formation relates to the unitary concept of sovereignty wherein nations exist as entities that are autonomous and independent. For instance, the British and French colonial powers ceded independence to their erstwhile client states in the aftermath of the Second World War. Next, many countries came into existence because of historical and geographical realities. Hence, the formation of states has happened either due to fights for independence or because of the redrawing of the maps due to geopolitical considerations. This is the case with Iraq and other countries in the erstwhile Soviet Bloc that were amalgamated with the larger Soviet Union because of contiguities and the need for expansion. State Development The development of states has happened after these countries gained independence and this was accompanied by a concomitant move to develop their economies and strengthen the institutions of governance. For instance, India adopted a new constitution and embarked on state building, which is now yielding results in terms of improved living conditions for the people when compared with those under British rule. Further, states like those that became independent after the collapse of the communist regimes are now establishing themselves as strong states with flourishing economies mainly due to concerted efforts at state building and state development. Changes in State Processes The third aspect of changes in the ways and means of how the states go about their activities is to do with how the political economy evolves over a period of time. For instance, Pakistan has experimented with both democracy and military rule without success in either whereas Egypt has made the transition from autocratic rule to democratic rule successfully. The point here is that the key factor for states to change over time is the resilience of the institutions of governance as well as the ability of the people to effect change. Hence, states that have stronger institutions and less internal fissures have changed for the good whereas states that are weak in the center or are pulled apart due to centripetal forces have become failed states. Finally, the processes of state formation, development, and change can happen through revolutions as was seen recently during the Arab Spring of 2011. The Phenomenon of Failed States The previous articles discussed how state formation and state development takes place in the world. Though there are many examples of states that have managed to develop and progress, there are an equal number of states that have regressed and lapsed into chaotic conditions. These states where governance is absent and where civil war like conditions are prevalent are known as failed states. 18 For instance, many states in Africa can be classified as failed states because there is no semblance of government there and where the people are at the mercy of warlords and stakes. The failed states index, which is an annual listing of the countries, considered to have failed is growing by the year and at the moment; it has over 100 countries in the list. Though not all are failed to the same degree, it is understood that those countries that make the top slots in the list are certainly basket cases that are beyond redemption. Indeed, many countries in Asia are also considered to be bordering on being classified as failed states as they are unable to control large swathes of their own countries. Nations and Nationalism Nations (from the Latin nasci, meaning ‘to be born’) are complex phenomena that are shaped by a collection of factors. Culturally, a nation is a group of people bound together by a common language, religion, history and traditions, although nations exhibit various levels of cultural heterogeneity. Politically, a nation is a group of people who regard themselves as a natural political community, classically expressed through the quest for sovereign statehood. Psychologically, a nation is a group of people distinguished by a shared loyalty or affection in the form of patriotism. The term ‘nation’ tends to be used with little precision, and is often used interchangeably with terms such as ‘state’, ‘country’, ‘ethnic group’ and ‘race’. The United Nations, for instance, is clearly misnamed, as it is an organization of states, not one of national populations. What, then, are the characteristic features of the nation? What distinguishes a nation from any other social group, or other sources of collective identity? The difﬁculty of deﬁning the term ‘nation’ springs from the fact that all nations comprise a mixture of objective and subjective features, a blend of cultural and political characteristics. In objective terms, nations are cultural entities: groups of people who speak the same language, have the same religion, are bound by a shared past and so on. Such factors undoubtedly shape the politics of nationalism. Nations as Cultural Communities Cultural nationalism is a form of nationalism that places primary emphasis on the regeneration of the nation as a distinctive civilization, rather than as a discrete political community. Whereas political nationalism is ‘rational’, and usually principled, cultural nationalism is ‘mystical’, in that it is based on a romantic belief in the nation as a unique, historical and organic whole, animated by its own ‘spirit’. Typically, it is a ‘bottomup’ form of nationalism that draws more on ‘popular’ rituals, traditions and legends than on elite, or ‘higher’, culture. The idea that a nation is essentially an ethnic or cultural entity has been described as the ‘primary’ concept of the nation (Lafont, 1968). Its roots can be traced back to late eighteenth- century Germany and the writings of ﬁgures such as Herder and Fichte (1762–1814). For Herder, the innate character of each national group was ultimately determined by its natural environment, climate and physical geography, which shaped the lifestyle, working habits, attitudes and creative propensities of a people. Above all, he emphasized the importance of language, which he believed was the embodiment of a people’s distinctive traditions and historical memories. In his view, each nation thus possesses a Volksgeist, which reveals itself in songs, myths and legends, and provides a nation with its source of creativity. Herder’s 19 nationalism therefore amounts to a form of culturalism that emphasizes an awareness and appreciation of national traditions and collective memories instead of an overtly political quest for statehood. Nations as Political Communities The view that nations are essentially political entities emphasizes civic loyalties and political allegiances, rather than cultural identity. The nation is thus a group of people who are bound together primarily by shared citizenship, regardless of their cultural, ethnic and other loyalties. This view of the nation is often traced back to the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, sometimes seen as the ‘father’ of modern nationalism. Although Rousseau did not speciﬁcally address the nation question, or discuss the phenomenon of nationalism, his stress on popular sovereignty, expressed in the idea of the ‘general will’ (in effect, the common good of society), was the seed from which nationalist doctrines sprang during the French Revolution of 1789.In proclaiming that government should be based on the general will, Rousseau developed a powerful critique of monarchical power and aristocratic privilege. During the French Revolution, this principle of radical democracy was reﬂected in the assertion that the French people were ‘citizens’ possessed of inalienable rights and liberties, no longer merely ‘subjects’ of the crown. Sovereign power thus resided with the ‘French nation’. Benedict Anderson (1983) also portrayed the modern nation as an artefact, in his case as an ‘imagined community’. Anderson pointed out that nations exist more as mental images than as genuine communities that require a level of face-to-face interaction to sustain the notion of a common identity. Within nations, individuals only ever meet a tiny proportion of those with whom they supposedly share a national identity. Whether nations spring out of a desire for liberty and democracy, or are merely cunning inventions of political elites or a ruling class, certain nations have an unmistakably political character. Following Meinecke, these nations can be classiﬁed as ‘political nations’. A ‘political’ nation is one in which citizenship has greater political signiﬁcance than ethnic identity; not uncommonly, political nations contain a number of ethnic groups, and so are marked by cultural heterogeneity. The UK, the USA and France have often been seen as classic examples of political nations. The UK is a union of what, in effect, are four ‘cultural’ nations: the English, the Scottish, the Welsh and the Northern Irish (although the latter may comprise two nations, the Protestant Unionists and the Catholic Republicans). The British national identity is based on political factors such as a common allegiance to the Crown, respect for the Westminster Parliament, and a belief in the historic rights and liberties of the British people. The American national identity, as a ‘land of immigrants’, the USA has a distinctively multi- ethnic and multicultural character, which makes it impossible for it to construct a national identity on the basis of shared cultural and historical ties. Instead, a sense of American nationhood has been consciously developed through the educational system, and through the cultivation of respect for a set of common values, notably those outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. 20 French national identity is closely linked to the traditions and principles of the 1789 French Revolution. What such nations have in common is that, in theory, they were founded on a voluntary acceptance of a common set of principles or goals, as opposed to an existing cultural identity. It is sometimes argued that the style of nationalism that develops in such societies is typically tolerant and democratic. If a nation is primarily a political entity, it is an inclusive group, in that membership is not restricted to those who fulfil particular language, religious, ethnic or suchlike criteria. Classic examples are the USA, with its image as a ‘melting pot’ nation, and the ‘new’ South Africa, seen as a ‘rainbow society’. On the other hand, political nations may at times fail to experience the organic unity and sense of historical rootedness that is found in cultural nations. This may, for instance, account for the relative weakness of specifically British nationalism in the UK, by comparison with Scottish and Welsh nationalism and the insular form of English nationalism that is sometimes called ‘little Englander’ nationalism. Varieties of Nationalism  Liberal Nationalism - Liberal nationalism is based on the fundamental assumption that humankind is naturally divided into a collection of nations, each possessed of a separate identity. Nations are therefore genuine or organic communities, not the artiﬁcial creation of political leaders or ruling classes. The characteristic theme of liberal nationalism, however, is that it links the idea of the nation with a belief in popular sovereignty, ultimately derived from Rousseau. This fusion was brought about because the multinational empires against which nineteenth-century European nationalists fought were also autocratic and oppressive. Mazzini, for example, wished not only to unite the Italian states, but also to throw off the inﬂuence of autocratic Austria. The central theme of this form of nationalism is therefore a commitment to the principle of national self-determination. Liberal nationalism is, above all, a principled form of nationalism. It does not uphold the interests of one nation against other nations. Instead, it proclaims that each and every nation has a right to freedom and self-determination. In this sense, all nations are equal. The ultimate goal of liberal nationalism, then, is the construction of a world of sovereign nation-state  Conservative Nationalism- Conservative nationalism is concerned less with the principled nationalism of universal self-determination, and more with the promise of social cohesion and public order embodied in the sentiment of national patriotism. Above all, conservatives see the nation as an organic entity emerging out of a basic desire of humans to gravitate towards those who have the same views, habits, lifestyles and appearance as themselves. In short, human beings seek security and identity through membership of a national community. From this perspective, patriotic loyalty and a consciousness of nationhood is rooted largely in the idea of a shared past, turning nationalism into a defense of values and institutions that have been endorsed by history. Conservative nationalism tends to develop in established nation-states rather than in those that are in the process of nation-building. It is typically inspired by the perception that the nation is somehow under threat, either from within or from without. The traditional ‘enemy within’ has been class antagonism and the ultimate danger of social revolution. 21  Expansionist Nationalism- The third form of nationalism has an aggressive, militaristic and expansionist character. In many ways, this form of nationalism is the antithesis of the principled belief in equal rights and self-determination that is the core of liberal nationalism. The aggressive face of nationalism ﬁrst appeared in the late nineteenth century as European powers indulged in ‘the scramble for Africa’ in the name of national glory and their ‘place in the sun’. Nineteenth-century European imperialism differed from the colonial expansion of earlier periods in that it was fueled by a climate of popular nationalism in which national prestige was linked to the possession of an empire, and each colonial victory was greeted by demonstrations of popular enthusiasm, or jingoism. To a large extent, both world wars of the twentieth century resulted from this expansionist form of nationalism.  Anti-colonial and Post-colonial Nationalism- The developing world has spawned various forms of nationalism, all of which have in some way drawn inspiration from the struggle against colonial rule. The irony of this form of nationalism is that it has turned doctrines and principles ﬁrst developed through the process of ‘nation- building’ in Europe against the European powers themselves. Colonialism, in other words, succeeded in turning nationalism into a political creed of global signiﬁcance.  through the process of ‘nation-building’ in Europe against the European powers themselves. Colonialism, in other words, succeeded in turning nationalism into a political creed of global signiﬁcance. The Political Systems The political system in any country is that part of the state apparatus that is in charge of the legislature and the executive. It is the practice in democracies to appoint politicians in the legislature and executive to administer the country. The political system is one of the pillars of modern democracies and without it, there can be no mechanism through decisions affecting the lives of the citizenry can be taken. In other words, without an effective political system, the modern democracies cannot function. Further, the politicians are usually elected by the people directly or indirectly and hence, the political system is representative of the will of the people. This means that the politicians derive their power from popular support and draw their legitimacy from the people. This is the reason elections are held periodically in democracies so that the will of the people prevails and a representative political system takes shape. Monarchy A monarchy is a form of government in which total sovereignty is invested in one person, a head of state called a monarch, who holds the position until death or abdication. Monarchs usually both hold and achieve their position through the right of hereditary succession (e.g., they were related, often the son or daughter, of the previous monarch), although there have 22 been elective monarchies, where the monarch holds the position after being elected: the papacy is sometimes called an elective monarchy. Male monarchs are often called kings, and females queens, but principalities, where princes and princesses rule by hereditary right, are sometimes referred to as monarchies, as are empires led by emperors and empresses. There have also been hereditary rulers who weren’t considered monarchs, such as the stadtholders of Holland. Many monarchs have invoked religious reasons, such as being chosen by God, as a justification for their rule. Courts are often considered a key aspect of monarchies. These occur around the monarchs and provide a social meeting place for monarch and nobility. Levels of Power The amount of power a monarch wields has varied across time and situation, with a good deal of European national history comprising a power struggle between the monarch and either their nobility and subjects. On the one hand, you have the absolute monarchies of the early modern period, the best example being French King Louis XIV, where the monarch (in theory at least) had total power over everything they wished. On the other, you have constitutional monarchies where the monarch is now little more than a figurehead, and the majority of power rests with other forms of government. There is traditionally only one monarch per monarchy at a time, although in Britain King William and Queen Mary ruled simultaneously between 1689 and 1694. When a monarch is either considered too young or too ill to take full control of their office or is absent (perhaps on crusade), a regent (or group of regents) rules in their place.  Core Democratic Characteristics o Democracy is government in which power and civic responsibility are exercised by all adult citizens, directly, or through their freely elected representatives. o Democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule and individual rights. Democracies guard against all-powerful central governments and decentralize government to regional and local levels, understanding that all levels of government must be as accessible and responsive to the people as possible. o Democracies understand that one of their prime functions is to protect such basic human rights as freedom of speech and religion; the right to equal protection under law; and the opportunity to organize and participate fully in the political, economic, and cultural life of society. o Democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to citizens of voting age. o Citizens in a democracy have not only rights, but also the responsibility to participate in the political system that, in turn, protects their rights and freedoms. o Democratic societies are committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation, and compromise. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit. Two forms of Democracy Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly most practical with relatively small numbers of people 23 - in a community organization, tribal council, or the local unit of a labor union, for example - where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Indirect democracy is a system where the people elects representatives to represent them in the congress or national assemblies. It is also known as Republic. Understanding democracy Debates about democracy extend well beyond its relationship to legitimacy. These stem, most basically, from confusion over the nature of democracy. The origins of the term ‘democracy’ can be traced back to Ancient Greece. Like other words ending in ‘cracy’ (for example, autocracy, aristocracy and bureaucracy), democracy is derived from the Greek word kratos, meaning power, or rule. Democracy thus means ‘rule by the demos’ (the demos referring to ‘the people’, although the Greeks originally used this to mean ‘the poor’ or ‘the many’). However, the simple notion of ‘rule by the people’ does not get us very far. The problem with democracy has been its very popularity, a popularity that has threatened the term’s undoing as a meaningful political concept. Amongst the meanings that have been attached to the word ‘democracy’ are the following:  a system of rule by the poor and disadvantaged  a form of government in which the people rule themselves directly and continuously, without the need for professional politicians or public ofﬁcials.  a society based on equal opportunity and individual merit, rather than hierarchy and privilege.  a system of welfare and redistribution aimed at narrowing social inequalities  a system of decision-making based on the principle of majority rule  a system of rule that secures the rights and interests of minorities by placing checks upon the power of the majority  a means of ﬁlling public ofﬁces through a competitive struggle for the popular vote  a system of government that serves the interests of the people regardless of their participation in political life. A more helpful starting point from which to consider the nature of democracy is Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (1863). Lincoln extolled the virtues of what he called ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people’. Who are the people? One of the core features of democracy is the principle of political equality, the notion that political power should be distributed as widely and as evenly as possible. However, within what body or group should this power be distributed? In short, who constitutes ‘the people’? On the face of it, the answer is simple: ‘the demos’, or ‘the people’, surely refers to all the people; that is, the entire population of the country. In practice, however, every democratic system has restricted political participation, sometimes severely. As noted, early Greek writers usually used demos to refer to ‘the many’: that is, the disadvantaged and usually property less masses. Democracy therefore implied not political equality, but a bias towards the poor. 24 How should the people rule? Most conceptions of democracy are based on the principle of ‘government by the people’. This implies that, in effect, people govern themselves – which they participate in making the crucial decisions that structure their lives and determine the fate of their society. This participation can take a number of forms, however. In the case of direct democracy, popular participation entails direct and continuous involvement in decision-making, through devices such as referendums), mass meetings, or even interactive television. The alternative and more common form of democratic participation is the act of voting, which is the central feature of what is usually called ‘representative democracy’ There are also models of democracy that are built on the principle of ‘government for the people’, and that allow little scope for public participation of any kind, direct or in direct. The most grotesque example of this was found in the so-called ‘totalitarian democracies’ that developed under fascist dictators such as Mussolini and Hitler. The democratic credentials of such regimes were based on the claim that the ‘leader’, and the leader alone, articulated the genuine interests of the people, thus implying that a ‘true’ democracy can be equated with an absolute dictatorship. In such cases, popular rule meant nothing more than ritualized submission to the will of an all-powerful leader, orchestrated through rallies, marches and demonstrations. This was sometimes portrayed as plebiscitary democracy. Although totalitarian democracies have proved to be a travesty of the conventional notion of democratic rule, they demonstrate the tension that can exist between ‘government by the people’ (or popular participation), and ‘government for the people’ (rule in the public interest). How far should popular rule extend? Now that we have decided who ‘the people’ are, and how they should rule, it is necessary to consider how far their rule should extend. What is the proper realm of democracy? An alternative view of democracy is often developed by, for example, socialists and radical democrats. In radical democracy, democracy is seen not as a means of laying down a framework within which individuals can go about their own business but, rather, as a general principle that is applicable to all areas of social existence. People are seen as having a basic right to participate in the making of any decisions that affect their lives, with democracy simply being the collective process through which this is done. This position is evident in socialist demands for the collectivization of wealth and the introduction of workers’ self-management, both of which are seen as ways of democratizing economic life. Instead of endorsing mere political democracy, socialists have therefore called for ‘social democracy’ or ‘economic democracy’ Models of democracy The classical model- This model of democracy is based on the polis, or city-state, of Ancient Greece, and particularly on the system of rule that developed in the largest and most powerful Greek city-state, Athens. The form of direct democracy that operated in Athens during the fourth and ﬁfth centuries BC is often portrayed as the only pure or ideal system of popular participation. Nevertheless, although the model had considerable impact on later thinkers such as Rousseau and Marx, Athenian democracy developed a very particular kind of direct popular rule, one that has only a very limited application in the modern world. Athenian democracy 25 amounted to a form of government by mass meeting. What made Athenian democracy so remarkable was the level of political activity of its citizens. Not only did they participate in regular meetings of the Assembly, but they were also, in large numbers, prepared to shoulder the responsibility of public ofﬁce and decision-making. The most inﬂuential contemporaneous critic of this form of democracy was the philosopher Plato. Plato attacked the principle of political equality on the grounds that the mass of the people possesses neither the wisdom nor the experience to rule wisely on their own behalf. His solution, advanced in The Republic, was that government be placed in the hands of a class of philosopher kings, Guardians, whose rule would amount to a kind of enlightened dictatorship. Protective democracy- When democratic ideas were revived in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, they appeared in a form that was very different from the classical democracy of Ancient Greece. In particular, democracy was seen less as a mechanism through which the public could participate in political life, and more as a device through which citizens could protect themselves from the encroachments of government, hence ‘protective democracy’. This view appealed particularly to early liberal thinkers whose concern was, above all, to create the widest realm of individual liberty. The desire to protect the individual from over-mighty government was expressed in perhaps the earliest of all democratic sentiments, Aristotle’s response to Plato: ‘who will guard the Guardians?’ If government, through taxation, possessed the power to expropriate property, citizens were entitled to protect themselves by controlling the composition of the tax-setting body: the legislature. In other words, democracy came to mean a system of ‘government by consent’ operating through a representative assembly. However, Locke himself was not a democrat by modern standards, as he believed that only property owners should vote, on the basis that only they had natural rights that could be infringed by government. Developmental democracy- Developmental democracy Although early democratic theory focused on the need to protect individual rights and interests, it soon developed an alternative focus: a concern with the development of the human individual and the community. This gave rise to quite new models of democratic rule that can broadly be referred to as systems of developmental democracy. The most novel, and radical, such model was developed by Jean- Jacques Rousseau. In many respects, Rousseau’s ideas mark a departure from the dominant, liberal conception of democracy, and they came to have an impact on the Marxist and anarchist traditions as well as, later, on the New Left. For Rousseau, democracy was ultimately a means through which human beings could achieve freedom or autonomy, in the sense of ‘obedience to a law one prescribes to oneself’. In other words, citizens are ‘free’ only when they participate directly and continuously in shaping the life of their community. This is an idea that moves well beyond the conventional notion of electoral democracy and offers support for the more radical ideal of direct democracy. Indeed, Rousseau was a strenuous critic of the practice of elections used in England, arguing in The Social Contract ( 1913). People’s democracy- The term ‘people’s democracy’ is derived from the orthodox communist regimes that sprang up on the Soviet model in the aftermath of World War II. It is here used, however, to refer broadly to the various democratic models that the Marxist tradition has

POLS 101 Fundamentals of Political Science PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue