Lecture 2 - What is Politics

What is politics? Lecture 2 Politics as: The art of government Public affairs Compromise and consensus Power International relations Disagreement People disagree about how they should live. Who should get what? How should power and other resources be distributed? Should soci...

What is politics? Lecture 2 Politics as: The art of government Public affairs Compromise and consensus Power International relations Disagreement People disagree about how they should live. Who should get what? How should power and other resources be distributed? Should society be based on cooperation or conflict? How should collective decisions be made? Who should have a say? How much influence should each person have? Politics is nothing less than the activity through which human beings attempt to improve their lives and create the ‘Good Society’ (Aristotle). Politics is, above all, a social activity. It is always a dialogue, and never a monologue.  Defining politics Politics is the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live. Politics is linked to the phenomena of conflict and cooperation. Conflict: the existence of rival opinions, different wants, competing needs, and opposing interests guarantees disagreement about the rules under which people live. Copperation: people recognize that, in order to influence these rules or ensure that they are upheld, they must work with others. This is why the heart of politics is often portrayed as a process of conflict resolution, in which rival views or competing interests are reconciled with one another. The inescapable presence of diversity (we are not all alike) and scarcity (there is never enough to go around) ensures that politics is an inevitable feature of the human condition.  A ‘dirty’ word vs a vague term Politics is a ‘loaded’ term Politics is usually thought of as a ‘dirty’ word: it conjures up images of trouble, disruption and even violence on the one hand, and deceit, manipulation and lies on the other. 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. These different views may simply consist of contrasting conceptions of the same, if necessarily vague, concept. Politics as the art of government  To be ‘in politics’ = holding the public office Otto von Bismarck: ‘Politics is not a science … but an art’. 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 - classical definition of politics, developed from the original meaning of the term in Ancient Greece. Polis – the Greek ‘city-state’. Ancient Greek society was divided into a collection of independent city states, each of which possessed its own system of government. Politics can be understood to refer to the affairs of the polis – in effect, ‘what concerns the polis’. The modern form of this definition is therefore ‘what concerns the state’.  Politics associated with ‘policy’ ‘What concerns the state’ is the traditional view of politics, reflected in the tendency for academic study to focus on the personnel and machinery of government. To study politics is, in essence, to study government, or, more broadly, to study the exercise of authority. David Easton (1979, 1981) 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. ‘Authoritative values’ are therefore those that are widely accepted in society, and are considered binding by the mass of citizens. Politics is associated with ‘policy’: formal or authoritative decisions that establish a plan of action for the community.  Authority Authority can most simply be defined as ‘legitimate power’. Whereas power is the ability to influence the behaviour of others, authority is the right to do so. Authority is therefore based on an acknowledged duty to obey rather than on any form of coercion or manipulation. In this sense, authority is power cloaked in legitimacy or rightfulness. Max Weber distinguished between three kinds of authority, based on the different grounds on which obedience can be established: traditional authority is rooted in history; charismatic authority stems from personality; and legal–rational authority is grounded in a set of impersonal rules. Polity: A society organized through the exercise of political authority; for Aristotle, rule by the many in the interests of all. A restricted view of politics Belief: politics is what takes place within a polity, a system of social organization centred on the machinery of government. Politics is therefore practised 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’. To portray politics as an essentially state bound activity is to ignore the increasingly important international or global influences on modern life.  In the popular mind, politics is closely associated with the activities of politicians This is evident in the tendency to treat politics as the equivalent of party politics. In other words, the realm of ‘the political’ is restricted to those state actors who are consciously motivated by ideological beliefs, and who seek to advance them through membership of a formal organization such as a political party. This is the sense in which politicians are described as ‘political’, whereas civil servants are seen as ‘non-political’, as long as, of course, they act in a neutral and professional fashion. Similarly, judges are taken to be ‘non-political’ figures while they interpret the law impartially and in accordance with the available evidence, but they may be accused of being ‘political’ if their judgement is influenced by personal preferences or some other form of bias. Politicians are often seen as power seeking hypocrites who conceal personal ambition behind the rhetoric of public service and ideological conviction. Indeed, this perception has become more common in the modern period as intensified media exposure has more effectively brought to light examples of corruption and dishonesty. Anti-politics: Disillusionment with formal or established political processes, reflected in non-participation, support for anti-system parties, or the use of direct action.  The Machiavellian view of politics The rejection of the personnel and machinery of conventional political life is rooted in a view of politics as a self- serving, two-faced and unprincipled activity. Such an image of politics is sometimes traced back to the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli, who, in The Prince (1532), developed a strictly realistic account of politics that drew attention to the use by political leaders of cunning, cruelty and manipulation. The adjective ‘Machiavellian’ subsequently came to mean ‘cunning and duplicitous’.  ‘Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ Without some kind of mechanism for allocating authoritative values, society would simply disintegrate into a civil war of each against all, as the early social-contract theorists (e.g. Jean-Jaques Roussou) argued. The task is therefore not to abolish politicians and bring politics to an end but, rather, to ensure that politics is conducted within a framework of checks and constraints that guarantee that governmental power is not abused. Politics as public affairs Politics = ‘public life’ or ‘public affairs’ The distinction between ‘the political’ and ‘the non-political’ coincides with the division between an essentially public sphere of life and what can be thought of as a private sphere. ‘Man is by nature a political animal’, by which Aristotle 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’. “If not political then private” The traditional distinction between the public realm and the private realm conforms to the division between the state and civil society. The institutions of the state (the apparatus of government, the courts, the police, the army, the social security system, and so forth) can be regarded as ‘public’ in the sense that they are responsible for the collective organization of community life. Moreover, they are funded at the public’s expense, out of taxation. Civil society consists of institutions such as the family and kinship groups, private businesses, trade unions, clubs, community groups and so on, that are ‘private’ in the sense that they are set up and funded by individual citizens to satisfy their own interests, rather than those of the larger society. ‘Public/private’ division, politics is restricted to the activities of the state itself and the responsibilities that are properly exercised by public bodies. Those areas of life that individuals can and do manage for themselves (the economic, social, domestic, personal, cultural and artistic spheres, and so on) are therefore clearly ‘non-political’. Civil Society Civil society originally meant a ‘political community’. The term is now more commonly distinguished from the state, and is used to describe institutions that are ‘private’, in that they are independent from government and organized by individuals in pursuit of their own ends. Civil society therefore refers to a realm of autonomous groups and associations: businesses, interest groups, clubs, families and so on. The term ‘global civil society’ has become fashionable as a means of referring to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and transnational social movements.  ‘Private’ vs ‘public’ Although civil society can be distinguished from the state, it nevertheless contains a range of institutions that are thought of as ‘public’ in the wider sense that they are open institutions, operating in public, to which the public has access. One of the crucial implications of this is that it broadens our notion of the political, transferring the economy, in particular, from the private to the public realm. Although this view regards institutions such as businesses, community groups, clubs and trade unions as ‘public’, it remains a restricted view of politics. According to this perspective, politics does not, and should not, infringe on ‘personal’ affairs and institutions.  Feminist thinkers: ‘the personal’ is also political The notion that politics should exclude ‘the personal’ has been challenged by feminist thinkers. Feminist perspective: gender inequality has been preserved precisely because the sexual division of labour that runs through society has traditionally been thought of as ‘natural’ rather than ‘political’. The public sphere of life, encompassing politics, work, art and literature, has historically been the preserve of men, while women have been confined to an essentially private existence, centred on the family and domestic responsibilities. If politics takes place only within the public sphere, the role of women and the question of gender equality are issues of little or no political importance.  Politics as a public acitivity: positive and negative views Hannah Arendt, argued in The Human Condition (1958) that politics is the most important form of human activity because it involves interaction amongst free and equal citizens. It thus gives meaning to life and affirms the uniqueness of each individual. Jean-Jaques Rousseau argued that only through the direct and continuous participation of all citizens in political life can the state be bound to the common good, or what he called the ‘general will’. In John Stuart Mill’s view, involvement in ‘public’ affairs is educational, in that it promotes the personal, moral and intellectual development of the individual. Critique: Politics as public activity has also been portrayed as a form of unwanted interference. Liberal theorists (e.g. John Locke), in particular, have exhibited a preference for civil society over the state, on the grounds that ‘private’ life is a realm of choice, personal freedom and individual responsibility. ‘Keep politics out of’ private Politics as compromise and consensus Consensus Consensus means agreement, but it refers to an agreement of a particular kind. It implies, first, a broad agreement, the terms of which are accepted by a wide range of individuals or groups. Second, it implies an agreement about fundamental or underlying principles, as opposed to a precise or exact agreement. In other words, a consensus permits disagreement on matters of emphasis or detail.  ‘The art of the possible’ The third 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, conciliation and negotiation, rather than through force and naked power. 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.  Bernard Crick in ‘In Defence of Politics’: 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. 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’. The disagreements that exist can be resolved without resort to intimidation and violence. Critics point out that Crick’s conception of politics is heavily biased towards the form of politics that takes place in Western pluralist democracies: in effect, he equated politics with electoral choice and party competition. As a result, his model has little to tell us about one-party states or military regimes.  Politics is certainly no utopian solution (compromise means that concessions are made by all sides, leaving no one perfectly satisfied), but it is undoubtedly preferable to the alternatives: bloodshed and brutality. In this sense, politics can be seen as a civilized and civilizing force. People should be encouraged to respect politics as an activity, and should be prepared to engage in the political life of their own community. A failure to understand that politics as a process of compromise and reconciliation is necessarily frustrating and difficult (in part, because it involves listening carefully to the opinions of others) may have contributed to a growing popular disenchantment with democratic politics across much of the developed world. Politics as power Power Power, in its broadest sense, is the ability to achieve a desired outcome, sometimes seen as the ‘power to’ do something. In politics power is usually thought of as a relationship: the ability to influence the behaviour of others in a manner not of their choosing. This implies having ‘power over’ people. More narrowly, power may be associated with the ability to punish or reward, bringing it close to force or manipulation, in contrast to ‘influence’.  The power 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. Adrian Leftwich (2004), ‘What is Politics? The Activity and Its Study’, ‘politics is at the heart of all collective social activity, formal and informal, public and private, in all human groups, institutions and societies’. ‘Faces’ of Power Power as decision-making: the use of force or intimidation (the stick), productive exchanges involving mutual gain (the deal), and the creation of obligations, loyalty and commitment (the kiss). Power as agenda setting: ‘non-decision making’. This involves the ability to set or control the political agenda, thereby preventing issues or proposals from being aired in the first place. For instance, private businesses may exert power both by campaigning to defeat proposed consumer-protection legislation (first face), and by lobbying parties and politicians to prevent the question of consumer rights being publicly discussed (second face). Power as thought control: the ability to influence another by shaping what he or she thinks, wants or needs. This is power expressed as ideological indoctrination or psychological control (‘radical power’ and ‘soft power’)  Politics = power projection Politics is, in essence, power: the ability to achieve a desired outcome, through whatever means. From this perspective, politics is about diversity and conflict, but the essential ingredient is the existence of scarcity: the simple fact that, while human needs and desires are infinite, the resources available to satisfy them are always limited. Politics can therefore be seen as a struggle over scarce resources, and power can be seen as the means through which this struggle is conducted. Marxian approach to politics Marx used ‘politics’ in a conventional sense to refer to the apparatus of the state. For Marx, politics, together with law and culture, are part of a ‘superstructure’ that is distinct from the economic ‘base’ that  Marxian school At a deeper level, political power, in this view, is rooted in the class system; Vladimir Lenin: ‘politics is the most concentrated form of economics’. As opposed to believing that politics can be confined to the state and a narrow public sphere, Marxists believed that ‘the economic is political’. From this perspective, class struggle, is the very heart of politics. Views such as these portray politics in largely negative terms. Politics is, quite simply, about oppression and subjugation. Marxists traditionally argued that politics in a capitalist society is characterized by the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, these negative implications are balanced against the fact that politics is also seen as an emancipating force, a means through which injustice and domination can be challenged. Marx predicted that class exploitation would be overthrown by a proletarian revolution. Feminist school Radical feminists hold that society is patriarchal, in that women are systematically subordinated and subjected to male power. Kate Millet ‘Sexual Power’ defined politics as ‘power- structured relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another’. Feminists look to an end of ‘sexual politics’ achieved through the construction of a non-sexist society, in which people will be valued according to personal worth, rather than on the basis of gender. Politics in a global age  State-based paradigm of politics As an academic discipline, politics has conventionally focused on the state and particularly on its governmental apparatus: the institutional framework of the state, where power lies within it, how decisions are made, and so on. This state-based paradigm is one in which politics has a distinct spatial or territorial character. This especially applies in the case of the distinction between domestic politics, which is concerned with the state’s role in maintaining order and carrying out regulation within its own borders, and international politics, which is concerned with relations between or among states. In that sense, sovereignty, the supreme or unquestionable authority of the state, is a ‘hard shell’ that divides the ‘inside’ of politics from the ‘outside’. Transnational relations gaining historic momentum Whereas politics ‘inside’ has an orderly or regulated character, stemming from the ability of the state within the domestic sphere to impose rule from above, politics in the ‘outside’ has an anarchic character, derived from the fact that there is no authority in the international sphere higher than the sovereign state. The spatial division that the state-based paradigm has inculcated is, furthermore, reflected in a traditional sub-disciplinary division of labour between ‘political science’ and ‘international relations’, or IR. While political science has tended to view states as macro-level actors within the political world, IR has typically treated states as micro-level actors within the larger international arena. The state-based paradigm of politics has nevertheless come under pressure as a result of recent trends and developments, not least those associated with globalization. In particular, there has been a substantial growth in cross-border, or transnational, flows and transactions – movements of people, goods, money, information and ideas. As state borders have become increasingly ‘porous’, the conventional domestic/international, or ‘inside/outside’, divide has become more difficult to sustain. The increase in the scale, scope and, sometimes, nature of spatial interdependence has encouraged some to speculate that the disciplinary divide between political science and international relations should be dissolved. Rather a ‘soft shell’ today States continue to be the most significant actors in both the domestic and the international spheres. Sovereignty may no longer be a ‘hard shell’ that separates politics ‘inside’ from politics ‘outside’, but it remains at least a ‘soft shell’. The idea of a disciplinary divide has become particularly problematic due to the advent of an increasingly interdependent world, in which ‘the domestic’ and ‘the international’ affect one another to a greater degree than ever before. Globalization, climate change, multilevel governance, security and crime are only some of the issues that confound the traditional domestic/international divide