by Peter Joyce
* * *
These differing attitudes influence the conduct of political activity by both politicians and the general public. When we refer to a country’s political culture we are emphasizing the similarity of views held within any particular country. We are suggesting that within any one country there is a tendency for the majority of people to think, feel and act in a similar manner concerning the conduct of political affairs. But these sentiments may be quite different from the core values espoused by citizens in other liberal democracies.
The extent of a common political culture can, however, be overstated. Within any country differences are likely to exist concerning fundamental values related to political behaviour. The term ‘homogeneity’ denotes a wide level of similarity in these attitudes but universal agreement is not accorded to them. Factors such as de-industrialization (which has resulted in the emergence of an ‘underclass’ in many liberal democracies) or immigration (which has led to the development of multi-ethnic societies) have fundamental significance for the existence of universally agreed sentiments underpinning political behaviour. These may give rise to a heterogeneous society (in which dominant attitudes are challenged by sub-cultural values) or result in a looser attachment to mainstream values by some sections of society.
Questions
What do you understand by the term ‘political culture’?
Outline the main features of the political culture of any country with which you are familiar.
* * *
States and governments
STATES AND GOVERNMENTS
A political system is the constitutional framework through which demands are put forward and decisions are made. It has no physical dimension or formal existence but consists of the institutions, processes and relationships which are involved in the processes of agenda setting, policy formulation and decision making. These include the formal institutions of government and informal agencies such as the media.
Political systems can be distinguished from each other in a number of ways. This process of differentiation is termed ‘classification’. There are three broad types of political system – liberal democratic, communist and totalitarian. The extent of civil rights in liberal democratic political systems facilitates a wider degree of public participation in political affairs than is permitted in the other two systems.
A state consists of a wide range of permanent official institutions (such as the bureaucracy, police, courts, military, parliament and local government) which are responsible for the organization of communal life within specific geographic boundaries. These are usually referred to as a ‘country’ or ‘nation’ and the state enjoys sovereignty within them. Decisions that are taken in the name of the state are binding on all members of that society and may, if necessary, be enforced by the legitimate use of power to prevent, restrain or punish breaches of the law.
There are a wide range of views concerning the operations of the state. Liberal analysis suggests that the state is neutral and independent of any class interests. It arises out of the voluntary agreement of its members and serves impartially to mediate the conflicts which arise within society, seeking to promote the national interest above sectional concerns. Elite theorists, however, suggest political power is wielded by a ruling elite whose interests are maintained and advanced by the state. Marxism identifies this ruling elite as the economically powerful, the bourgeoisie, and views the state as a mechanism that will mediate between the conflict between capital and labour (which they assert to be inevitable) in order to sustain class exploitation and profit accumulation.
The term ‘state’ is often used synonomously with the term ‘government’. This latter term refers to the institutions concerned with making, implementing and enforcing political decisions. In a narrower sense, however, government is often associated with those who wield executive power within a state, who give direction to its activities. In liberal democracies, political parties compete for control of the state and in this sense governments have a limited and temporary existence whereas states are permanent.
The role of the state
* * *
Insight
When we discuss the role of the state we are referring to the services that the state provides for its citizens. These functions are subject to variation between states and within one state across historical time periods.
* * *
There are widely differing views concerning the desirable scope of state activity. Historically, the role of the state was confined to a few key areas, which usually included defence and foreign affairs. However, many states with liberal democratic political systems were subject to pressures during and following the Second World War, which drastically increased the role of state activity. In Britain, for example, this period witnessed the development of the Welfare State, an acceptance that the maintenance of full employment should be a state responsibility and the placing of several key industries under state control and direction.
Political ideology is important in influencing the level of state activity. During the 1980s governments influenced by new right ideology, especially that of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in America, succeeded in reversing the trend towards increased state activity by ‘rolling back’ the frontiers of the state in both economic and social areas of activity. In the economic sphere, the free market and private enterprise were seen as superior to state control or involvement, which was depicted as both wasteful and inefficient. It was further alleged that the role played by the state in people’s lives was detrimental. Those who received state aid (for example, in the form of welfare payments) were depicted as being dependent on the state and having relinquished their ability to take decisions affecting the conduct of their everyday lives. The thinking, active citizen had thus been transformed into a passive recipient of handouts while those in employment were adversely affected by the high level of taxation needed to finance the existing activities performed by the state.
Power, authority and legitimacy
* * *
Insight
The terms ‘power’, ‘authority’ and legitimacy help to explain why as citizens we do what our governments tell us to do.
* * *
A major concern of a government is to secure the obedience of its citizens to its decisions. There are two broad explanations concerning why a government is able to secure popular compliance to its objectives or policies. These centre on an understanding of the concepts of power and authority.
* * *
Political obligation
Political obligation is the theory which seeks to explain why, and under what circumstances, citizens are required to obey their governments. There are various explanations for this, although an important one is the idea that the existence of government and the powers which it exercises are based on the consent of the governed. This is a central belief put forward in social contract political philosophies, which further assert that, should a government undermine the rights and liberties of the citizen, which it was established to protect, it is morally acceptable to disobey the state’s laws and, in extreme circumstances, to institute a new government which does possess the consent of its people.
* * *
POWER
Power consists of a relationship between two parties in which one has the ability to compel the other to undertake a course of action which would not have been voluntarily carried out. The preferences of one party become binding on the other because the former has the ability to compel compliance by the threat or the use of sanctions. The desire to avoid the sanction thus ensures the obedience of one party to another. Governments may exercise power over their citizens but other political organizations (such as pressure groups and social movements) may wield power by their ability to use force or violence to further their aims.
The nature of power is a fundamental issue related to the study of politics. In his book, Power: A Radical View, written in 1974, Stephen Lukes identified three dimensi
ons to power – the one-dimensional view (which focused on whose views prevailed in decision making), the two-dimensional view (which involved examining both decision making and also non-decision making) and the three-dimensional view (which focused on the ability to control the political agenda by manipulating people’s needs and preferences).
Power is different from influence, which entails the ability of those who are not participants to a policy-making process to be able to affect the content and nature of its decisions. Their ability to do so may include the intellectual weight of arguments which they are able to put forward.
Power entails the ability to compel obedience. A body exercising power has the ability to invoke sanctions in order to secure compliance to its decisions. The fear of the sanction thus ensures that the body which may invoke it is able to achieve its goals. A government which possesses power is thus obeyed as its citizens are afraid of the consequences of disobedience. Dictatorships may often govern in such a fashion, executing those who dare disagree with their policies. In liberal democratic political structures, coercion is often coupled to resources at the government’s disposal, enabling it to offer rewards as well as threats to secure obedience.
* * *
Who holds political power?
There is considerable disagreement concerning the distribution of power within a society.
Pluralists argue that power is widely distributed throughout society and that the role of the state is to adjudicate in the constant competition which exists between competing groups and interests. Decisions thus reflect the process of bargaining between such diverse bodies.
Elitist theories, however, contend that power is concentrated in the hands of a relatively small, organized group of people and that this minority is able to force its will on the majority of citizens. Marxists identify the ruling elite as those who possess economic power and are able to use the political system to further their own interests.
* * *
AUTHORITY
The second explanation to account for governments being able to exert control over their citizens is the authority possessed by such institutions. Authority is based on moral force. An individual or institution which possesses authority secures compliance to its suggestions primarily if there is general agreement that those who put forward such ideas have the right to propose and implement them. Citizens thus obey governments because there is a general consensus that it has the right to take decisions even if the content of them is not generally popular.
The sociologist Max Weber suggested that authority could be derived from one or other of three sources. The first of these was traditional authority, where acceptance of the right to rule is based on custom. Popular consent is accorded to decisions made by those from a background which traditionally exercises the functions of government within a state. Hereditary monarchs (who rule by virtue of birth) enjoy this form of authority. Second was charismatic authority, which is derived from characteristics that are personal to a political leader. The main criterion for obedience is that the public stand in awe of the person taking decisions. Charisma is particularly associated with dictators, including Adolf Hitler in Germany and Juan Péron who served as president of Argentina during 1946–55 and 1973–74. The final source was legal-bureaucratic or legal-rational authority. In this case, compliance to decisions made by rulers is based on the office which an individual holds within a state and not his or her personal characteristics. It is thus the prestige accorded by the public to an office which influences the ability of an official to secure acceptance to his or her wishes.
In liberal democratic political systems the political office occupied by those who give orders forms the main basis of their authority. We accept that presidents or prime ministers have the right to give orders by virtue of the public positions which they occupy. However, political leaders frequently derive their authority from more than one source: in Britain the association of the prime minister with government carried out in the name of the monarch gives this office holder authority derived from both traditional and legal-bureaucratic sources.
In liberal democracies governments possess both power and authority. They are obeyed partly because there is general consent that they have the right to govern, but also because the police, courts and penal system may be used as a sanction to force compliance to their laws. Power that is divorced from authority is likely to produce an unstable political structure in which violence, disorder and revolution threaten the existence of the government.
LEGITIMACY
Legitimacy entails popular acceptance of the exercise of power within a political system. It is closely linked to the concept of authority, being commonly applied to political systems whereas authority is generally applied to specific public officials. Legitimacy is a quality that confers acceptance of the actions undertaken by the government from those who are subject to them. Those who are subject to such rules may not necessarily approve of them, but legitimacy involves an acceptance that the government has the right to make decisions and that the public has a duty to obey them.
In liberal democratic political systems, legitimacy is founded on the notion of popular consent. Governments derive their position from elections. This is a process in which all citizens are entitled to participate – and are required to if voting is compulsory. The support obtained at an election is the basis of a government’s claim on the obedience of its citizens to the actions which it subsequently undertakes, provided that it acts in accordance within the established rules of political conduct. Marxists, however, emphasize that legitimacy entails public acceptance of the distribution of power within society. This is not derived from genuine popular approval but, rather, is the product of ideological control exerted in the interests of the ruling class over the masses, which is designed to secure their acceptance of political, social and economic inequality.
Legitimacy, whether it derives from manipulation or genuine popular approval, is important in establishing stable government able to draw upon the obedience of its citizens. This may, however, be undermined by political, social or economic factors such as repeated failures by governments to act in accordance with the wishes of their citizens or by perceptions that those who occupy political office seek to use their position to bring them personal benefits. Factors such as these may result in what is termed a ‘legitimation crisis’, in which citizens question the right of the government to act.
Question
Distinguish between the terms ‘power’, ‘authority’ and ‘legitimacy’.
The rule of law
* * *
Insight
The rule of law suggests that the power wielded by the state over its citizens is based upon clearly laid-down procedures embodied in law, which is subject to universal application – it applies to all of us. The rule of law also regulates the conduct of individual citizens towards each other.
* * *
The rule of law suggests that citizens can only be punished by the state using formalized procedures when they have broken the law and that all citizens will be treated in the same way when they commit wrongdoings. Nobody is ‘above the law’: penalties cannot be handed out in an arbitrary manner and the punishments meted out for similar crimes should be the same regardless of who has committed them. This suggests that the law is applied dispassionately and is not subject to the biases and prejudices of those who enforce it. Additionally, all citizens should be aware of the contents of the law. The rule of law, therefore, provides a powerful safeguard to the citizen against arbitrary actions committed by the state and its officials, and is best guaranteed by a judiciary which is independent of the other branches of government.
This principle may be grounded in common law (which was historically the situation in Britain) or it may be incorporated into a codified constitution, as is the case in America.
Although many of the requirements embodied in the principle of the rule of law constitute practices which are widely adhered to in liberal demo
cracies, most liberal democratic states deviate from the strict application of the rule of law. Factors including social background, financial means, class, race or gender may play an influential part in determining whether a citizen who transgresses the law is proceeded against by the state and may also have a major bearing on the outcome of any trial. Additionally, governments may deviate from strict application of the rule of law when emergencies occur. Marxists equate the rule of law with the protection of private property rights which they view as underpinning the social inequalities and class exploitation found in capitalist societies.
* * *
The rule of law in America
The freedom of citizens from arbitrary actions undertaken by government is incorporated into the constitution. The procedure and practices which must be followed when citizens are accused of criminal actions are laid down in this document, most notably in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The requirement that no citizen shall be deprived of ‘life, liberty or property’ without ‘due process of law’ is imposed as a condition affecting the operations of both federal and state governments. The Fifth Amendment also provides the citizen with further protection in their dealings with government. No person may be tried twice for the same offence or be compelled to give self-incriminatory evidence in a criminal trial.
