Unit 2. Politics and the State 2024/2025 PDF

Unit 2. Politics and the State. Introduction to Political Science. 2024/2025. Irene Lanzas Index  1. Politics in the State.  2. History of the State.  3. Influence of ideologies and political paradigms. Welfare State and globalisation.  4. Democracy vs. Authoritarianism. 1. Politics and the...

Unit 2. Politics and the State. Introduction to Political Science. 2024/2025. Irene Lanzas Index  1. Politics in the State.  2. History of the State.  3. Influence of ideologies and political paradigms. Welfare State and globalisation.  4. Democracy vs. Authoritarianism. 1. Politics and the State. (I)  For centuries, politics functioned outside the State. However, from the moment of its constitution, we can no longer conceive of politics outside State structures.  Historical ideal typology (institutional autonomy and modes of coercion):  Tribal and pre-political societies.  The polis.  Pre-modern or pre-state empires.  Feudal polyarchies.  Statal monarchies. 1. Politics and the State. (II)  Social and political theory has developed various explanatory models to explain the transformations from these structures to the modern State. There are four main currents of this structural change:  Durkheim: the factor of change lies in the refinement of the social division of labour, which takes place in a community of interdependent actors.  Marx (political economy, historical materialism): The motor of the evolution of political forms is the modification of the form of economic organisation or mode of production.  Weber/Parsons: The transformation of political structures can also be attributed to the evolution of the very means of domination (armaments, techniques of military organisation, legal and tax administration), which change in parallel with the modes of economic production.  Gumplowicz/Spencer: It is the competition between communities for the control of natural resources (land suitable for agriculture and livestock, mines, water, etc.) and, later, the control of trade flows and routes (rivers, seas, communication routes) that forces the setting up of a military apparatus. 1. Politics and the State. (III) family religious kinship belief economic other forms relationship of social  Which are the essential features of the State? interaction  The State delimits politics as a sphere differentiated from family kinship, economic relationship, religious belief or other forms of social interaction.  The State tends towards the maximum institutionalisation of political reality. What counts are the rules (the laws) that place some in the capacity to make political decisions and others in the obligation to obey such decisions.  The State claims the exclusive right of coercion. To this end, it has a twofold monopoly: in the production of law (which contains all compulsory rules) and in the administration of physical violence (armies, police, prisons, physical or pecuniary sanctions, etc.).  The State understands that its capacity to regulate conflicts has a clearly delimited territory as its framework for action. 1. Politics and the State. (IV)  These features are tendencies; the State tends to conquer them in their maximum intensity (Tilly), although not always to the same degree.  Every self-respecting State will not fail to affirm them and to fight against those who oppose them. ‘State is that human community which, within a given territory... claims for itself (successfully) the monopoly of legitimate physical violence’ (Weber, Max). 2. History of the State. (I)  All forms of political organisation have been developed over a long process. Even if there is no date, there is a historical period (between the 15th and 16th centuries) in which some of the conditions that generated this political form can be found:  In the economic order: the consolidation of long-distance trade between cities and transoceanic expeditions (the need for security and the regulation of conflicts).  In the cultural and ideological order: the Renaissance spread a vision of the public world that was unitary and not fragmented, a single political power concentrated in an absolute sovereign.  The administration of coercion: the monarch was the only one who could produce the law and apply it. A professional bureaucracy appeared.  In violence: armies became professionalised, requiring funding and making them more expensive to maintain.  This happened not without political and social conflict. 2. History of the State. (II)  To this must be added a series of theoretical and ideological approaches that supported the rise of the absolutist State:  Niccolò Machiavelli: concentrating powers (permanent military force + propaganda capacity) in the Prince. Politics is autonomous from religion and morality and the guarantee of success is to know its own logic.  Jean Bodin: he established the principle of ‘State sovereignty’ with absolute and perpetual (supreme) power. His naturalism indicates that this power must be headed by one alone (personal attribution of sovereignty).  Thomas Hobbes: there is a ‘theoretical’ pact of renunciation of self-rule in favour of a sovereign, the ‘Leviathan’ of mythical strength to ensure the protection of his subjects. 2. History of the State. (III) The absolute State (15th-17th centuries).  The basic political relationship is between the sovereign (ultimate political power) and the subject (resigned to total submission in exchange for the security offered by the sovereign). State and monarchy are the same.  Law is the expression of the king's will as sovereign. The legal imperative is detached from sources such as nature or divinity in the face of sovereign power.  All political functions are assumed by the monarch, although he may delegate them (military, diplomatic, fiscal, judicial...).  The absolute State deals with the economy and trade, regulating prices and remuneration.  It is not responsible for the material welfare of the population (the Church and its organisations). 2. History of the State. (IV) The liberal State (18th century onwards).  The main political relationship was between the State and the citizen, a protected subject, vigilant and willing to intervene in political life.  The position of this citizen does not depend either on his family origin or on the privileges granted by the sovereign. What protects him from excessive intervention by the authorities is the existence of fundamental rights.  The production of these laws remained a State monopoly, but no longer reflected the will of the monarch: in the liberal State, the law was an expression of the general will, the formation of which the citizen-owners themselves were involved in.  The State is now ‘rule of law’: it makes law, but it also submits to law.  A guarantee of limitation is the separation of powers. 2. History of the State. (V)  In the context of the competitive capitalism in which it is situated, State activism is rejected as an annoying interference and is confined solely to the free and spontaneous competition of the market to increase the available wealth and distribute it in the best possible way.  Ideologically, it is inspired in the theories of John Locke, Montesquieu, Jean- Jacques Rousseau or Immanuel Kant.  In substance, this is the model in which we still live, but it has evolved a lot over the last two centuries. 2. History of the State. (VI)  In short, these are the constituent elements of the State: 1. The population.  It is the politically organised human community. What are the criteria for belonging to a given human community? It depends on the area and the time. In general, the criteria are decided by the State itself.  Belonging to a State is equivalent to enjoying a status called citizenship, which is shared by all members of the political community. It is often referred to as ‘nationality’.  This relationship between citizenship and nationality is explained by the nation-state binomial. It is not without controversy: what is the nation, does it depend on the mere will to belong to the community? Does it depend on a series of given elements that express a collective spirit or soul?  Nation-building. State that wants to be a community (e.g. Spain)  State-building. Community that wants to be a State (e.g. Catalulia)  This is a debate that is still going on: decolonisations, disintegration of the USSR, globalisation and immigration... 2. History of the State. (VII) 2. The delimited territory.  Historically it had been a secondary element (nomadic tribes), but this changed with the consolidation of national States. The State has been characterised by clearly delimiting the space in which it operates: it marks out a physical area (land, water, airspace) by drawing up borders.  It is in this sphere that the State situates itself and claims to act with pretensions of exclusivity. The expansion of the State form has meant that the entire planet is now divided into State territories. There is no territory that is not controlled or claimed by a State (but the Antarctic). This has led to numerous conflicts.  In today's globalised world, the importance of territory has changed. It is true that the location of certain natural resources still gives State control over physical space a political value that cannot be disputed. Territorial disputes based on strategic motives also persist. Or the claims of a national group that claims to occupy a lost space. 2. History of the State. (VIII) 3. The capacity of coertion (sovereignty).  The exclusive capacity to make binding decisions for this population and within the framework of this territory. Sovereignty is thus the quality that endows the State entity with an original power, neither internally nor externally dependent on another authority, conferring on it an undisputed right to use violence.  In its internal aspect, the State is supreme or ‘superior’ because it can and must impose itself on any other source of authority. This power translates into the monopoly of law and violence that the State claims over other actors.  At the same time, in its external aspect, the State as sovereign does not admit the domination of any other external authority.  However, this is also a contested idea, both in the internal and external dimension of sovereignty. 3. Influence of ideologies and political paradigms. Welfare State and globalisation. (I) The welfare State:  This model is the result of historical experiences that correct the inadequacies demonstrated by the liberal State in the face of the irruption of mass politics.  The fundamental political relationship is between power and the members of a group (no longer an isolated individual). Power dialogues with political actors who have their representatives in different bodies and arenas.  The content of civil and political rights is broadened, the right to vote is extended to all citizens and there are new rights. everyone can participate in politics  Laws are the result of negotiated pacts with different groups and parties.  Power is shared and distributed among various active groups.  The State now assumes important economic responsibilities.  The State undertakes to cover some of the risks that threaten the most vulnerable groups in the community. 3. Influence of ideologies and political paradigms. Welfare State and globalisation. (II)  How did this evolution come about?  The expansion of Fordism (industrial capitalism).  The capacity of trade union pressure and socialist and communist parties.  The bipolar geopolitical context between European countries and their colonies.  It was also a reaction to the 1929 crisis, which revealed the incapacity of market self-regulation mechanisms and their impact on the most vulnerable populations.  It gave rise to the generation of economic, welfare, labour, educational, health and other public policies.  For forty years (since the end of World War II) this paradigm worked well and there was an economic boom, but it stagnated and came into question from the 1970s onwards. 3. Influence of ideologies and political paradigms. Welfare State and globalisation. (III) The neoliberal framework (1980–202?).  Neoliberalism was the main paradigm that challenged the development of the welfare State from the 1980s onwards. Why did this paradigm triumph?  The Chicago School of Economics (Hayek, Friedman, Nozick) developed neoclassical monetarist economics.  The Thatcher-Reagan conjunction implemented the ‘economic orthodoxy’ of neoliberalism, ignoring social dialogue and the representation of social organisations. They sought macroeconomic monetary equilibrium and the facilitation of the movement of capital, they made a fiscal adjustment.  Economic globalisation after the collapse of the USSR.  The response to the 2008 crisis: Inequalities and concentration of wealth (capture of resources and capital).  Emergence of protest: Arab Spring, 15M, Occupy Wall Street, MeToo, environmental movements… 3. Influence of ideologies and political paradigms. Welfare State and globalisation. (IV) Globalisation.  It is the culmination of a process of human territorial, economic and political expansion.  Five centuries of territorial expansion (Sloterdijk, 2007): from the occupation of space to the occupation of resources.  Half a century of economic expansion (the State at the service of market globalisation): Hyper regulation of trade openness and hyper financial deregulation, gap between the rents of production and the rents of capital. 3. Influence of ideologies and political paradigms. Welfare State and globalisation. (V)  Alterations of the constitutive features of State: 1. Population:  Resource pressures and population ageing. This leads to progressive fiscal depletion which is evident in pension systems (externalisation and privatisation).  Rural mass migration leads to urbanisation of the world, gentrification and expulsion. This produces rural emptying, unemployment, urban segregation, transnational capital pressures on ways of life. At the institutional level, public policies of repopulation and global networks of cities, social movements of resistance (rural and urban) are perceived.  Migrations and international displacements produce the rise of xenophobia. Institutional response is the development of international humanitarian law, redefining identities and (multi-) cultural dispute. 3. Influence of ideologies and political paradigms. Welfare State and globalisation. (VI) 2. Territory:  Productive delocalisation and global competitiveness. It leads to deterritorialisation and territorial re-anchoring, precarisation of rights, new significance of work, and individualisation of risk. The political measures are the relative reduction of the fiscal component derived from labour income (attracting capital investment).  The Anthropocene. It implies social, health, economic and environmental vulnerability. Attempts to cope with national transitions in global competition, fragile and ineffective multilateral global governance, wars over (scarcer) resources.  Digital revolution in communications, dematerialisation? Access without moving. Open government, digital ‘cold’ war. 3. Influence of ideologies and political paradigms. Welfare State and globalisation. (VII) 3. Sovereignty:  Growing influence of social networks in political-electoral issues. Consequences: network-society (Castells), Cybercrime. Digital freedom of expression (fakes).  Securitisation of international relations. Increasing investment in security and cybersecurity. Resource wars. Limits to the exercise of international and humanitarian law.  Criminalisation of demands, rollback of freedoms. Growth of the punitive penitentiary system. Debate on life imprisonment and the death penalty.  Hyper-regulation of social relations and transfer of regulatory capacity to the private sector. Pathologies of administration (bureaucracy). Expert government. “Puertas giratorias”. Technocratic autonomy. 4. Democracy vs. Authoritarianism. (I)  Denotation and definition of democracy. A very broad historical denotation of the concept: ‘it favours the many rather than the few; that is why it is called democracy (...) if we observe the laws, they provide equal guarantees for all in their private affairs’ (Pericles, funeral speech, 430 BC). ‘A legitimate government represents a social contract between those who have ‘consented to form a community or government (...) where the majority have the right to act and impose themselves on the others’ (Locke, J. Second Treatise on Civil Government, 1690).  Attempts to define modern democracy: to establish the conditions in order for people to participate in politics  Procedural vision (Jefferson, Bentham, Dahl) - from guaranteeing access (input).  Substantive view (Marx, Macpherson, Barber) - from assessing results (output). the most important thing are the results  (Both issues refer to each other in any attempt at normative definition of democracy). 4. Democracy vs. Authoritarianism. (II) Ideal democracy.  Liberal democracy: the lowest common denominator that constitutes an ‘ideal’ (Dahl, 2004).  Effective participation. Before adopting or rejecting a policy, members of the demos have the opportunity to make their views known to other members.  Equal voting. Demos members have the opportunity to vote for or against a policy, and all votes are counted equally.  Informed electorate. Demos members have the opportunity, within a reasonable period, to learn about the policy and about possible alternative policies and their likely consequences.  Citizen control of the action programme. The demos, purely and exclusively, decides which issues are included in the decision-making agenda and how they are to be included there. The democratic process is thus ‘open’ in the sense that the demos can change the association's policies at any time.  Inclusion. Every member of the demos has the right to participate in the association as outlined above.  Fundamental rights. Each of the necessary features of the ideal democracy prescribes a right that is itself a necessary feature. Democracy is thus more than a mere political procedure; it is necessarily also a system of fundamental rights. 4. Democracy vs. Authoritarianism. (III) Representative democracy.  Democracy or republic? Eighteenth-century dispute over which is the more appropriate term to define government by the people.  The term republican (or popular) government, which can be of two types, depending on whether ‘the people as a whole or only a part of them are invested with supreme power’ - the former is a democracy, while the latter is an aristocracy (Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, 1748).  Representative Democracy constitutes the radical innovation of the 18th and 19th centuries (the dispute was that an intermediary is introduced, which is seen as a value not clearly democratic, in order to develop precisely a new political system whose main purpose is to guarantee the rule of the demos).  Rousseau: ‘representative democracy’ is a contradiction in itself. It results in: Free, fair and periodic elections; Freedom of expression; Independent sources of information; Freedom of association.  4. Democracy vs. Authoritarianism. (IV) we can say that polyarchy is “approximate” democracy: people as a group Real polyarchies. exercises power rather than individuals as like in democracy.  Contemporary polyarchies: actually existing democracies (liberal - democratic - socially oriented State).  35% - 50% of the world's population today live in polyarchies. They are regimes with high levels of contestation and inclusion (Dahl, 1954): contestation refers to citizens' access to organise to press for policies and outcomes they want; inclusion refers to who participates in the democratic process. 1. Power dialogues and negotiates with collective actors: logic of representation. 2. Extension of civil and political rights (suffrage) and social rights. literally the 3. Laws as a result of negotiation between group interests. same as welfare state 4. Power distributed and shared among various groups active in the political arena (polyarchy=plurality of powers). 5. The State assumes roles in the market: intervention, control of strategic sectors, mediation of social bargaining à mixed economy system. 6. The State assumes obligations towards the most vulnerable groups: welfare and social provision. 4. Democracy vs. Authoritarianism. (V) The Value of Democracy (Dahl, 2004): 1. Democracy helps to avoid the rule of cruel and depraved autocrats. 2. Democracy guarantees its citizens a number of fundamental rights that non-democratic governments do not and cannot guarantee. 3. Democracy assures its citizens a greater scope of personal freedom than any feasible alternative to it. 4. Democracy helps people protect their own fundamental interests. 5. Only a democratic government can provide maximum opportunity for people to exercise the freedom of self-determination, that is, to live under the laws of their own choosing. 6. Only a democratic government can provide maximum opportunity for the exercise of moral responsibility. 7. Democracy promotes human development more fully than any feasible alternative. 8. Only a democratic government can foster a relatively high degree of political equality. 9. Modern representative democracies do not wage war on each other. 10. Countries with democratic governments tend to be more prosperous than countries with non-democratic governments. 4. Democracy vs. Authoritarianism. (VI) The unfulfilled promises of democracy (Norberto Bobbio, 1984).  Political subjects are not individuals but groups - polyarchy of unequal powers.  Representatives do not have their own capacity, but are subjected to the party, trade union, interest lobby, etc. (imperative mandate vs. representative mandate).  Reconstruction of an elite of political professionals, without achieving identification between the rulers and the ruled.  Democracy is not enough to make decisions that affect the whole community, in economy, business, administration, etc.  The opacity of power is maintained, in bureaucratic labyrinths, secret services, corridors, etc.  Apathy or detachment from public affairs; capture and clientelistic relationships based on individual interests prevail. 4. Democracy vs. Authoritarianism. (VII) Totalitarianism and authoritarianism (Hannah Arendt or Juan Linz). 1. Totalitarian regime:  Elaborate ideology and pretence of reforming society.  Mobilisation of the masses and indoctrination.  Concentration of power in the party and exaltation of the leader.  Absolute arbitrariness (law in the service of the regime). 2. Authoritarian regime:  Conservative diffuse ideology: tradition, order, nation.  Subjugation through depoliticization.  Limited pluralism with some political repression.  Predictability in certain areas (some rule of law). 4. Democracy vs. Authoritarianism. (VIII) Illiberal democracies and populisms  Illiberal democracies: popular democracy and government by the people with limits and restrictions on individual freedoms and rights (electoral democracies). Hybridisation or democratic apostasy: competitive authoritarianism.  Populism: An ideology that views society as ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’, and argues that politics should be an expression of the general will of the people (Mudde, 2004).