Chapter 12: Parties: A Linking and Leading Mechanism in Politics

A political party is a group of people whose main purpose is to ensure that their candidates attain and maintain power. However this is not their sole purpose. Ever since their creation in the 1820s political parties have served for diverse purposes. For example parties serve to incite movements, and meet crises, as well as they recruit and socialize leaders. Furthermore parties instigate feelings of identity and they, in addition, provide a channel through which one leader can exert force over another one. Organizational structures of political parties, their sources of money, and the type of political party, vary among different countries.

A political party is a group of officials or would-be officials who are linked with a sizable group of citizens into an organization; a chief object of this organization is to ensure that its officials attain power or are maintained in power. Parties are not exclusively for democracies, they may be used to seize control of the government by force. A party joins people together in a formally organized structure. The party's nature as a structure, tying together a large group of officials and citizens, provides an avenue by which one part may control or communicate with another.

The first parties developed with the first modern electoral democracy held in the United States. Well organized parties were in existence by the 1820s. The Democratic Party's roots can be traced back to this time. It is the oldest party in the world.

Besides their obvious purpose regarding elections, political parties may serve to mobilize the people for special purposes or to meet crises. Parties may serve to incite demonstrations and strikes, or movements against a regime. Many parties originate because their purpose is to overthrow the system. Today, the most important focus of opposition to many regimes lies with political parties.

Another use of political parties different from the usual one, is the recruitment and socialization of leaders. A political party seeks out promising young people, gives them experience at relatively small jobs, and gradually moves the most productive to more important jobs, while simultaneously inculcating them the necessary values.

In addition to achieving multiple uses, political parties become an important part of their participants' identities. For those who become quite active, the political party may become a vital and central personal concern. In a fluctuating political world, a strong sense of identification toward a political party provides continuity. Parties may last for centuries.

A final unpredicted event of political parties is they provide means for one leader to exert control over another political leader. Political parties spread so widely within the set of political leaders and out into the mass of people that it offers an excellent channel for power through which political leaders can control the actions either of political leaders or the citizens.

Organizational structure among parties in the United States tends to be loose and informal. Unlike with most organizations in the U.S., a formal membership is not required in order to be part of a party. Some other countries, however, do have parties with organizational structures. When somebody wants to join the party, they have to apply for a membership.

Many sources provide parties with the money they need in order to finance their activities. Parties in the United States do not have a monopoly on political finance. Most of their money is raised by candidates, individual contributors, and organized interest groups. Other countries, however, may raise their money through methods like public finance, individual memberships, bribes and kickbacks, interest group donations, profits from business enterprise, and subsidies from foreign countries.

Another aspect of political parties political scientists are concerned with are the patterns they form. A one party system is one in which only a single political party is allowed to be active. In such systems, the government and the party are closely identified, because the government enforces the rule that other parties are not allowed to be active. A dominant party system is similar to the one party system in that other political parties are allowed to function openly and with reasonable effectiveness. A common pattern of dominant party systems is a long term dominance that eventually gives way to true competition. A third variant is the two party system. Two party systems are characterized by the fact that no one party has power assured for itself, but only two parties can normally expect to have a chance at doing so. Most democratic systems are multiparty systems. They offer the voter a wider range of choice, and each party is more distinctive.

Political parties emerged after the first electoral democracy in the United States. Their main purpose is to ensure that their leaders will attain and maintain power, but they also serve other purposes. They mobilize the people for special purposes or to meet crises, they recruit and socialize leaders, they provide a sense of identification, and they provide a channel through which leaders can exert force over one another. Each country's organizational structure of political parties, sources of money, and type of political party, is different.


United States Political Parties

Democracy and its Recent Surge in the World

A democracy is a state in which citizens have the right to vote for their own leaders. Democracy is "government of the people." Democracy requires an implicit agreement by the conflicting groups in a state to accept the possibility that they will lose out in the making of a policy. This is the democratic bargain. Democracy is fragile. Minute inconveniences are enough to make it collapse. After the 1980s and 1990s a wave of democratization swept across the globe. Three consecutive waves of democratization took place. The third one is explained through four possible reasons. These growing fondness of democracy has given way to the rise of a dubious belief about having reached the end of history. Through the study of comparative politics, political scientists have learned 5 things.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall most of the Eastern European countries that used to be communist, threw off their old systems and established democracies. Three waves of democratization took place. The first occurred in Eastern Europe and Latin America. The second one occurred in Germany and Italy and the third one is considered to have started in the late 1970s with the successful reintroduction of democracy to Spain and Portugal. Political scientist justify this last wave with four reasons; fatigue of some authoritarian regimes, international pressures, people's desires for security against arbitrary abuse, and people's desire for economic development. Based on the preceding events, an author declared that capitalist democracy had won the great ideological debate of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and that history, as we have known it, had ended because there was nothing left to fight about.

Through comparative politics scientist have learned 5 key concepts. The first one is the importance of pacts. It is important for successful democratization that the democratizers form pacts with those whom they are ousting to ensure a smooth transitions and to lay a good base of support for the future democracy. The second observation is sudden changes. Many of the recent shifts to democracy have taken observers by surprise. a year before the Eastern European countries became democratic, nobody predicted it would happen. The third observation that has been made is that the results of a transition to democracy differ if the transition takes place while the state is undergoing a crisis or not. Politics that follow a crisis tend to be problematic, whereas politics that follow times of stability, remain stable themselves. The third observation is related to democracy and freedom. Democracy and freedom are related but not identical. Moving toward one means moving toward the other but there is not an automatic correspondence between them. Finally the fifth observation is about democracy and capitalism. Most democracies of the world have market based economies, however there is no automatic connection between democracy and capitalism.

The amount of democratic countries has increased impressively in the last years. The waves of democratization that have swept across the globe have been drastic. The third wave might have been triggered by a series of factors. These rapid changes have led certain authors to believe that history as we know it has ended because there is nothing left to fight for. Through comparative politics scientists have made prominent conclusions on pacts, sudden changes, crisis or non crisis, democracy and freedom, and democracy and capitalism.




Democracy

Autocratic Government

Democracy is fragile. Out of the 97 states that were independent for the last forty years, only 24 have had an uninterrupted electoral democracy. However autocracy is fragile as well. Most autocratic countries do not stay autocratic for long, or they oscillate between autocracy and democracy. The most dramatic alternative to democracy is military government, in which the current government of a state is overthrown and overtaken by the military. A minute amount of countries in the world are ran by military governments, however. Several reasons account for this fact. The most common types of autocratic systems are one party states. One party states have a government in which there is a single party allowed in the state. "Court" Politics are a characteristic of many autocracies.

Conservative Saudi Arabia, bureaucratic Soviet Union, Zaire personal dictatorship, and Pakistan's alternating government between autocracy and democracy are all rough representations of autocracies. They're quite varied politically. Ultimately, they are not fully autocratic. Most parts of the Soviet Union are moving toward democracy, the dictator of Zaire did not ultimately retain power, Pakistan continually alternates between forms of government, finally Saudi Arabia does appear to have a rather stable system. The royal family in power has been in control for several years now.

The most dramatic alternative to democracy is military government. They vary greatly in their political role. In Paraguay the regime was repressive and implemented torture. In Greece the government took harsh repressive measures as well. In Nigeria, on the other hand, there was considerable civilian support for the government. People tend to believe that military coups are of the right. However military coups can be of either the right or left, or neither one, it all depends on the officials leading the coup. Their inclination dictates whether the coup is of either, or neither side. Another erroneous belief is that military governments are bad at guiding economies. Studies have shown that military governments are neither good nor bad at guiding economies.

There is a surprisingly small amount of military governments in the world. Less than 1/10 of the world's states are military governments. Why aren't there more military governments? Partly, it is because states devote time and effort to keep military officers from politically intervening. Once the military takes power they face problems with legitimacy. There is no process of selection legitimizing the military government. They are therefore always concerned with justifying their existence. As a result they add civilians to government, set future date for return of democracy, or they rally people through wars and appeals to nationalism. Another problem is that it is unlikely that the military government leaders are skilled politically. Military governments, in addition, are shaky alliances, united primarily by their opposition to the regime. They are therefore likely to fall apart when new issues emerge.

Most autocracies are not straight military governments, but one party states. In one party states the government is based on a political party that is the only one allowed in the states. Compared with military rule the one party state offers a more stable, and responsive form of government. One party states, in addition, provide links between the government and the population, as well as they provide an arena in which varied political positions can develop into factions. Conflicts may develop within the system rather than forming outside and representing a threat. Finally, one party states provide a set of arrangements by which a transitions of leadership can be accomplished.

A characteristic of many autocracies, both military governments and one party states, are court politics. In autocracies the trend tends to be that a single person may hold almost all power in the system and politics revolve around that single person. This is called court politics after the royal courts of the great European monarchs. This is a quite common characteristic but it is not true of all autocracies, it is quite frequent though. Court politics is usually marked by less emphasis on the rule of the law and more on the arbitrary whim of the ruler. Heavy competition by other figure for access to the leader, unusual importance of nonpolitical figures that have access to the leader, flattery and attempts to shield the leader from unpleasant reality.

Autocratic systems are quite diverse and uncommonly stable. Saudi Arabia, the Soviet Union, Zaire, and Pakistan are epitomes of this statement. Several autocratic states have set up institutions of politics, especially through single parties, that allow for politics to be conducted over the long haul, straight military governments, however, have not. One party states are an alternative to military government that provide many things that military governments lack. Military governments face problems with legitimacy, their leaders are unlikely skilled politically, and their very nature makes them likely to fall apart. One party states, on the other hand, offer an overall more stable and responsive form of government. Military governments, and one party states are similar in that there frequently is a single person holding nearly all the power, and politics revolves around that person. This is not true of all autocracies, however it is quite frequent that that is indeed the case.


Hitler: Military Government

Authority and Legitimacy: the State and the Citizen

Authority is power based on a general agreement that a person or group have a right to issue certain types of commands and that those commands should be obeyed. A government is unique in society in that all of its power involves authority and at least potentially there is no limit to the range of activities over which it may exercise authority. Authority is a type of power, but a uniquely efficient one. Ultimately it may be backed up by the use of either coercion or persuasion. The feeling of large numbers of people that the government has the authority, and should have the authority, is called legitimacy of the government. Legitimacy is crucial, and it may be achieved in four ways. One important aspect of democracy is the relationship between the citizen and the state. A democratic citizen should possess the following characteristics: tolerance, active participation, high level of interest and information, and support for the state. A key part in making people function well in a democracy is social capital. The basis for the political behavior of the people is conformed by the political culture of a society. Political culture consists of all attitudes and believes held communally by a people. The values and assumptions people hold about politics are acquired in a process called political socialization.

Four sources of legitimacy exist. Legitimacy by results is the first one. A government may gain and retain legitimacy from its people by providing for them the things they most want: security against physical assault, security of their country's borders against invasion, pride in their nation, and economic security. Another way a government can acquire legitimacy is by habit. Once a government has been around for a while people get accustomed to obeying its laws. There is also legitimacy by historical, religious or ethnic identity. Many governments enhance their legitimacy by the ties that exist between themselves and the people because of the governments' leaders past accomplishments or because of the religious and or ethnic similarity between the government leaders and the people. Finally a state my strengthen the legitimacy of its government by following certain procedures in setting itself up.

A democracy requires citizens that will do more than obey and follow the government. It requires citizens that will have tolerance for diversity. Citizens that will vote in elections, and maintain frequent contact with the government. Citizens that will not only stay active, but also keep themselves informed. Finally a democracy requires its citizens to support the state.

According to Robert Putnam, the necessary ingredient for making democratic governments effective is social capital. Social capital are intricate webs of voluntary involvement in organizations that bind people together and give them the political resources and mutual trust that are needed to make any form of cooperative government work. It is a pattern of community interactions that produces desirable attitudes of efficacy and trust, and that gives people practical experience in persuasion and collective action.

Political culture, or the attitudes and beliefs held communally by a people, is responsible for major differences on how politics is conducted. Political culture is important, but it is hard to evaluate it. It easily falls into stereotyping and generalization. However political culture is too important to ignore. One striking characteristic of political cultures is that they usually change slowly. State and society may change greatly, but the underlying culture stays recognizably the same.

The learning of political values and factual assumptions about politics is called political socialization. The importance of political socialization is that without it political culture would disappear after one generation. The sources by which knowledge on political culture is acquired are called agents of socialization. We learn about politics from many different agents but a few particular important ones are our families, schools, and peer groups.

Authority and legitimacy are two crucial characteristics that a government must possess in order to exist. It is not enough for a government to hold power, its people have to believe that that power pertains to them and that it is legitimate. Authority exists because people believe it exists, and legitimacy exists because it has have been acquired through either results, habit, historical, religious or ethnic identity, or procedures. Aside from obeying and following the government, the citizens of a democracy have to be tolerant, simultaneously informed and active participators, and supportive of the state. The government requires an amalgam of factors to function in order for it to work efficiently, however according to Robert Putnam the necessary ingredient is social capital. All the attitudes and beliefs held communally by a people conform the political culture of a society. In order for the political culture of a society to subsist, political socialization has to take place. New generations must learn the political attitudes and beliefs held by their society, if their political culture is to remain existent.

Chapter 6: Political Choices: The Problems of Justice and Efficiency

What is justice? It is really hard to determine what is just due to its subjectivity. An ongoing debate orbits around whether should justice be based on weight of contributions or on need. Should rewards and benefits be granted to the most productive or to the ones that need it the most? Another important aspect of justice are the procedures through which decisions are reached about people. This is called procedural justice and it involves 3 important issues; arbitrariness, the violation of special basic rights, and whether special overriding social needs are present. Another significant aspect to take into consideration regarding policies is their efficiency. An efficient policy grants the greatest benefit to the people and the state at the lowest cost. A government is in charge of deciding the policies of the state and must take into account the factors of justice and efficiency. There are 4 different modes through which a government reaches a decision; incremental, radical, authority, and market.

When determining what is just and what is not, a number of factors come into play. However they can be narrowed down to two main opposing ones; should justice be based on need, or should it be based on the weight of contributions. The problem with relying on weight of contributions in order to dictate how to distribute rewards is that quite often luck is more participative than virtue. Since contribution involves this element of luck it makes it uncertain how much should be rewarded, as well as it ignores the questions of need. As a consequence, justice cannot be based solely on a single one of these factors, because they are mutually exclusive.

Just like there are issues when determining what exactly is just, there are issues with the procedures of justice through which decisions are reached about people. Three issues that are often linked with procedural justice are: whether governmental action is arbitrary, whether special basic rights are violated, and whether special overriding needs are present. Government action is arbitrary if the people do not know what to expect before the decision is made and on what grounds it was made. Decisions that single out particular individuals for punishment or reward are arbitrary. The second issue that arises when looking at procedural justice is the violation of certain rights that are considered absolute. These include rights such as the right to survive, the right of free speech and the right to privacy. Most people agree that these rights are not indeed absolute. Regulations and exceptions, exist, and sometimes ought to exist. However those rights are categorized by society as being of top priority, so that it would take something unusual for them to be compromised. Finally there is the idea that in order for justice to prevail over most of the people, the state has to be less just to some people. That is, there may be overriding social needs that enter into considerations of justice.

A factor that is equally as important as justice when determining a policy, is efficiency. An efficient policy brings the greatest benefit at the least cost. The problem is that usually neither the benefits nor the costs of a policy are easy to calculate. The effects of a policy are difficult to measure and compare. The costs and benefits of a policy are not always clear, a variety of effects exist called unanticipated consequences. Any judgement of the efficiency of a policy must take into account all its costs and benefits, not just the intended costs and benefits. Many of the consequences of a policy are difficult to foresee. As a result, it is equally as complicated to determine the efficiency of a policy as it is to determine how just the policy is.

Once the state is ready to implement a policy it can do so in one of four ways. The decision making mode is incremental when changes in policy are exerted little by little. A small change in policy is carried out at one time, the state waits to observe the results. Subsequently another small change is made. There is caution in the face of uncertainty and complexity. A radical mode of decision making is implemented when there is more concern on losing an opportunity than on costly errors. When the mode of decision making is governmental authority the policy is made by the government telling people what they may or may not do. There are two main problems with authority based policy. It does not get things to the people that will value them the most, and there is a lack of incentives to encourage the optimum usage of resources. When the market mechanism carries out the policy, the government leaves choice up to the people. It largely relies on supply and demand. The problems with market based policy is that wealth and income are distributed unequally, it is not very effective in producing collective goods, and it does not take into account externalities of individual transactions.

Justice is a complex issue. It involves a number of factors that are often in conflict and need to be balanced. The government reaches decisions about people through processes, but these processes are often coined as arbitrary or raise the question about the violation of special basic rights, and the presence of overriding social needs. Regarding a policy, the role that justice plays is crucial, as well as the role that efficiency plays. The essence and the purpose of a policy is directly linked to both justice and efficiency. When concocting a policy governments have to take both of these factors into account, and once they have reached a decision and enforce it, they may do so in one of four modes; incremental, radical, authority, or market.

Policies of the State

The government is in charge of controlling a number of policies. Defense, education, research and development, and health and social welfare, are all factors that lie under the government's control and most of the time indicate whether a country is an MDC, a more developed country, or an LDC a less developed country. Subcategories of each of these policies serve as indicators of a country's level of development. The percent of population in active military and percent of GDP spent on defense, for example, demonstrate how a government handles defense preparations. The educational effort for a country is represented through the GDP spent on education, among other factors. Factors such as the percent of manufactured high technology exports indicate a states' involvement in research and development. Social welfare activity is shown by the percent of governmental expenditures devoted o social security and welfare. Lastly, health expenditures and outcomes for countries are reflected in factors such as spending on health care, life expectancy, infant mortality rate, and per capita income.

More developed countries like Great Britain, United States, and Canada are democratic, they tend to have a voluntary military service and a relatively smaller percentage of the population participating in the military. The Canadian government spends 1.1% of its GDP on defense. In the United States 3% of their GDP is spent on defense, and 2.6% of Great Britain's GDP is spent on defense. North Korea, on the other hand, is a nondemocratic LDC, a less developed country, with an obligatory military service of 3-10 years, and an extremely high percentage of the population involved in the military, 5. North Koreas's government, in addition, spends14.3% of the country's GDP on defense.

There is not a clear pattern between which types of countries spend what on education. In most democratic countries the difference between the percent of eligible girls/boys enrolled in primary school, and high school, is much lower than in countries that are not democratic. In most democratic countries it varies by about one or two percent but in the countries that are not democratic its usually by more than 2.

The percent of manufactured high technology exports, the number of scientists and engineers per million population, and the government spending on research and development tend to be higher in MDCs. The net gain over expenditure in license fees fluctuates among different countries, there is not a clearly defined pattern.

Democratic MDCs' percent of governmental expenditures devoted to social security and welfare tends to be higher than LDCs', while percent of governmental expenditures devoted to housing and community amenities does not follow a definite pattern.

Government spending on health care as a percent of GDP is higher in MDCs than in LDCs. Private spending on health care does not follow a pattern. Like government spending on health care, total spending on health care tends to be higher in MDCs than in LDCs. Life expectancy is higher in MDCs. Infant mortality is higher in LDCs. MDCs are democratic and their per capita income is significantly higher than LDCs'.

Defense preparations, educational effort, involvement in research and development, social welfare activity, and health expenditures and outcomes are all factors that vary among different countries, but there tends to be a pattern for MDCs and LDCs. Its not visible in all cases, but it is definitely present in most. LDCs tend to spend more on defense than MDCs. The amount of eligible girls/boys enrolled in school is close to being equal in MDCs while in LDCs the difference reaches up to 10% in some countries. MDCs export a higher amount of manufactured high technology products, and they also tend to spend more in social security and welfare than LDCs. Per capita income, as well, is higher in MDCs, than in LDCs.



High technology product

The Modern State

The Modern State

           

            The state has come to play a central role in politics. Since its invention after the French Revolution, it has been evolving and becoming more clear and defined, its role has become crucial. A state is different from a nation. A state is a political unit with sovereignty while a nation is a cultural, and linguistic grouping of people who feel that they belong together. The government is a key part of the state. It is equivalent to the actions of the state. The state has been the dominant form of political organizations for the last centuries but during the last decades its power has been reduced.

             In around 1800-1815 Napoleon invented the Modern State. He united the passion of the French Revolution to a well managed and functioning bureaucracy and army. People now fought not only for their personal interests but for their nation, France. Nationalism or a passionate identification with the state increased later with imperial powers and colonies along with the World War.

            There is a difference between the terms state, nation, and the nation-state. A nation is a large group of people who are bound together, and recognize a similarity among themselves, because of a common culture; in particular, a common language. While a state is a political unit that has ultimate sovereignty, ultimate responsibility for managing their own affairs. The correspondence between nation and state varies around the world. There are places were the nation is within the state, but in continents like Africa and Asia nations take up several countries, they are not within the boundaries of a single state. Therefore conflicts arise. This problem came about because when colonialists decided how they would divide their territory they ignored the locations of the different existent tribes. Modern states have adapted the idea of "nation" so much, especially to adhere the emotion of nationalism that goes along with it, that today they are referred to simply as nation-states.

            The state can be thought of in two ways: as everyone living in a given territory or the governing apparatus that makes and enforces rules. The actions of a state refer to the government. The legal right to make and enforce rules is a main component of the definition of state. The government is by definition a key part of the state.  It is a group of people who have the ultimate authority to act on behalf of the state.

            The state has come to be the dominant form of political organization over the last centuries but today it faces challenges from above and below. Above the state world leaders are groping for structures that would replace many functions of states and operate over a wider geographic area range than the state. Organizations like the European Union, the free trade agreement, and the international monetary fund suppress the power of the state up to a certain level. The environment and religion are also factors that limit the states power in some way, this is due to cross-state bodies and religious political organizations. From below the state faces problems with the explosive growing of ethnic and regional separatist movements. The capacity of states to exercise control over things within their boundaries is always shifting, affected greatly by changes in technology. Regulating the economy is one of the most important functions of states, but with the development of a large and fluid world economy, the states role in controlling the operations of its economy is reducing. The world's investors and capital markets probably dictate the state's economic development so strongly that the state's involvement in decision making regarding economic  policy is minimal.

            Ever since its invention the state has been a powerful entity. It controls a variety of sectors such as the economy and the government. It is important to note that a nation is different from a state. A state is a political unit with sovereignty while a nation is a cultural, and linguistic grouping of people who feel that they belong together. Over the last decades states have been facing several challenges that have reduced their power,  this is mainly due to globalization.

 

European Union flag