Synthèse political sciences.pdf

Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Part I – General introduction and foundational concepts 1. INTRODUCTORY SESSION: WHAT IS POLITICAL SCIENCE? a. What is politics in political science? The term political...

Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Part I – General introduction and foundational concepts 1. INTRODUCTORY SESSION: WHAT IS POLITICAL SCIENCE? a. What is politics in political science? The term political is polysemic and has many different features, parts and aspects and what is considered as political also changes in time → it is a multifaced object → it is all about power o Relationship between those who govern and those who are govern Two understanding of the definition of political: − ESSENTIALIST understanding: They are specific things that are politics (election, government, …) and they form a specific compartment of society − PRAGMATIC understanding: most common today and relies on an extensive vison of the political as something that is transversal to society o A lot of facts can be seen through politic ( asong can become political) and it reinforce the idea that politic is a moving object The word political has three dimensions: − Polity: How living together is politicly organized; how the state is organized; proposals, platform, civil government or constitution manifesto = political idea − Politics: All that has to do with political processes and activities (campaigns, based on the political value parties, how citizens express themselves) that are put forward by the − Policy: How government regulate the problem that society faces, and the candidate decisions proposed against those → Politique = That which relates to the government of a society as a whole *government of a society = capacity of a certain groups or individual to direct life in society, to guide the behaviours of all members of a society, to promulgate rules that apply to all and to be able to enforce them 1  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein b. What is science in political science? A social science Political science is an academic discipline which aim is to understand, on a scientific basis the political functioning of societies → it’s not normative, it doesn’t say what is good and what isn’t → tries to explain and to develop theories beyond a particular case What political sciences is not: − the discourse of political actors: meant to convince to the ones listening − the work of think tanks: organizations that produce analysis of the work on specific subject, oriented by ideologic values − political philosophy: normative − political journalism: comments on facts or currents event What is a social science? = the scientific study of human society and social relationships that aims − to explain the social by the social − to establish the social causes of social behaviors All social sciences (including Political science) have 3 major characteristics: → Axiological neutrality (max Webber): doing an analysis without any value Political science emerged judgment with Aristotle who → Ambition of systemization: identify trends and patterns/regularities and use explained how different forms of government led to theory and concepts different political outcomes → Use of scientific method: qualitative and quantitative (statistics, interview, (stability or rebellion) archives, …) A crossroads discipline: Political science studies an object so broad that there are several branches to it : → Political theory and political institutions (polity) → Political sociology (politics) → Policy analysis (policies) → International relations (= power relations between states) There also are different schools of thought and national variations c. Conclusion : a gendered perspective on political science Compared to other disciplines, political science has been singularly resistant to gender studies : → Political science as a “science of the State” (taught to the elite) → Class vs. gender, race,…? → Late feminisation and glass ceiling What gender does to political science ? → The political production of gender → Shifting the boundaries of politics 2  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein 2. POWER, AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY Max Webber (1921): “The concept of power is sociologically amorphous” → In fact, from an analytic/scientific point of view, the idea of power is vague → First to understand the notion of power in all its the dimension Colin Hay (2002): “Power is to political analysis what the economy is to economics” → Main problem with this concept: it is vague but we have to understand it because it’s essential in political science When you learn political science, you must learn about power → Power is a central notion in political science a. What is power for political science Plural approach to what power is: The substantialist approach: power as something that one can possess or lose → Power is something that you can exercise → Can be gained and lost The institutionalist approach: it leads to the identification of power with a state and the institution so here, power is the leaders, those occupying the official roles of power → Legal definition → Power is in the rules that we apply → But distribution of authority and exercise of power must not be confused o those who have power don't forcibly exercise it The relational (or interactionist) approach: this is a conception of power which holds that power is not considered as something, but as a relation, for you have power over someone, thus implying a social relation between social individuals or social crews → Power is always “over” someone ▪ Robert Dahl (Who governs, 1961): - “the ability of a person A to get a person B to do something s/he would have not done without the intervention of A” - I have power over you because I can make you do this ▪ Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz (Dynamics of non-decision-making,1962): - where the power of A over B leads B not to act or not to adopt a particular behaviour - I have power over you because I can keep you from doing that ▪ Steven Lukes (Power, a radical view, 1974): - invisible power linked to the internalization of constraint (e.g. totalitarian power) - give people the illusion to act freely but they actually act according to your will 3  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Power and authority: Max Weber (Economy and Society, 1921) makes the distinction between two types of authority [ Macht = strength/force ] → power through force, through constraint, unstable by definition (if strength disappears, the power can/will disappear) [ Herrschaft = authority/domination ] → the relation of power happens in a legitimate framework (the person being governed accepts it) o a power which only rests on force or constraint is precarious, fragile and won't last → It is this recognizing of power by the governed that makes it stable → presupposes that the relation of power takes place within a legitimate framework → legitimate power, in the sense that rulers can produce acceptance by the ruled, not because they can exercise coercion but because the ruled recognize the right of the rulers to exercise power → legitimate framework gives a certain stability to the relation of power - An example of authority: The Supreme Court in the USA Legitimacy: the recognition granted to the person exercising power. → you accept the fact that this individual who gives order and prescribes behaviours is entitled to do so Constraint: the guarantee of achieving, through various means, the achievement of one’s will in the absence of legitimacy or when it is insufficient Both are in fact intermingled → every power relation in politics is a battle and this is always a dual resource for the power: legitimacy on the one hand and constraint on the other hand Why do individuals show “a minimum of will to obey”? → By simple habit seems natural → For emotional reasons: you recognize and adhere to the leader → For material reasons: you obey because you have an interest in obeying (ex : salary) → By ideal: belief that obeying will allow you to achieve a go What is fundamental to the stability of power? → That individuals believe in its legitimacy - A successful enterprise of authority is above all a successful legitimation enterprise (Max Webber) → Authority is based on the relationship itself based on belief b. Legitimacy and the exercise of authority The notion of ideal-type according to Max Weber Ideal-type = A set of abstract concepts derived from observation and from “de-composition” thanks to the sociological analysis of concrete social situations → Abstract models that gather the abstract concepts of a social phenomenon, in order to compare it to the real phenomenon : to find the similarities of a phenomenon, no matter the place, time,… → A stylized reconstruction of reality in order to understand different cases when compared to the ideal- type (i.e. political parties, electoral regimes, political systems, etc.) 4  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein The 3 types of legitimate/ideal-type authority Traditional authority Legal-rational authority Charismatic authority - Derives its legitimacy from customs - exercise of power is organized by - linked to an individual, or more and is based on habit, tradition written rules defining the rights and precisely to the belief in the duties of each and every one, the exceptional quality of the individual - Naturalisation of power, it governors and the governed → power through seduction and produces an acquired reflex of fascination obedience - form of domination that depersonalizes the exercise of it - Exist in exceptional or transitory - Necessity to act in accordance to = obedience to rules and functions situations : needs to be an ideal tradition or legitimacy will vanish ex : laws, judges, historical need for a charismatic (need to act in accordance to the leader tradition, the idea people have of - Juridicisation of power relations within the function) (ex : financial scandal society : political rules are clearly - It's more fragile, precarious and in Spain with former king Juan Carlos codified limited in time, as opposed to other lead to a questioning of the types of domination monarchy) - Rulers must submit themselves to the → It disappears with the leader rules they instore, abide to higher and then we go back to a - People are used to obey and principles (ex : human rights) and traditional or legal-rational type respect this authority because they submit themselves to judicial and of domination. are used to them and respect the executive power → inherently unstable (Weber) tradition Ex : Constitution Ex : Royal family Ex : Ghandi, Nazi rulers,… These 3 types of domination are only ideal types: in reality, they intermingle (combine) in different historical contexts. In our democratic societies, the exercise of power is extremely codified. → There is a form of legal-rational domination, but the adherence to the democratic rules/legal-rational domination relies on habits: the fact that leaders have authority on those who elected them is natural to us c. Political power The specificities of political power What are the specificities of political power regarding other types of powers? We can distinguish three main figures that characterize political power: → political power is exercised on the whole of society: o we can oppose this to the power of parents only over their children for instance → those who hold it define the prerogatives and limits of all powers in society o it's sort of a meta power = power over all the other power that exist o Ex: it will determine the limits of the legitimate parental authority/power over the children in the private sphere → the necessary condition for the exercise of political power to take place (in all societies, past and present) is that it may legitimately result in sanctions, including physical constraint: o it's always about forbidding others to use physical constraint but claiming for itself the monopoly of violence/physical constraint o It can be used against all members of society, whitout exeption 5  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Political power and the State In modern societies, political power tends to become institutionalized in State structures → The State can impose obligations and implement sanctions → State sanctions are decided by political institutions and applied by judicial and administrative institutions; they are “institutionalized” = considered as legitimate → The State is the embodiment of political power (executive, legislative and judiciary) c. Conclusion: a gendered perspective on power The end of the separation between the public and the private sphere The “personal is political”, implications: → Political power and the forms of domination which follow from it are also deployed in the private sphere → Reveal the political character (i.e. the social relations of power and domination) of places, behaviours, and facts commonly perceived as personal matters, and to transform these personal questions into political problems → Conceptualization of “patriarchy” → New questions are considered as legitimate fields of study for political science: not only political parties, voters, public policies, but also family, sexuality... Classic question in a new light Politics are not only structures, functions, and activities but also relations of power : o Question of the consent to domination (self-discipline) o Analysis of techniques of domination : o Naturalisation (women “naturally” unfit for the exercise of political power) o The male “universal” 3. A portrait of the State Introduction The State is the dominant form of political organization = very important part of our social realities → Nearly 200 states → The most fundamental aspects of our lives are determined by State decisions o Time changes o Holliday o Age of marriage o Administration o Education o …. But they are so self-evident that we don’t even realize their importance, it seems natural to follow these decisions because we are used to it → Pierre Bourdieu: an internalization of a “spirit of the State” The State is everywhere, but it is a problematic concept in the social sciences = very difficult to define. → What exactly is a State? Where do State come from? How to characterize them? 6  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein a. What is a state The theory of the three criteria We are going to start with the definition of the state following legal criteria, since → its conceptualization started with French and German legal scholars: JELLINEK, LABAND and CARRÉ DE MALBERG) → they first elaborated both a theory and a definition of it (19th -20th). → Put briefly, they converged to say that “there is a state when, on the territory where a population resides, a legally organized power is exercised” → Three criteria must be fulfilled: territory, population, and legally organized power. |1| A legally organized injunction power: → State has the capacity to impose unilateral acts/norms o whose validity doesn't rely on the consent of those who have to obey the norm, it applies whether they want to be subject to it or not → All the rules of law derive from the state, directly or indirectly → The State alone guarantees the effectiveness of the rules o it may impose sanctions and enforcement in the service of power if these rules are not followed Although the state produces the law, it is also supposed to submit to the law: it cannot violate the rules it has enacted itself. → It may seem contradictory, but it's both the source of and subject to the law. TODAY: this criterion is more or less in decline and of course, the state is no longer the only one to whom this criterion &applies: → there are other sources of political power who can decide about rules and ensure their implementation → ex: European court of justice, world trade organization, … |2| A territory: To be a State, there has to be a territory → Importance of the borders (make it possible to separate 2 areas of application of legal norms) → The state is the domain of spatial validity of the norms (Hans Kelsen) Territory (in law) = 3-dimensional space where the legal rules laid down by the rulers apply → To notion of territory induces that there are borders → Ex : it can go from a border being the size of a continent or delimitating a urban community like in Singapore But the state is rarely a natural geographical space delimitated by the see/mountains such as Australia, → it's rather defined by treaty-based limits. → At the end of the day, what matters is that borders make it possible to clearly separate two areas where ≠ legal norms apply → Ex: the Schengen Agreement and the disappearance of internal border for some countries since the early '90s. TODAY: It really became meaningful with the emergence of sovereign states (18th century) but the notion of legal space and the importance of borders tend to decline and it's less adapted to socio-cultural realities. → Let's also remind that the notion of very rigid territorial limits is European centered. 7  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein |3| A population: Population = The individuals who are under the jurisdiction of the State are those who are legally subject of it → People who are legally unde the legislation of the state → “the state is the domain of personal validity of the State legal order” (Hans Kelsen) → 2 categories: the nationals (stable) + the foreigners (unstable) But a population cannot only be defined in a passive way: you are not only subject of a legal order but also actors, understood as the source of all constitutional legitimacy → Ex: right to vote, elections etc → the rights conferred are the active side of citizenship, so → citizenship is also a means of transcending all the factors of disparity among a population in order to stimulate belongingness to the large group. Today, this feature seems also somewhat eroded: → European citizenship, immigrants’ right to vote, multiple allegiances among individuals This questions the link between the national community and the state, which was at the basis of the legal definition of a population The State as monopolistic Institution Other way to try to define what constitute a state: what are its characteristics State was formed in Western societies thanks to the establishment of a certain number of monopolies (activities that the state only can perform) : → Legal to which everyone must submit producing the laws and rules to which the population must comply → Fiscal: which allows to finance all other monopolistic activities of the State demanding a financial contribution from the population without immediate counterpart Taxes are extremely important because they are at the basis of the one monopoly that allows to finance all the other monopolistic activities of the state → Economic The most essential monopoly is the right to mint coins (to produce money) → Judicial: only the State has the power to judge and punish → Collective representation: only the State can make decisions that engage the community as a whole Ex: signing treaties or declaring war on other states → Monopoly of legitimate physical violence: the most essential State monopoly (and the only one that has not been called into question) Weber’s definition: A State is “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly All power rests on of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” the mixture of = To be legitimate (especially in a democracy), physical constraint must me carried out with legitimacy and use compliance with the rule of law of constraint 8  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein → Process of civilization (Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process, 1939) : development of self-restraint and pacification of societies = individuals incorporate rules and have increased control over their emotions, impulse and aggressiveness, leading to the pacification of societies and a decrease in the use of physical constraint by the state It's the most important monopoly and the only one that hasn't been challenged over time and as for WEBER, it's the most important characteristic whatever the form of the state → Today, although physical violence is not the only means of action of those who govern, not even the most usual means of action (at least in a democracy), it's still a very specific one From the authority of the State to its sovereignty Essential link between the State and sovereignty: the State is the highest form of authority in a society and in a particular territory Concept of sovereignty: Jean Bodin (16th c.), William Blackstone (18th c.) : = Internal AND external sovereignty (no internal higher authority + no external challenge to this authority) → The State can be distinguished from the government → The State can be distinguished from civil society − the range of private institutions existing between the individual and the State (business, trade unions, religious groups, charities, etc.) → Difference between constitutional theory and reality, between de jure and de facto sovereignty = “Sovereignty has been an important and useful concept for legal analysis, but it can be a misleading notion if applied uncritically as a political idea” (Held). See the example of “failed States”, unable to perform the functions of sovereignty b. Why the State? The process of State construction and development How did the State appear? How has it evolved? Reminder: There may never have been states, states are not functional or historical necessities. Nevertheless, there is diversity in how state have emerged in different parts of world. = We focus on the western development of the state, a form of exercise of power among others Nevertheless, a number of common processes can be identified: we went from hundreds of princely houses to a few dozen States in only a few centuries 9  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Socio-genesis of the State in the Western world : the factors of State construction We will try and differentiate the factors of state development, which is linked to the socio-genesis of the state. Understanding how the state emerged implies understanding the situation before its creation. Before, it was a feudal system, characterized by: → very weak institutionalization of political power: there are only direct relations between individuals and a strong patrimonialization of power. − It means that power is a patrimony, a private good that you own and can pass on to other generations and inherit → Important fragmentation of power: you have hundreds of princely houses, independent signories: competing political units → low stability of political units: boundaries were constantly moving because of marriages, wars etc. → No sovereign : the authority was shared between the aristocracy and the church Of course, the modern state is opposed to all these characteristics. → It's a very long and complex historical concept. There have been 3 sets of factors put forward to explain the emergence of to the modern state: economic, religious & cultural and political & military: ECONOMIC FACTORS: → The development of the state as such is parallel to market capitalism and starts in the mid-15th century. The state, acting as a centralized and powerful organization of power, starts to emerge in countries were industrial capitalism was developed. → Importance of the bourgeoisie, which supported the creation of a centralized power → Ensuring the protection of trade, the security in cities RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL IN EUROPE: → Two main religions contributed in their way to the emergence of the state; on the catholic state, the popes promote the theory of the two legitimacies o Political vs religious power/temporal vs spiritual power. o The Christian doctrine evolves, and this has contributed to legitimize the constitution of a distinct power which will become the state. o It's a step that will help in this process. → On the reformation side, another kind of process is in action: in the countries where it occurred, there has been contribution of religion to the formation of the state. o Stein Rokkan and Seymour Lipset showed that there is a North side axis in Europe which is of religious nature and it led to the emergence of religious state: there was no competition between the allegiance to one or another power. o Also, in these countries, there was the effect of cultural uniformity that also helped legitimize state power and contributed to the emergence of state. POLITICAL AND MILITARY FACTORS → We come back to Norbert Elias, according to whom there is a competitive dynamic between the emergence of the modern state, which began in the 12th and 13th centuries. o He puts forward the fact that what he calls the “great engines of state building” was a war between many rival laws, but also internal wars and with foreign powers and these military conflicts were unseen in Europe o As a result, the state had to establish a bureaucracy to coordinate military activity, which mobilizes more and more men, to create a state administration. 10  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein o War makes it possible to legitimize taxes, because first it makes it possible to finance the armed force and thus the security and it's in the exercise of power by an institution, not an individual. o The state gradually becomes a specific institution, differentiated from society according to its own rules: public/private, no patrimonialization of power as seen before etc and we see the fiscal and monetary monopoly of the state. → From a historical point of view, there is a close link between war, the emergence of taxes, the legitimization of a central power, the development of the administration and the institutionalization of the state. Institutionalization and bureaucratization: the process of State development Weber considers that the processes that accompanied the emergence of the state are of two kinds : institutionalization and bureaucratization. – INSTITUTIONALIZATION: refers to the process by which an organization is constituted in a structure differentiated from the rest of society and not reduced to the individuals who animate it at some historical period BUREAUCRATIZATION: organization of a structure according to a certain number of formalized and rationalized rules → Ex: hierarchy, dissociation between the function and its holder, recruitment based on the competence etc. → Previously, with the feudal system : power was a patrimony/a private good owned by the person who exercised it. The emergence of the Nation-State Another dimension of the genesis of the State is the emergence of the Nation-State Nation-State= a form of political and social system in which the institutional system coincides with the nation, which is a community of adherence to this system. At its peak in the 19th c. A distinction between a State and a nation, which is based on a feeling of belonging − A nation can precede a State (i.e. Italy) − A State can precede a nation (States with colonies) − A State can exist without a nation − A State can contain several nations (Kurdish State) − A State can contain movements that seek to create new States (Cataonia) Ernest Gellner (1983): he insisted on this emergence of the nation-state especially in the 19th and once again in western Europe. → He showed how the state and the nation intermingled: the state encourages the creation of a united nation, done through schooling (“one of the factories of the nation where you learn you are part of a specific nation”), army, church → The state develops a lot of national symbolic policies that are important for the socialization of individuals o Ex: flag, national anthems, … → and public policies that have some nationalization effect o Ex: beginning of social policies, all types of policies that increased communication, road construction, transportation system etc 11  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Benedict Anderson (1983): the nation as “an imagined community” that mentally unites individuals who will never know each other Of course, the process of national identity building is not without conflict and contestation A nation is a conjunction of: → a set of institutions → a sense of belonging to a common group (cultural homogenization) → a territorial reality It is a never-ending construction c. The transformation of the State: a contemporary decline? For around two centuries, the nation-state – and the following forms of State – has been the political system of reference, with political power first and foremost situated at the State level (closed space, homogenous space, self-centered space) → There has been a lot of political, economic, and social transformations over the last 4 decades and they have led this configuration to be called into question → Jessop: thesis of the “hollowing out” of the State = erosion of State’s power and sovereignty A deterritorialization of power → Reduction of the borders − Shanghai area → Loss of centrality of the State in the process of political socialization → Shift of the focus of politics and activism − The state is not anymore, the only place of the public debate − They are local bureaucracy, different movement, international meetings → Decoupling between policy and politics A decentralization of power The State is no longer the only reference, it must compose in 2 directions: At the supra-state level: → an increasing number of interventions in the internal affairs of States → regionalization phenomena → special case of the EU (strong delegation of sovereignty and competence) At the sub-state level: → emergence of new levels of power with a new division of powers (decentralization and regionalization throughout Europe); → emergence and development of secessionist and communitarian movements that challenge the power of the State 12  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein A questioning of the “hollowing out” thesis Some authors have argued that the “hollowing out” thesis exaggerates the reality and that sovereign States still have a great deal of autonomy Factors that support this re-assertion of the central role of the State: → Need to deal with terrorism → Management of the 2008 economic and financial crisis → Management of the COVID-19 crisis States must nevertheless cope with the existence of other centres of power Notion of “governance” = States in partnership with a wide range of social and economic institutions at different levels of power, overlapping system of governance → Even if this “hollowing out of the State” can be questioned, governance is a reality of the functioning of contemporary States d. Conclusion: a gender perspective on the State Feminist theorists were initially rather sceptical about it and little interested in it. → At the outset, they focused on the relationship of power in the private sphere → It was not until later that the State emerged in gender studies in political science 1970s, 1980s : little interest or negative vision → The State as a patriarchal tool → Main reference : Carol Pateman (1988), The Sexual Contract. o The liberal social contract relies upon a unstated, but essential, sexual contract in which women accept the dominant position of men in return for being protected and cared for. o Therefore, men have the power to act on behalf of women in the public sphere. o Only when this inequality in the private sphere is tackled, can equality as seen by Hobbes or Locke can be realized Starting from the 1990s : a “renaissance” of the concept of State in gender studies, a more positive view → Importance of the Welfare State → Role of “femocrats” (women that work within the States) 13  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Part II – Political regimes 1. Authoritarian and Totalitarian Regimes a. The notion of political regime Origins and definition Definition: The political regime as a mode of organization of (political) powers → Indeed, it organizes the powers established by the state → Put differently, the notion of regime covers all the rules or practices according to which people govern in each society. → JEAN-LOUIS QUERMONNE : “a set of ideological, institutional and sociological elements that concur to form the government of a given country during a given period”. Here again, political regimes cannot be understood as a static reality, for they evolve over time. Origin: Quite interestingly, many questions such as those regarding the form of government, the organization of political power or even the organizing principles of the delegation of power were already relevant in Ancient Greece and at the foundation of political philosophy. Ever since, there have been attempted typologies of political regime, combining subjective and objective appreciation of the regime: → subjective appreciation: searching for “good government” → objective appreciation: describing the functioning of the good government. Rousseau's classification is quite similar to that of Aristotle, since he classified governments based on two criteria: → the number of people exercising political power and sovereignty within the regime: o all the people, o a large part of the people, o the minority of the people o only one person → the justness of those regimes: he doesn't compare the various forms of government (so democracy v. aristocracy or aristocracy v. royalty) but rather with their corrupt form: o democracy: government by all or by a large part of the people o ochlocracy: government by all or by a large part of the people but in a corrupt way JUST FORM CORRUPT FORM Democracy Ochlocracy Aristocracy Oligarchy Monarchy Tyranny SO : it’s a classificatory ambition (describing) AND a normative ambition (judging) 14  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Criticism: The very idea of political regimes and the attempt to classify them are criticized for many reasons: → Normativity: there is always a latent idea that even today, there is a value judgment and regimes are compared with liberal democracy, which is the favored criterion o Ex: the good form of government, even if it's not said as such → Diversity of political regime: the diversity of the categories makes it too difficult to organize/classify them so normativity should be avoided → Focus on institutional variables: as for Marxist theories, the most important element is the economic structure, not institutional variables such as the political and legal structures. o We should focus on the economic structure, which is “the real foundation upon which a legal and political edifice stands” → “Juridicism” of the analysis the political regime: this criticism is made by sociology of institution and it o Necessarily to take into account formal AND informal organization of powers Contemporary typology of political regimes Political theorists of the 20th century have produced a new typology of political regimes taking into account two main features: → the degree of participation o Relying for instance on citizen participation alone is not possible because in totalitarian regimes, the level of political participation is very high o it's not because one can take part in the political life that we are in a democracy → the degree of political pluralism. o possibility for a majority and a minority/opposition to power to exist. This typology distinguishes between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, mainly pluralistic democracies, and dictatorships (being either authoritarian or totalitarian regimes) → What characterizes authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorships as opposed to democratic regimes = the absence of open, pluralistic, and organized political competition at regular intervals for access to positions of political power o definition and identification by the negative (with an absence) Juan Linz carried out 4 criteria to classify dictatorships in the '60s → 2 major type of dictatorship: Totalitarian/Authoritarian regimes Totalitarianism Authoritarianism Limited pluralism tolerated (= more than Character +/- Political monism (= one group exercises the one group participates +/- autonomously monist of power entire political power) in political power) Political Depoliticization and apathy of the mobilization of Total mobilization of the population the population population Official and central ideology (individuals must Place of No structured ideological project (façade convert to the ideology of the regime and ideology adhesion / general indifference) respect its precepts) Arbitrary or discretionary leadership by an Limited arbitrary leadership by a small Leadership individual group or an individual 15  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein b. Totalitarianism Main characteristics |1| A “political religion”: official, central ideology → The ideology is a set of ideas, opinions and beliefs established as a doctrine, and influencing people and collective perceptions and behaviors. → The objective of the totalitarian regime is to obtain the undisputed support of the entire people for the ideological project it wants to obtain o this is a way to produce a new individual, in line with this specific ideology o It’s imposed through society o to have the support of all the population → Raymond Aron's definition: “politicization, ideological transfiguration of all possible faults of individuals and, in conclusion, a terror linked to police and to the ideology”. o Since everything is now a state activity, all activities are subject to the ideology o If you commit whatever crime (even minor) it is consider as an offense to the whole ideology o Ex: even economic and labor spheres are submitted to ideological control → Of course, all totalitarian ideologies are not the same, but what remains is the use of the ideology as political religion (Emilio Gentile) o to provide an interpretative framework of the whole social reality. → Therefore, a totalitarian regime is considered “ideocracy”, o A system organized around the implementation of an ideological project to which everything else is subordinated |2| Strong social control At the heart of any given totalitarian regime, there is an important mechanism of control of every individual and all their activities. → It allows power to identify all forms of resistance, dissent, disobedience, and anti-conformism and of course, to punish them. → This control is diffuse, meaning that it is spread everywhere in society and not only in the political sector and → therefore, organizing against such regime on the long run is not possible. o It doesn't mean there have not been resistance attempts in the past, but the system is organized such a way that those movements cannot last over time. → For such massive and diffuse control to exist, the active participation of the population is required: o there has to be a relay of the power in all spheres of life o Ex: workspace, neighborhood, family etc |3| A fully mobilized population: Participation of the population is very controlled, yet there is a very active mobilization → Selection of the elite → Ex: the million members of the single parties in totalitarian regimes, trade unions, collateral organizations linked to the parties such as youth organizations, which aim to mobilize and make sure people participate to social control and the ideology seen before. Criticisms are thus made impossible by the overwhelming presence of the supporters of the regime, → who are likely to report/denounce the slightest failure of those who don't comply → It shows both in the public and in the private spheres o Ex: influence of the HITLER JUNGEN, the youth organization of the Nazi party. It indoctrinated children when they were only toddlers in order not only to transform them into new men and women, but also to make them active members and spies of the regime 16  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein → Political denunciation is encouraged and deemed a citizen duty, o meaning that abstaining to denounce someone who is not in line with the regime is qualified of criminal complicity. o The organization of the totalitarian regime penetrates all social groups and creates mistrust in society As a way of consequence, there is what Hannah Arendt called the atomization of civil society: → meaning that society is a set of different atoms separate from each other: o they are parts/units without any link/interaction whatsoever between them → According to her, this atomization leads to: – o the destruction of belonging groups (family included) o disruption of solidarity o feeling of increasing isolation of individuals o general sense of insecurity (you can be incriminated and denounce at ay time) o general servility and submission to power. → She highlights that this concerns everyone in society: o No one is safe: the lowest ranks of population as well as the highest o Ex: purges of the Stalinist period in the '30s |4| Terror Terror it is the essence of totalitarianism (according to Hannah Arendt) → This is quite criticized, since it implies a very restrictive definition: if so is the truth, it only only concerns the 12 years of the Nazi regime in Germany and two short periods of time in the history of the USSR in the '30s. → For some authors, this vision of totalitarianism is too limited and doesn't allow to take into account the types of dictatorship in which ideology and the supervision of the population are central, but where terror is not so important o Ex: fascist Italy; Cuba, some periods of communist China etc. → Juan Linz for instance considered that we should not take terror as a criterion for the definition of totalitarianism because “there is a possible of totalitarianism without terror”. → As for him, the most important thing is the mechanism of political and social control understood for example as the “diffuse control based on voluntary support with a mixture of rewards and fears within a society” The totalitarian system There are 4 tools at the basis of the functioning of the totalitarian regime: |1| Single party and all the collateral organizations aforementioned The single party allows to exercise tremendous control over the entire society and its functions are the following: → supervising the population → educating the masses → worshiping the leader → selecting the elite of the regime. That's why youth organizations are so important in such regime, for their purpose is to: → integrate and enroll young people from a very young age: o it shapes them into what the ideology expects individuals to be → create spies and means of control within families 17  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein → provide incentives for the regimes: political powers have different resources, among which incentives, most notably incentives to support the regime → They can have a control over the whole society! |2| Totalitarian leader and the cult around his persona As previously seen, most of the time, there is a charismatic leader at the head of the regime and they sometimes even give their name to the regime (WEBER): → such leader embodies the regime as its visionary → they cannot be mistaken and are often assimilated to a divinity. → It's not because the leader as remarkable charisma, but rather because there is a machinery behind them Result of techniques of exercising power → Cult of the personality → no emergence of autonomous centre of political power (elimination of competitors, surveillance by the political police, etc.) → criticism and pluralism are suppressed |3| The central ideology The fact that this official ideology/political religion exists has some specific pragmatic consequences that qualify it as a tool for the existence of totalitarianism. The regime: → has absolute monopoly on all forms of public, cultural, and artistic expression → destroys existing institutions, religions, and philosophies → designates an objective enemy (defined by what it is rather than because of what it does) → targets categories of people to be eliminated |4| The excessive development of the repressive machinery Total domination of the population is effective because all criminal incriminations are arbitrary, → it increases fear within the population: → the suspected categories are blurred so everyone is a potential suspect → Ex: concentration camps are a symbol of the repressive machinery of totalitarianism. The critique of the notion of totalitarianism The concept is not given by nature, it's quite disputed → Ex: the opposition between ARENDT and LINZ regarding the role of terror. → In a more general way, there have been controversies as to whether totalitarianism should be used or not as a scientific concept. The notion faces two types of criticism: |1| Comparison between Nazism and Stalinism : → Totalitarianism itself holds an implicit comparison between nazism and stalinism, since it is, in essence, about comparing the Nazi experience in Germany and two short periods of stalinist USSR in one category. → Authors criticized this unique category, for its existence mitigates the differences between the two regimes and their specific trajectories: → They have common features, but also important ideological differences. o communism is more bureaucratic, while Nazism is rather charismatic o Nazi terror is expansionist (projected outside the borders of the country), whereas terror in the USSR is national. |2| Capacity of totalitarian regimes to atomize civil society: 18  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein → Some authors consider that even though an ideology controls the entire population, it doesn't mean that all resistance is wiped out: they dispute the fact that totalitarianism in essence leaves no room for society in its analysis. → English historian Ian Kershaw studied Bavaria and his study showed that an autonomous popular opinion remains, whatever the Nazi ideology o the idea of the atomization of civil society does not exist to the extent alleged by Hannah Arendt. Conclusion: totalitarianism is a key concept in the understanding and analysis of the 20th century. → It remains important to try to understand and classify it: o “totalitarianism is inescapable for political theory, in order to draw up a typology of forms of power (…), insufficient for historiography, confronted the materiality of events” (Enzo Traverso) → we are rather in the field of political theory, trying to study a typology of power c. Authoritarianism The notion of authoritarianism was developed in the '50s/'60s to define a sort of hybrid regime that is “in between”: → it's close to pluralistic democracy but also borrows totalitarian elements. → Authoritarian regimes are those which don't respect the fundamentals of democracy but can have some elements of democracy → The concept of authoritarian regime is what we can call residual, it refers to all regimes which are neither democratic, nor totalitarian o its quite complicated because beyond the fact that they are not democracies, these regimes have little in common and the category is very diverse o Ex: it includes monarchies, military, communist and even clerical regimes. Main characteristics |1| Controlled political institutions The leaders of authoritarian regimes are not chosen by the people through free and competitive elections → those are abolished, and any form of organized political activity is prohibited. → Nonetheless, there may be a multiparty system and regular electoral consultations in given authoritarian regimes, but either the election doesn't concern the mandate or these elections are controlled and distorted by the leader → Ex: the election doesn't have an impact in a monarchy; Tunisian leader who had a lifetime mandate or the election is distorted by electoral fraud Ex: Ben Ali in Tunisia, Kabila. |2| “Limited pluralism” (Juan Linz, one of the main ≠ between authoritarianism and totalitarianism) → Groups with +/- autonomy and own legitimacy can participate to the functioning of the regime o Ex : army, church, business circle → There is pluralism in authoritarian regimes, but it is limited and controlled o the power authorizes them to intervene politically and delimits their prerogatives o but they cannot challenge the foundations of the regime → If those two conditions are met, they can defend their specific interests/points of view within the political system, and it leads to what is called “semi-opposition” o Ex: liberty granted to the Church under the Franco regime in Spain, or in some other military dictatorships in Latin America. The Church was vested with the tribunitian function: it became the spokes-institution for the dissatisfaction and the demands of the people 19  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein |3| Weak mobilization and political ideologies → Authoritarian regimes have limited organizational networks to control the population: o they exist, but they are much more limited that in the frame of totalitarian regimes, and there is no mass participation. o For instance, JUAN LINZ says that authoritarianism works very well with passive obedience and apathetic individuals → Authoritarian regime encouraged the depoliticization of the population and the exercise of political activity is restricted to the elites. o Such characteristic can be explained by the fact authoritarian regimes are generally regimes/restorations of order, o which don't seek to transform the social structures/lifestyles/beliefs of the population. o Absence of total enrollment of the population o This absence of mobilization goes hand in hand with the unstructured ideology. As for LINZ, the consequences are that: → the authoritarian discourse is of poor quality and usually draws its references from general values of societies o Ex: nationalism, respect for traditions or even social justice; → authoritarianism very often uses coercion to prevent or to combat any protest held against the regime and its officials. o Some regimes even resort to violence on a very large scale (we will come back to the ≠ between violence on a very large scale and terror). The diversity of authoritarian regimes Apart from the fact that they are not democracies, these regimes have little in common and the category of authoritarian regimes is very diverse → A heterogeneous and negatively defined category How to make sense out of this diversity: we can define subtypes (Juan Linz), according to 2 criteria: → characteristics of “limited pluralism” → involvement of the population in the functioning of the regime Example of a typology of authoritarian regime: → Traditional authoritarian regimes → “Corporatists” authoritarian regimes → Mobilizing authoritarian regimes (post-democratic societies, born out of decolonization) → Post-totalitarian authoritarian regimes >> Typologies are used has a guide for navigating a much more complex reality than the models intended to reflect it (hybrid nature) 20  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Authoritarianism and the diffusion of the standards of liberal democracy: an illustration → 1987: Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali : lifetime presidency o election of the president + recognition of multi-partyism → 1989: only candidate, officially elected with 99.3% of the vote → 1994: only candidate, re-elected with 99.9% of the votes → 1999: two other candidates running, but Ben Ali is re-elected with 99.44% of the votes → 2004: three other candidates and Ben Ali receives 94.49% of the votes → 2009: Ben Ali has to “confront” three other candidates, “only” 89.62% of the votes Ruling party present everywhere, massive electoral fraud, control of the media (other candidates prohibited of publicising their manifesto) Staged as what has to appear as pluralistic control : legitimation and the importance of the norms of pluralistic electoral competition (internally : cannot rely only on force / externally) 2. Democracy a. Origins and definition Where does democracy come from? Democracy appeared in Greece in the 6th century BC → especially in the City of Athens: citizens would meet in the public square (the forum) and make decisions, especially the most important ones → Ex: declarations of war, ratification of laws etc. ANCIENT DEMOCRACY MODERN DEMOCRAC Restrictive definition → Exclude women, minors, slaves and Inclusive definition Citizenship foreigners → No one is excluded → only 10% of the population were citizens Representative democracy Direct democracy → people today do not govern directly; they Delegation → Not many citizens so they can all delegate their power to elected participate representatives Random drawing → The magistrates (for the public affairs) Designation of were selected randomly for 1 year Election the → Considered as the most equalitarian → Favours distinction between the representatives attribution of power governors and the governed → Provided an alteration between being governed and governing 21  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein A few preliminary words on gender and democracy THE EXCLUSION OF WOMEN FROM POLITICAL CITIZENSHIP Ancient and modern political citizenship have been historically constructed by men, excluding women of the city We will refer to John Lock and the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s theories of the social contract. → Even if their vision of the political order and the functioning of democracy is written in neutral terms, → it is implicitly based on the principal of subordination of women and their confinement in the private sphere → Ex: in Two Treatises of Government, Locke wrote that the domination of the husband over his wife is not to be disputed because it finds its foundation in nature o this division and subordination in the private sphere bears consequence in the public → The individuals involved in the social contract are only men. → His theories rest on a very strict dichotomy between the public and the private spheres. → What happens in the private sphere also does in the public sphere and they do not call for an extension for all citizens. The works about the modern social contract fueled and enriched the vision of democracy that developed based on democratic principles, with the exclusion of women from the public sphere that was in practice. THE INCLUSION OF WOMEN IN INFORMAL CITIZENSHIP: A LONG AND CONFLICTING HISTORY The inclusion of women in the public sphere met with resistance, starting with the development of political regimes based on democratic principles. → There were a few voices who denounced this contradiction o Condorcet (De l'administration des femmes au droit de Cité, 1790); o Olympe de Gouges (Déclaration des droits de la femme et de la citoyenne, 1791); o Mary Wollstonecraft (A vindication of the Rights of Women, 1792); o John Stuart Mill (The Subjection of Women, 1869) Those remain individual voices and only in the second half of the 19th, there is an organized voice for the political inclusion of women which is took on a collective dimension. o Many countries face movement fighting for gender equality, especially with regards to the rights to suffrage Those paradoxical discourses were trapped in the “Wollstonecraft dilemma”, based on the writing of Mary Wollstonecraft: → the movement that claimed rights (especially the right to vote during the 19th) were trapped in the dilemma and were bound to have contradictory arguments. o On the one hand, the activists called for the political inclusion of women in the public life in the name of equality between all citizens o On the other hand, they have also claimed political rights for women but in the name of some of skills traditionally attached to women as mothers and wives o Ex: the presence of women in politics would improve the morality of life, allow to better fight against alcoholism and prostitution etc → → They claim equality but at the same time, they also use arguments based on a vision of women as naturally peaceful, moral etc 22  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein A TYPOLOGY OF THE TRAJECTORIES OF WOMEN ACCESS TO SUFFRAGE You can classify two different ways according to which major historical events took place: → “Nordic and Anglo-Saxon countries”: women obtain the right to vote quite early o around WWI or in the interwar years o this is often close to universal suffrage → “Countries under the influence of the Napoleonic Code”: suffrage was only acquired after WWII o 1920 elections in Belgium for women except prostitutes but including soldier widows. o France in 1944 and more than one century after universal male suffrage, we have Switzerland Three main elements can explain this diversity of trajectories : 1| the weight of feminist movements: → in the nordic and Anglo-Saxon countries, the suffragist movements were structured and specially oriented towards the obtention of the right to suffrage at a very early stage, as early as the mid 19th century. → In other countries, the movement appeared later, just before WWII, so they were less powerful and numerous 2| major historical events: We can think of two different kinds of historical events: → war: the idea is to reward to honor their sacrifice to the homeland → national independences: they also grant universal citizenship to the population 3| the type of regime: → there are countries were a law granting suffrage to women has to go through parliament alone (can be rather quick) but → in other countries, there is important autonomy for local powers, ending up delaying women's access to political citizenship for it has to go through different processes o Ex: Switzerland (federal state) women had the right to vote at the federal level in 1971, but at the local level only in 1990. The defining features of modern democracy Out of these 4 general characteristics, we can see 3 main implications. These conditions may be implemented in practice through very diverse institutional arrangements → Modern democracies can be extremely different from each other → No society has “invented” modern democracy: there is no single model of democracy. o There have been innovations taken over by other societies and there are not part of classical democratic practices ▪ Ex: the fact that political parties are an important part of democratic life. ▪ It first emerged in the USA in the beginning of the 19th century, the fact that voting is secret is also something that originated in the mid-17th in South-Australia. ▪ At the time, all the democratic countries didn't have secret ballot and when they did, you would just note the candidate you were voting for; – → Democracy is a continuous variable: o a continuum between authoritarian regimes and full democracy with many intermediate stages (and a threshold) o there is not as such a dichotomy between democracy on the one side and dictatorship on the other side. o This may be self-evident for some country ▪ Ex: very easy to classify Switzerland on the one hand and North Korea on the other hand 23  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Subtypes created to conceptualize political regimes that fall in the “grey area” (restrictive democracy, delegate democracy, illiberal democracy,..) FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT The national government is exercised by The political authorities can, once they are elected, adopt → the legislature (parliament, a congress or an assembly policies they want without any constraint by an unelected whatever the type) power o elected by the people → monarch, religious authority, militaries, foreign → and the executive branch (head of government) authority o elected by the people Constitutional courts may overturn some decisions to o selected among the majority of the protect civil liberties parliament Executive leaders answer for their actions in front of he There is an electoral process leading to the forming of new elected representatives in the legislative branch. government → Both branches are responsible for their policies in → it is recurrent, free, and fair: front of voters. → all candidates can campaign and enjoy an equal playing field and all the votes are counted without fraud. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNIVERSAL PARTICIPATION The constitution is the codification of citizen's rights and government authority = Constitution The adult population enjoys the right to vote and to run for office without any exclusion Ex: No human rights violations against citizens, no censorship → exclusion based on income, gender, education, and no ban on the organization of legitimate political ethnicity, wealth, religion etc. parties or interest groups Modern democracy can however exclude some adults Independent organizations and the judiciary control and based on the place of birth or criminal records protect citizen's rights against government encroachment → exclude foreigners → Ex: constitutional courts, ombudsman etc in order to protect citizen against eventual encroachment. All of them exclude minors, but there are differences in the age of majority Ex: 21, 18, 17 for some countries. Two conceptions of democracy Minimalist conceptions It’s a mistrust of the masses, the people → Low participation = better stability Authors such as SCHUMPETER are suspicious of the people and have a very restrictive view of democracy. → He considered that democracy was based on competition, on an economic model. → It's a market: the role of the citizen is only to elect their representative. → If necessary, they are also here to sanction the representative at the end of their mandate. → Bottom line, people do not have to get involved in political matters because they don't have the capacity to do so. Vision of Bolivia in the Constitution of Bolivia (1826) → It should be a lifetime president → To ensure stabile of the nex democratic country 24  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein MAXIMALIST CONCEPTIONS They are opposed to the elitist and minimalist conception and consider that everyone should take part in political life, which shouldn't be specialists' activities. Two main trends: → advocates of the participatory ideal : every individual has a necessary capacity to participate to decision- making o Ex: LENINE “every cook must be able to govern the state” → advocates of the deliberative ideal: public good is better obtained through deliberative democracy with free and public confrontation of arguments between rational individuals with mutual respect. o This will enable consensus on the common good and general interest o Ex: citizen jury, deliberative polls etc. The 2 conceptions coexist today in our system: the “government of experts” and direct democracy. b. Typology of democratic regimes All democracies share the 4 fundamental characteristics before mentioned, yet there is a great diversity of democratic regimes and all systems do not function the same way. → Some authors have tried to organize this diversity and created typologies that interact → it's not one or the other Parliamentary or presidential? These are ideal types that proceed from a theoretical vision of reality. → There are institutional arrangements that mix elements of the two models and create semi presidential regimes, combining a directly elected President and a prime minister responsible to parliament. PARLIAMENTERY DEMOCRACY PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRATY Separate electoral process for the members of the Same election for the legislature and the head of legislature and the head of government government → voters who elect the legislature and whose votes → No single party has the majority, but parties are aggregated at the local levels form a coalition to appoint the new government. → voters who elect the President and whose votes are aggregated at the national level Separation of functions between the executive and the legislative, but Strict separation of powers between the executive → no explicit separation of powers among the head and the legislative of government and the members of the cabinet No separation between the head of government and Separation between the head of government (prime the head of state minister) and the head of State (monarch) → the president and the members of the cabinet → Whose political role (form monarch) in modern are not members of the legislatures, democracies is weak, oriented towards the → the president elect simultaneously endorses the preservation of national unity. roles of Head of government and Head of state No (or only few) possibility of new elections before Possibility of new election before the end of the the end of the fixed term fixed term (dissolution, vote of no confidence) → when the President and the members are = There are regular elections, but there can be elected, there are supposed to serve until the elections sooner than expected. end of the term 25  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Majoritarian or consensus? Once again, these are only ideal-types. → Although most of the systems show mixed combinations of the features o Ex: the USA which is majoritarian for the executive and legislative branches and consensual for the national majority/regional minority organization, there are few exceptions for authors and constitutionalists → But, some countries are close to the ideal type o Ex: the UK which is a model of almost a pure majoritarian democracy (Westminster model) and on the other side, o Or Belgium and Switzerland which are deemed very close to the pure consensual model Arend Lijphart argued that → some democratic regimes are organized to facilitate the rule by the majority and → some others are designed to protect minorities, and thus to promote consensual decision-making = Different conceptions of the democratic process translated into 2 constitutional feature 2 main criteria to distinguish between majoritarian and consensual: → balance of power between the executive and the legislative branch; → balance of power between the central government (national majority) and the local government (sub- national or regional minorities) MAJORITARIAN CONSENSUS Disproportional: it influences voters Proportional representation: it directly → they know that if they vote for small parties, Electoral translates the percentage of vote system they will have little chances of winning the obtained by each party in the same elections in the end so they may waste their proportion of seats in the legislatures vote Two-party: it's a consequence of the Multi-party: when people support a disproportion. given party, they will be represented in Party system → The party which wins the election has almost the legislature so there is a multiparty the majority in the legislature, there is no system need to form a coalition Single party: another consequence of the Coalitions: since you have an important disproportion number of parties, most of the time Government → cabinets are made of people from a same there is a need for a coalition to form a party government Executive dominance: if you have single party cabinet and the party also has the majority in the Balanced power: the legislative branch assembly/parliament/congress is important, Inter-branch balance → most of the time, the Head of the government → so there is a balance between the is also the main leader of the party. There is executive and the legislative dominance of the executive over the branches legislative Unitary: Majoritarian democracies tend to have unitary and centralized government Local government → the majority at the national level also decide Federal polities and public policies at the local and the regional level. Legislature Unicameral: It also means that Bicameral 26  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein → there is usually no federal senate in the C° so that the legislature is more likely to be unicameral. Flexible: The Constitution is flexible → it's easy to change it because the will of the Rigid: because you define the rights of majority at the national level is expected the minorities in Constitution. The Constitution prevail. majorities cannot change the → They are rarely constraint by the legal Constitution interpretation of the Constitution → Ex: British westminster model. Strong judicial review Judiciary Weak or no judicial review → Powerful supreme court Optimal for Homogeneous society Plural society c. Conclusion: some contemporary political dynamics The idea was to pick two important dynamics of our contemporary democracies to see how they are likely to change in the future. THE QUESTIONING OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY “Directization” of representative democracy (IAN BUDGE, 1996): classical representative democracy is more and more questioned, under the influence of : – → direct democracy: referenda, rights of local initiative, recall,... → deliberative and participative democracy: procedures for consultation, public involvement in decision- making and citizens conferences, citizens juries, deliberative polls, etc THE EXPANSION OF CITIZENSHIP The history of democracy is the history of the progressive expansion of citizenship to groups that used to be excluded. → It's contested at the beginning, then when the boundaries of citizenship change, the new boundaries progressively come to be considered as natural, self evident and become widely accepted → property and literacy (19th), women and ethnic minorities (20th). Workers underlined that there would be an expansion of citizenship rights to new groups in society and these are the possibilities put forward by different authors: → young individuals: they are considered as independent minors so the age of political majority will be lowered, as seen in many different countries → migrants: citizen located outside their national territories, foreign residents → non-human population: apes and other animals. 27  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Part III – Political actors 1. Political parties Introduction: what are the functions party? Political parties are at the heart of democratic institutions and they are not only important for political sciences but also from a legal point of view: → organizations which are legally recognized as political parties are frequently given special privileged → Ex: public subventions and bounded by special obligations → Ex: requirement of transparency Even though we will tackle the question of the definition of the political party from a scientific perspective, it's not only scientific. The dividing line between a gathering of people and a political party as such is also very important From the political sciences perspective, we can refer to 2 American political scientists, La Palombara and Weiner (Political Parties and Political Development, 1966) → They tried to define the fundamental characteristics of a political party and retained 4 main criteria 1| lasting organization that aims to survive its leaders: → it allows to distinguish political parties form other types of organizations that are only for instance networks of supporters for such or such leaders 2| local organizations are in very close contact with the national organization → there is a nationalization of the party, since basic units are found throughout the national territory → it allows to distinguish political parties from parliamentary groups (only within the parliament and have no local representation) and from what used to be the committees of notables (only local existence) 3| explicit desire to have access to political power: → it results in the presentation of candidates to the election → it allows to distinguish political parties from other types of group o Ex: interest group, whose only purpose is to influence political leaders, whereas the leaders and their parties seek to exercise power 4| deliberate will to find popular supports: → here again, the aim of the criterion is to distinguish with other types of groups, especially, thought clubs or think tanks who want to provide ideas to political organizations and thus don't need to attract voters, militants DEFINITON: A political party is therefore a sustainable organization established throughout the territory, whose goal is to gain political power, thanks to popular support. 28  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein a. What are the functions of parties? Political parties are focused on elections (sometimes even called electoral machines) but not only, they have several activities that coexist and give them meaning Robert K. Merton (1965) elaborated a difference between two types of functions : → manifest functions: visible, explicit and claimed/acknowledged as such by the organisation → and latent functions: implicit, not claimed as such by the organisation, which is not necessarily aware of them) Manifest functions Manifest functions are visible, explicit, and claimed as such by the organization. It has 3 functions Programmatic function: → parties present competing programs and structure the political debate, → while allowing voters to identify themselves within the political sphere, life and debate Selection function: → parties recruit professionals or politics by nominating candidates for elections through the process of investiture Supervisory function: → parties supervise and control the actions of elective representatives to whom they have given their investiture → mainly through the parliamentary groups Latent functions The latent functions are not claimed as such by the organization, which is not aware of them. Nevertheless, those implicit functions exist and are important: Social integration: → parties constitute places of sociability, shared values, but also place of social ascending for some of their members etc.; – “Tribunitian” function (GEORGES LAVAU): → parties speak for the people and they especially voice the dissatisfaction of the people and they defend social categories that are or feel excluded from society; – Legitimization and stabilization of the political system: → parties exist within a given political regime, accept its the rules and by doing so, contribute to legitimizing the political regime and order. → They are an extremely powerful tool of socialization for the regime that helps citizens internalize the democratic behavior → they are an instrument of acceptance among others. → This is true also for populist and extremists parties, which criticize the system but are part of it. All these latent functions have indirect effects on the political system but are nevertheless absolutely essential 29  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Extra note These are ideal-types and since Lavau's writings (post WWII), there have been many changes. As a way of consequence, a number of these functions are now in decline: Programmatic function: → there is a tendency for major governing parties to propose similar policies and options, thus blurring off the frontiers; Selection function: → recently questioned with the appearance of new channels of recruitment for political professionals → political parties are no longer the only way to be recruited → Ex: weight of the media, opinion surveys, more and more parties organizing primary elections etc; → Best illustration = Donald Trump Function of social integration: → decline of large mass parties (fall in membership) → and decline of socialisation in parties (see decline of communist parties which endorsed this role) STILL, political parties maintain a very key role in the democratic system: → they have much of the control over the investiture and also supervise political life. b. How to classify parties? Beyond the common features, political parties are very different from each other, there are a plurality of structures A classical typology This typology can be found in Maurice Duverger's book Political Parties, 1951: he distinguishes 2 main types of parties: The cadres parties (or elite party): The mass parties: → they are organizations mainly composed of notables, → they search for the largest number of members, who have been forced to gather and to create party which is among the main resource of the especially at the end of the 19th century (with the end organization of the census and the universal suffrage) → They are born with universal suffrage : allow actors → Although they have evolved, their action is mainly with no personal resources to participate to engage centered on the elections and they mostly attract in the electoral competition members of the social elites, who built on their o Thanks to the collective resources of the fortune/notoriety as their unique important electoral organization resources: individual resources → electoral resources → Membership fees make it possible to finance the → They are quite poorly developed, weakly centralized activities of the parties and the electoral campaigns and, not disciplined and there have very few → They also provide the party members and members permanent staff and the carry out the propaganda → Their articulation is mostly local with rather activities autonomous networks o Ex: writings newspapers, gluing posters etc. 30  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein LONG DOMINANT TYPOLOGY Although this typology has been dominant for a long time, this was brought at the beginning of the '50s, so it draws a lot on the political situations at the time: → it was believed that mass parties represented the future in terms of political institutions, for left and right Duverger even predicted a gradual disappearance of the cadres parties for the benefit of ne mess parties → Yet this prophecy didn't materialize: there was a decline of the cadre parties in their traditional historical forms, but we have also seen a decline of mass parties → fall in the numbers of members and decline of the main mass parties that have emerged after WWII, most notably the communist ones in France and in Italy Why such decline? This crisis of activism/membership resulted from 4 main factors explaining that: [1. Societal transformations: → decline of the working class (made most of the membership) and rise of middle classes, which are less homogeneous [2. Socioeconomic transformation at work, within the parties: → parties are increasingly financed by public authority o Ex: reimbursement of campaign expenses, fundings according to the number of elected representatives, … → so the importance of member fees decline o Parties are hiring people and specialist [3. Crisis in the form of traditional partisan militancy: → there is a transformation of the way of being a party member as such (militancy) and the way of being an activist for a mass party in the '50s. → It became too costly in time and energy, constraining → Commitment “à la carte”: new kind of commitment, more autonomous, with respect to the hierarchy of the past. It surely changes the relation of the members and the party [4. Negative image suffered by political parties → Especially in the younger generation Mass parties have not won the battle → they have been replaced by smaller parties composed of political professionals. → This is why some authors have tried to update Duverger's typology in order to make it more in line with contemporary reality. 31  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Characterizing the transformation of the parties Catch all parties/electoral-professional parties (Kirchheimer, 1966): They differ from mass parties: → they are characterized by a small number of members, → they are not developed and most of the activities of the party are carried out by paid specialists They differ from the cadres party: → the leaders are very dependent on the party, which allows them to be elected, pays them etc. ?