Download Politics and Government

I. Politics and Government
1. What Does Politics Mean?
David Easton called politics "the authoritative allocation of values." In
other words, someone or something has power to hand out things that
are considered good. The government (authoritative) will distribute
(allocation) money for welfare spending (values).
Harold Laswell's definition tends to look at politics as a matter of who
actually benefits (qui bono). He defined politics as a matter of "who gets
what, when and how." The elderly (who) are eligible for Social Security
benefits (what) when they retire (when), because they vote, they visit
members of Congress, they send countless letters to Congress and the
President, and they protest (how). In order to get what they want,
people must successfully jump into the political process.
2. What Is the Point of Government?
Hand in hand with politics is this concept of "government."
The Dye
textbook describes government as an "organization extending to the
whole society that can legitimately use force to carry out its
decisions." Something you should notice right away is the importance of
legitimacy. A government makes decisions that are legitimate; people
agree this organization is lawful. Terrorist groups might use force but
they do not have a sense of legitimacy as does a government. In other
words, to be considered legitimate there must be some "widespread
acceptance that something is necessary rightful and/or legally binding."
Yet what exactly is the purpose of government anyhow?
While one
could likely come up with a long list of reasons for having a government,
such as funding higher education or regulating product safety,
government has four general purposes. The first centers around issues
of law and order: maintaining order, establishing justice and ensuring
domestic tranquility. The government thus exists to establish the rule
of law to preserve both life and property. In his book, The Leviathan,
Thomas Hobbes argues that life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor,
1
brutish, and short." Imagine yourself without a car, fashionable clothes,
movie theatres, and even a stable home. Your day becomes a matter of
finding food and shelter every single day! You could very well die
without these; and in a land of scarcity that is a gruesome reality. What
if you knew of a way to remove such daily fears, so you could find safety
from these terrors? According to Hobbes, people need a ruler with
"unquestioned authority" to guarantee safety for the weak; government
becomes a means for survival. Along with John Locke, Hobbes argued
that people have certain rights (such as the right to live) deriving from
the state of nature (by a Divine power). People will thus make a social
contract: by obeying the laws of the government (away from vigilante
justice) people will have their rights protected.
The second purpose, providing for the common defense, speaks of the
need to protect the nation's borders. After all, even the most freedomloving government is useless and short-lived without the ability to
protect its citizens. To this end, government creates some method of
national defense such as a national military.
The third purpose, promoting the general welfare, affirms the demands of
citizens for public goods: benefits and services that are available to
everyone. Simply think about the national parks system, and even public
education. In addition, one need only consider the Interstate Highway
system begun by President Eisenhower in the 1950s.
The last purpose, securing the blessings of liberty, means that
government protects freedom and further makes certain people are
treated equally in the eyes of the law. Article III of the Constitution
dictates that "the judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity." As part of a common law tradition, equity simply means that
people are treated fairly: if the laws are unfair, judges may consider the
overall fairness of a situation at hand. People are thus expected to
respect the Constitution and its laws. More importantly, in order to
secure the blessings of liberty, governments (democracies in particular)
provide various freedoms. In the United States, the First Amendment to
the Constitution provides protections to the freedoms of speech, religion,
2
and even the right to petition and assemble the government.
3
II. Political Power
Political power (imperium in Latin) is a type of power held by a person or
group in a society. There are many ways to hold such power.
Officially, political power is held by the holders of sovereignty. Political
powers are not limited to heads of states, however, and the extent to
which a person or group holds such power is related to the amount of
societal influence they can wield, formally or informally. In many cases
this influence is not contained within a single state and it refers to
international power.
Political scientists have frequently defined power as "the ability to
influence the behavior of others" with or without resistance.
For analytical reasons, I.C. MacMillan separates the concepts power
Power is the capacity to restructure actual situations.
—I.C. Macmillan
and influence
Influence is the capacity to control and modify the perceptions of others.
—I.C. Macmillan
Separation of powers
Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu claimed that without
following a principle of containing and balancing legislative, executive
and judiciary powers, there is no freedom and no protection against
abuse of power. Separation of power must be in such grade, that any of
the branches can operate without excessive limitations from the others;
but interdependence between them must also be in such grade, that one
single branch cannot rule out the other's decisions. This is the separation
of powers principle.
Division of Power
A similar concept, termed Division of Power, also consists of
differentiated legislative, executive, and judicial powers. However, while
Separation of Power prohibits one branch from interfering with another,
Division of Power permits such interference. For example, in Indonesia,
4
the President (who wields executive power) can introduce a new bill, but
the People's Consultative Assembly (holding legislative power) chooses
to either legalize or reject the bill.
Power projection
Power projection (or force projection) is a term used in military and
political science to refer to the capacity of a state to implement policy by
means of force, or the threat thereof, in an area distant from its own
territory. The United States Department of Defense, in its publication J102: Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms ,
further defines power projection as
The ability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national
power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and
effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed
locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to
enhance regional stability.
This ability is a crucial element of a state's power in international
relations. Any state able to direct its military forces outside the limited
bounds of its territory might be said to have some level of power
projection capability, but the term itself is used most frequently in
reference to militaries with a worldwide reach (or at least significantly
broader than a state's immediate area). Even states with sizable hard
power assets (such as a large standing army) may only be able to exert
limited regional influence so long as they lack the means of effectively
projecting their power on a global scale. Generally, only a select few
states are able to overcome the logistical difficulties inherent in the
deployment and direction of a modern, mechanized military force.
While traditional measures of power projection typically focus on hard
power assets (tanks, soldiers, aircraft, naval vessels, etc.), the
developing theory of soft power notes that power projection does not
necessarily have to involve the active use of military forces in combat.
Assets for power projection can often serve dual uses, as the deployment
of various countries' militaries during the humanitarian response to the
2004 Indian Ocean earthquake illustrates. The ability of a state to project
its forces into an area may serve as an effective diplomatic lever,
5
influencing the decision-making process and acting as a potential
deterrent on other states' behavior.
Political Science Perspectives
Within normative political analysis, there are also various levels of power
as described by academics that add depth into the understanding of the
notion of power and its political implications.
Robert Dahl, a prominent American political scientist, first ascribed to
political power the trait of decision-making as the source and main
indicator of power.
Later, two other political scientists, Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz,
decided that simply ascribing decision-making as the basis of power was
too simplistic and they added what they termed a 2nd dimension of
power, agenda-setting by elites who worked in the backrooms and away
from public scrutiny in order to exert their power upon society.
Lastly, British academic Steven Lukes added a 3rd dimension of power,
preference-shaping, which he claimed was another important aspect of
normative power in politics which entails theoretical views similar to
notions of cultural hegemony.
These 3 dimensions of power are today often considered defining
aspects of political power by political researchers.
A radical alternative view of the source of political power follows the
formula: information plus authority permits the exercise of power.
Political power is intimately related to information. Sir Francis Bacon's
statement: "Nam et ipsa scientia potentia est" for knowledge itself is
power, assumed authority as given. Many will know that unless someone
with authority heeds, there is no political power. The kingmaker is not
the king.
Post-modernism has debated over how to define political power. Perhaps,
the best known definition comes from the late Michel Foucault, whose
work in Discipline and Punish (and other writings) conveys a view of
power that is organic within society. This view holds that political power
is more subtle and is part of a series of societal controls and
'normalizing' influences through historical institutions and definitions of
normal vs. abnormal. Foucault once characterized power as "an action
6
over actions" (une action sur des actions), arguing that power was
essentially a relation between several dots, in continuous transformation
as in Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy. His view of power lent credence
to the view that power in human society was part of a training process in
which everyone, from a prime minister to a homeless person, played
their role within the power structure of society.
Jürgen Habermas opposed himself to Foucault's conception of discourse
as a battlefield for power relations, arguing that it should be possible to
achieve consensus on the fundamentals rules of discourse, in order to
establish a transparent and democratic dialogue. Thenceforth, he argued
against Foucault and Louis Althusser that power was not immanent to
discourse, and that philosophy could be completely distinguished from
ideology.
More recently, there has been a move among academics to differentiate
power from a new concept of luck. Under some conditions (particularly
the when examining the third dimension of power) it becomes necessary
to determine who obtains a favourable result through the wielding of
genuine power and who is simply "lucky". An example might be an ethnic
minority who receive favourable treatment while not intentionally
seeking it. A person promoted through positive discrimination would be
considered "lucky" rather than "powerful". The eventual aim of such
discrimination would be to eventually convert some (or all) of that luck
into power. Some groups remain serially lucky without ever obtaining
power.
Cf. Basic Concepts in Sociology
Power (sociology)
Much of the recent sociological debate on power revolves around the
issue of the constraining and/or enabling nature of power. Thus, power
can be seen as various forms of constraint on human action, but also as
that which makes action possible, although in a limited scope.
Much of this debate is related to the works of the French philosopher
Michel Foucault (1926-1984), who, following the Italian political
7
philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), sees power as "a complex
strategic situation in a given society [social setting]". Being deeply
structural, his concept involves both constraint and enablement.
The imposition need not involve coercion (force or threat of force). Thus
"power" in the sociological sense subsumes both physical power and
political power, including many of the types listed at power. In some
ways it more closely resembles what everyday English-speakers call
"influence", although some authors (like D. Wrong) make a sharp
distinction between influence as a more general concept, and power as
intended influence.
More generally, one could define "power" as the more or less unilateral
ability (real or perceived) or potential to bring about significant change,
usually in people’s lives, through the actions of oneself or of others.
The laws of power are an interpretation of evolution, used by individuals,
with the goal to let an individual evolve to the highest level of comfort he
can attain in his social setting. The exercise of power seems endemic to
humans as social and gregarious beings.
The Spanish and Portuguese word for power is "poder", and the French
word is "pouvoir". Both words mean "to be able", and this meaning
reflects on the meaning of the English word "power". A second French
word is "puissance", which means more potential or virtual power, a
capacity of, while "pouvoir" would be actualized "puissance".
Interestingly enough the Mandarin word for power also derives from the
verb "to be able to", "neng"(能). "Nengli" (能力), "power", literally means
"the strength to be able to", or "can-strength".
Types and sources of power
Power may be held through:
Delegated authority (for example in the democratic process)
Social class
Personal or group charisma
Ascribed power (acting on perceived or assumed abilities, whether these
bear testing or not)
Expertise (Ability, Skills) (the power of medicine to bring about health;
another famous example would be "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed
8
man is king" - Desiderius Erasmus)
Persuasion (direct, indirect, or subliminal)
Knowledge (granted or withheld, shared or kept secret)
Money (financial influence, control of labour, control through ownership,
etc)
Force (violence, military might, coercion).
Moral persuasion (possibly including religion)
Application of non-violence
Operation of group dynamics (such as the science of public relations)
Social influence of tradition (compare ascribed power)
In relationships; domination/submissiveness
JK Galbraith summarizes the types of power as being "Condign" (based
on force), "Compensatory" (through the use of various resources) or
"Conditioned" (the result of persuasion), and their sources as
"Personality" (individuals), "Property" (their material resources) and
"Organizational". (Galbraith, An Anatomy of Power)
9
Modern Elite theorists
C. Wright Mills
C. Wright Mills published his book The Power Elite in 1956 claiming a
new perspective on systems of power in the USA. He identified a
triumvirate of power groups – political, economic and military – who form
a distinguishable, although not unified body, wielding power in the
American state:
He proposed that this group had been generated through a process of
rationalization at work in all advanced industrial societies where by the
mechanisms of power became concentrated funneling overall control into
the hands of a limited, somewhat corrupt group (Bottomore 1993:25).
This reflected a decline in politics as an arena for debate and relegation
to a merely formal level of discourse (Mills 1956:274). This macro-scale
analysis sought to point out the degradation of democracy in "advanced"
societies and the fact that power generally lies outside the boundaries of
elected representatives.
Floyd Hunter
The elite theory analysis of power was also applied on the micro scale in
community power studies such as that by Floyd Hunter (1953). Hunter
examined in detail the power relationships evident in his "Regional City"
looking for the "real" holders of power rather than those in obvious
official positions. He posited a structural-functional approach which
mapped the hierarchies and webs of interconnection operating within the
city – mapping relationships of power between businessmen, politicians,
clergy etc. The study was promoted to debunk current concepts of any
‘democracy’ present within urban politics and reaffirm the arguments for
a true representative democracy (Hunter 1953:6).
This type of analysis was also used in later, larger scale, studies such as
that carried out by M. Schwarz examining the power structures within
the sphere of the corporate elite in the USA (Schwarz 1987).
10
James Burnham
James Burnham’s early work The Managerial Revolution sought to
express the movement of all functional power into the hands of managers
rather than politicians or businessmen – separating ownership and
control (Bottomore 193:59).
Robert D. Putnam
Robert Putnam saw the development of technical and exclusive
knowledge among administrators and other specialist groups as a
mechanism by which power is stripped from the democratic process and
slipped sideways to the advisors and specialists influencing the decision
making process (Putnam 1977:385).
"If the dominant figures of the past hundred years have been
the entrepreneur, the businessman, and the industrial
executive, the ‘new men’ are the scientists, the
mathematicians, the economists, and the engineers of the
new intellectual technology" (Putnam 1976:384).
11
Transformation of Power – case of coup d'état
also called
Coup,
the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing
government by a small group. The chief prerequisite for a coup is control
of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements.
Unlike a revolution, which is usually achieved by large numbers of people
working for basic social, economic, and political change, a coup is a
change in power from the top that merely results in the abrupt
replacement of leading government personnel. A coup rarely alters a
nation's fundamental social and economic policies, nor does it
significantly redistribute power among competing political groups. Among
the earliest modern coups were those in which Napoleon overthrew the
Directory on Nov. 9, 1799 (18 Brumaire), and in which Louis Napoleon
dissolved the assembly of France's Second Republic in 1851. Coups were
a regular occurrence in various Latin American nations in the 19th and
20th centuries and in Africa after the countries there gained
independence in the 1960s.
12
III. Political Socialization
Political socialization is the process by which individuals learn the values
and norms in their society and by which political culture is passed from
one generation to another. Socialization happens both directly and
indirectly.
The process through which an individual acquires particular political
orientations; the learning process by which people acquire their political
beliefs and values.
Agents of Socialization
These Agents of Socialization all influence in one degree or another an
individual's political opinions: Family, Media, Friends, Teachers, Religion,
Race, Gender, Age, Geography, etc. Most political opinions are formed
during childhood.
Factors
Myriad factors enter our minds as we form opinions about political
matters. These include a calculation of the personal benefits involved,
degree of personal knowledge, and cues from leaders. We form political
opinions based on what we think would do good for us and our families
(self interests), what we learn about politics over time and what we get
from our political leaders.
Family: Your parents’ perspective most probably is yours
Schools: most influential of all agents
Mass Media: newspaper, magazine
Religion: separation of church and state
Political Parties
Work Place
13
IV. Political Culture
A political culture can be defined as "The orientation of the citizens of a
nation toward politics, and their perceptions of political legitimacy and
the traditions of political practice."
Kavanagh defines political culture as "the set of values in which the
political system operates".
It is a distinctive and patterned form of political philosophy that consists
of beliefs on how governmental, political, and economic life should be
carried out. Political cultures create a framework for political change and
are unique to nations, states, and other groups.
A political culture differs from political ideology in that people can
disagree on an ideology (what government should do) but still share a
common political culture. Some ideologies, however, are so critical of the
status quo that they require a fundamental change in the way government
is operated, and therefore embody a different political culture as well.
Types of politcal culture
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba outlined four types of political culture:
Parochial
Subject
Participant
Civic
Almond and Verba's Civic Culture
In Almond and Verba's original study, the values and attitudes which
emerge with, and work to sustain, participatory democratic institutions
relate to the manner in which people within a polity view their
relationships with others vis a vis their own interests. The civic culture
is pluralistic, and "based on communication and persuasion, a culture of
consensus and diversity, a culture that [permits] change but [moderates]
it" (Almond and Verba 1963, 8). This civic culture is but one example of
14
political culture generally, which they take to refer to "the specifically
political orientations -- attitudes towards the political system and its
various parts, and attitudes toward the role of the self in the system"
Moreover, in its position of general values and attitudes shared by the
populace, political culture is formulated as "the connecting link between
micro- and macropolitics"
In their five-nation study of mass attitudes and values, Almond and
Verba claim to have identified three broad types of political culture: 1)
parochial, in which no clear differentiation of specific political roles and
expectations exists among actors, i.e. "political specialization is
minimal" ; 2) subject, in which institutional and role differentiation exists
in political life, but towards which the citizen stands in largely passive
relations; and 3) participant, in which the relationships between
specialized institutions and citizen opinion and activity is interactive.
They summarize this general schema as follows:
"A participant is assumed to be aware of and informed about the
political system in both its governmental and political aspects. A
subject tends to be cognitively oriented primarily to the output side
of government: the executive, bureaucracy, and judiciary. The
parochial tends to be unaware, or only dimly aware, of the political
system in all its aspects."
Furthermore, actual societies tend to exhibit combinations of these and
other, more specific, characteristics. The civic culture, for instance,
exhibits participatory characteristics in which participatory action is
based upon assumptions of rationality, and in such a way that "political
culture and political structure are congruent." Moreover, the civic culture,
with its emphasis upon rational participation in political life, combines
with, rather than replaces, the "subject and parochial political
orientations. ... The maintenance of these more traditional attitudes and
their fusion with the participant orientations lead to a balanced political
culture in which political activity, involvement, and rationality exist but
are balanced by passivity, traditionality, and commitment to parochial
values."
15
Pursuing the same theme, Inglehart finds that, among the polities of
Europe, basic satisfaction with life and political circumstance, and levels
of inter-personal trust, are strongly correlated with both the existence of
relatively long-lived and stable democratic institutions, and with relative
affluence of the populace (1988, 1207-16). After examining economic,
political, and cultural variables for several European polities over the
twentieth century, using LISREL analysis, Inglehart contends that "viable
democracy does not depend on economic factors alone. Specific cultural
factors are crucial, and they in turn are related to economic and
macropolitical developments. ... Stable democracy reflects the interaction
of economic, political, and cultural factors" .
Almond and Verba, and later, Inglehart, argue that if "a democratic
political system is one in which the ordinary citizen participates in
political decisions, a democratic political culture should consist of a set
of beliefs, attitudes, norms, perceptions and the like, that support
participation" (Almond and Verba, 178). Moreover, associated with this
participatory value-orientation is an assumption about the character of
rational behavior in participation, this as opposed to "emotional",
sentiment-driven involvement.
Inglehart suggests a strong inter-relationship between democratic
institutions and economic affluence. Given Almond and Verba's
characterization of the rationalistic participatory values which
correspond with the democratic and affluent polities which Inglehart
considers, the present study's initial examination of the mechanistic
world-view of industrial, market-led economic culture suggests that this
world-view historically and geographically corresponds with the
European and Anglo-American industrial democracies of Almond and
Verba's, and Inglehart's, studies.
16
V. Political System
A political system is a system of politics and government. It is usually
compared to the law system, economic system, cultural system, and
other social systems. It is different from them, and can be generally
defined on a spectrum from left, i.e. communism and socialism to the
right, i.e. fascism and anarchism. However, none are in these pure forms,
therefore most are somewhere in the middle where capitalism is.
Australia is a prime example of being centre right.
There are several definitions of "political system":




A political system is a complete set of institutions, political
organizations, interest groups (such as political parties, trade
unions, lobby groups), the relationships between those institutions
and the political norms and rules that govern their functions
(constitution, election law).
A political system is composed of the members of a social
organization (group) who are in power.
A political system is a system that necessarily has two properties:
a set of interdependent components and boundaries toward the
environment with which it interacts.
A political system is a concept in which theoretically regarded as a
way of the government makes a policy and also to make them
more organized in their administration.
Commonalities between political systems:

Interdependent parts
o Citizens
Government
Boundaries
o Citizenship
o Territory
o Property
o

17
Cf. Concept from David Easton, The Political System
Cf. Characteristics of the American Political System
The United States is a:
Constitutional
Federal
Democratic
Republic.
The US Constitution is the "supreme law of the land." Constitutional
governments are limited in power. They follow the rule of law and due
process. They are differentiated from various forms of tyranny,
dictatorship, absolutism, and totalitarianism.
The US Constitution is above conflicting State law and above other
federal laws like U.S. Statutory and U.S. Administrative law. It outlines
the basic structure and functions of our national government.
Federalism is a division of power between the national and state levels of
government. It means the US is neither a unitary system nor a
confederation.
Democracy refers to political systems where the rulers are popularly
elected by a majority of the voters. The franchise refers to who has the
18
right to vote. Today the franchise has been given to all US citizens
above the age of eighteen, who have registered to vote and who who are
literate. In George Washington's day, the franchise was limited to
property owners who paid the requisite property taxes. Women, slaves,
and males who did not own sufficient property could not vote. Were we
a democracy in George Washington's time?
Republic refers to a political system that is not a monarchy or other
hereditary form of government. In a Republic, the rulers are elected in
some fashion. A republic is not necessarily a democracy. But republics
carry the seeds of democracy within themselves. If the franchise is
enlarged to include most adults, then the system becomes a
democracy. Republics, in addition to not being monarchies, usually
provide for a mixed constitution of various checks and balances. Simple
rule by a majority is usually rejected. The tyranny of the majority is to
be feared as much as the tyranny of one person or the tyranny of
factions.
Comparison of US and UK
United States
United Kingdom
Written Constitution
Unwritten Constitutionalism
Federal System
Unitary System
Republic
Monarchy
Presidential System
Parliamentary System
Two Party System
Two Party System
Democracy
Democracy
19
Cf. Parliamentary and Presidential Systems
Presidential Systems have a chief executive who is directly elected by
the voters and who is in control of the executive or administrative branch
of government. Presidential systems usually have a legislative branch
of government, which operates independently. If the legislature is
independent of the president, then we can talk about separation of
power. In some presidential systems, the president controls the
legislature. The legislature is merely a rubber stamp for everything the
president wants. A strong political party can be used as a tool to
coordinate executive/legislative relationships.
In a Parliamentary System, the leader of the majority party of the lower
(popularly elected) house of the legislature is the prime minister (United
Kingdom), premier (France, or Chancellor (Germany). The prime
minister is the head of the government. The prime minister and the
other chief (cabinet) ministers all serve in the legislature. They also
control
of
executive
or
administrative
apparatus
of
the
government. There is no separation of power in a parliamentary
system. If the prime minister loses a majority vote in the House of
Common (lower house of Parliament in the United Kingdom), he must
either resign or call for new elections. In addition to the prime minister,
there is also a ceremonial chief of state. This can be either a king or
queen in monarchies or a president in republics.
The President is a ceremonial leader. Real power resides in the Prime
Minister. Thus in a parliamentary system, the executive is a committee
of the legislature. There is what we might call fusion of power.
20