3
вопрос
Politics
and political science
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political
science is the study of politics in all its aspects. Occasionally
politics is used as a synonym for political science: sometimes as
the title of university departments of political science. This may
be confusing. Although a few political scientists have become
politicians, and even more rarely politicians have become
political scientists, the activities of the two, despite impinging
on each other, are quite different.
|
|
4
вопрос
|
|
1.1.1
Politics as an activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Politics
is an activity indulged in, either full-time or part-time, by
politicians. They are concerned with some or all of the collective
decisions that affect the political unit they live in. It could be
a small sub-unit like a parish, or it could be the central
government. In most societies there is a divide between
politicians and the rest of the citizenry who choose to play only
a minimal part in decision-making for the collectivity. The
politicians have become professionalized - they are professional
politicians. But hypothetically there is no reason why there
should be such a divide. There are small communities in existence
where all adults participate in making decisions for the whole
body politic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yet
to say 'politics is an activity' is merely the beginning of
wisdom. The activity is pursued quite variously in different
contexts. In some it is the occasion of great antagonisms. Not all
politicians, by any means, want every proposal adopted: on the
contrary, they may try to prevent most of them succeeding. In some
societies policies will be imposed by rulers and opposition may
not be allowed. Here there will be only a few politicians imposing
their own decisions. Hence there are numerous
|
types
of political regime (see Chapter 4 below) and numerous kinds of
political activity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.2
Politics as 'current affairs'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To
much of the non-political public, politics is a part of life
with which they do not want to be involved. Indeed, to some it
is disreputable and dangerous. Contention must be avoided:
'politics and religion are two things one should not talk
about' is a much-quoted adage. But some citizens are quite
interested and view political goings-on as they might a
spectator sport. They support political parties as they support
football teams, cheering from the sidelines. Students who take
up political science often start from the angle of current
affairs, a very useful approach to the subject. Another
compendious and similar term is 'political life'. Foreign wars,
what politicians do and say, praise and abuse of them,
commentaries in the papers and on radio and television about
their personal lives, gladiatorial argument between them,
elections and party politics - all these may be included under
the rubric of politics as current affairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.3
Politics as what the government does
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To
govern is to control and all communities at an early stage of
development will be concerned with the problem of control. The
actions of those who control - the rulers, the incumbent
government - may be perceived as politics. Where dissent is not
possible this will be the only manifestation of politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.4
Politics as conflict and the resolution of conflict
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conflict
is here used in a wide sense to mean contestation, including
any form of disagreement. Indeed, all group interrelationships
will be involved with differences, even when compromise between
the parties is regularised and institutionalised. Physical
contestation
is an extreme form of conflict. An initial assumption is that
disagreement
is very common. People disagree about objectives to be reached
and they disagree about how to reach them. If there were no
disagreement there would be no need for politics: to use
old-fashioned terms, people disagree about ends and they
disagree about means. Problems are likely to be resolved sooner
or later and the role of the politician is to participate in
the resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disagreement,
of course, may occur at a personal level about quite trivial
matters. Indeed, S. E. Finer, Professor of Political
Institutions at
|
Keele,
used to begin his lectures with the parable of two dogs
fighting over an indivisible bone. One would eventually get
it and the other dog would be dissatisfied with the outcome.
But combat is not the only method of resolving disagreement.
Brian Barry also lists contests (running a race or a boxing
match), drawing lots, authoritative determination by setting
up an arbitrator, bargaining, discussion on merits and
voting.1
While most of these are not appropriate to dogs they are all
possible with human beings. Collective social objectives are
not analogous to bones and people who disagree about them
can choose several other methods of resolving their
disputes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This
does not rule out combat, but many will feel that this is a
risky and unpleasant way of resolving conflict. Foes
defeated in war may replenish their arsenals, reinvigorate
their morale and attempt revenge. Thus a victor in war
should perhaps kill all enemies to be secure, which is not
always very practical. Hence a sensible way of settling
conflict may be one that maintains a certain stability,
peace and order in society. Many see this as the basic
problem in politics. It is also the best justification for
politics that it is concerned with the resolution of
conflict with as little disorder as possible. As Bernard
Crick points out, this is something that Aristotle was aware
of when he said politics
was the 'master science'.2
It is an activity that calls for great skill, flair,
experience and knowledge to be used in the service of
resolving social conflicts that will destroy society if they
are not resolved. This also includes, in the last resort,
dealing with the allocation of scarce material resources.
Markets cannot do this if people draw guns in them. A
framework of law must be maintained if markets are to
allocate freely. Thus political activity determines the
continuation or discontinuation of all other activities and
studies. That politics may be a necessary activity for a
decent existence is something only anarchists will disagree
with, though some forms of political activity may end in a
very indecent existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If
conflict is to be resolved rationally and peaceably on a
regular basis, conditions must be devised allowing
discussion and consultation with compromise, possibly, as
the final end. Once such procedures are stabilised we have a
set of institutions a political system. (see Chapter 6)
Structures of this kind can only exist within a framework of
order. For them to exist for long, rules must be drawn up at
first they may be accepted customs but later they will be
written and promulgated and steps taken to see they are
observed. Law can only be sustained where there is a
framework of order. This explains why the term
'international society' (see Chapter 25) is only a hope and
an aspiration: international law cannot be enforced because
there are no effective forces of order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
вопрос
|
1.2.1
Political science as philosophy and theory
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Early
study of politics took place in small communities. The ancient
Greeks who asked many of the important questions (and answered
some of them well enough to satisfy many people today) lived in
city states where rulers and decision-making were not remote.
Their primary concern was with the nature of the good and just
society and what the attitude of the citizen should be towards
authority. The nature of our obligation to our rulers became an
important theme in the early study of politics. Why do we obey the
state? (see Chapter 3).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
easy answer to this question is that people obey
out of habit. It does not occur to them to disobey. In modern
times the question might be answered by anthropologists studying
primitive societies, or by psychologists studying small groups of
people and their response to leadership in laboratory situations.
The ancient philosophers believed the answer lay in the nature of
man. Aristotle perceived man as an animal of the polis:
outside
society people could not attain true happiness. The real nature of
man could only be realised by associating with others. He assumed
that the good life lay in the polity and that legally constituted
government was the natural form, so that corruptions of good
government were aberrations. Hence harmony was more natural than
conflict. Neither Plato nor Aristotle seems to have conceived that
disagreement could be irreconcilable. Christian philosophers
believed that authority came from God and, therefore, should be
obeyed. Later dynastic rulers transformed this into the claim that
hereditary rulers were appointed by divine law and so disobeying
them was unthinkable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once
the acknowledgement of basic disagreement arose the question of
political obligation either disappeared or became far more
complicated. The Scientific Revolution, the Renaissance, the
Reformation and finally the eighteenth-century Enlightenment
removed many of the old certainties. Machiavelli (1469-1527), who
had been imprisoned and tortured by rulers' commands, believed
people were fickle and prone to evil. He was the holder of high
office at the period of the expulsion, and then reinstatement, of
the Medici in Florence. Instability-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
he
held, could always be round the corner. When the safety of the
country is ultimately in question, he wrote, there must be no
question of justice or injustice, of mercy or cruelty, of praise
or ignominy. It was not a matter of obligation, but of success or
failure. Similarly Hobbes (1588-1679), writing in the period of
the English Civil War and religious intolerance, perceived man's
nature as fearful in consequence of the struggle for survival.
People battled against one another to achieve their ends and in
consequence life was 'nasty, brutish and short'. Hence a sovereign
was needed to enforce law and order. We obey the sovereign because
if people start disobeying everyone will be miserable in a state
of mutual conflict. It is not a moral obligation, it is a
necessity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From
the late seventeenth century onward the question of the
relationship between the individual and the state generally
shifted from the obligation to obey to the circumstances in which
one could disobey. It was argued by John Locke (1632-1704) that
rulers rule with the consent of their people with whom they have a
contract. If the ruler breaches their individual rights the people
have a right to replace him. This justification of the English
Revolution of 1688, when Parliament replaced a hereditary monarch
it disapproved of, became an inspiration for the American
Revolutionaries. Thus the study of political thought turned to
constitutional liberalism and the need to control powerful
government. Montesquieu (1689-1755) believed that this could only
be done by separating the powers of the judiciary, legislature and
executive from each other. Rousseau (1712-1778), with his belief
in equality and sovereignty belonging to the people, challenged
all previous ideas about authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After
the American and French Revolutions obedience was no longer either
a habit or an accepted and expected pattern of behaviour. Conflict
among the people, who were rarely even 90 per cent in favour of
any proposal, had to be assumed. The arrival of the Common Man and
the pluralistic society meant that philosophic thinking about
politics could no longer be the simple matter of the relationship
between the individual and the state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This
is only the briefest summary of that part of most political
science syllabuses known as political philosophy or political
theory. (In Chapters 2 and 3 more recent developments are
discussed.) It is possible to make a distinction between these two
rubrics. Political
philosophy
is more concerned with implicit assumptions and internal logic,
while political
theory
tends to be more related to intellectual influences and to
cultural and historical environments, but the terms are sometimes
used interchangeably.
|
1.2.2
Political science as the study of conflict
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At
its core political science is concerned with the study of
conflict. This can take place at several levels. Personal
conflict,
usually studied by psychologists, can be of service to
political scientists. The study of aggressive instincts, for
example, or the ability to compromise are obvious examples and
these themes can also apply to group conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collective
conflict
is obviously the main field of investigation. It is of a
different order from personal conflict because it involves all
sorts of considerations about group coherence and group
fragmentation. Political sociologists investigate for what
reasons and to what extent people identify with others and to
what degree they emphasise their distinction from those in
other groups. When a group achieves a level of continuous
existence, develops rules and decision-making procedures and
systematically begins to recruit members, it is called an
'association'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
part of the subject variously called political
institutions or comparative institutions
(see below) is involved with the study of conflict within the
framework of a set of institutions. A political institution is
a public body with formally designated structures and functions
intended to regulate defined activities applying to the whole
population. Governments,
parliaments and the law courts
are political institutions. Their interrelationships are
defined in constitutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collective
conflict may take place at three levels at that of local
associations, at that of national associations and at that of
nation states. Often collective conflict takes the form of a
clash between those associations and interests involved in the
government and those outside it. In authoritarian regimes (see
Chapter 4), however, where governments rule virtually
unchallenged, conflict at the first two levels is submerged or
likely to be repressed. Unless there is one-man rule, however,
there will be conflict in private cabals. Such situations are
not easy for the researcher to examine. Conversely, the study
of politics in democracies, where conflict is permitted and
even encouraged and where it often takes place publicly, is so
much easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
study
of conflict
between local groups may be made at the community level. It may
be about the building of a new bypass or the closing of a
footpath. Increasingly nationwide groups associate themselves
with such matters, but there may be other local issues, such as
a dispute between travellers and local landowners, which
proceed no further than local government. In the Western world
physical
conflict
at this level is rare,
but there are areas where internal
disputes, especially ethnic
rivalries, deteriorate into armed conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A
very large proportion of the literature of political science is
con
cerned
with conflict between nationally
organised associations.
There are two kinds of political association: pressure
groups and political parties
(see Chapter 10). Pressure groups do not want to participate
in governing, although they do want to obtain access to the
decision making process and to influence its outcome. Unlike
parties they usually have a specific political objective.
Parties tend to be coalitions of interests with many
objectives concerned to govern or share in the task of
governing. Political scientists sometimes study one of these
organisations separately as a political system in itself:
usually within large pressure groups and parties there are
factions in conflict. At other times relationships between
different groups are examined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It
should be said that increasingly pressure
groups
operate on an international
scale and lobby
at international conferences the so called non-governmental
groups (NGOS).
This is particularly the case with women's and environmental
groups. (see Chapter 5).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collective
group conflict of this kind would usually be included in the
study of comparative institutions where the role of
associations in relation to political institutions,
especially legislatures and executives, is clearly a
necessary component (see Chapters 6-10) Wider study of the
social and cultural backgrounds of association memberships
and leaderships is likely to be dealt with under the heading
of political sociology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
вопрос
1.2.3
Political science as international relations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conflict
between states is the core of international relations (see
Chapter 21). This is sometimes taught in departments
separate from political science. It can be argued that the
subject matter is quite different because there is no such
thing as international society (see Chapter 25) or world
government. A world system does not exist: world society is
an unregulated state of nature. On the other hand, as
Michael Sheehan argues, some societal elements international
courts of law and world declarations of human rights can be
seen and are growing in importance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2.4
Political science as the study of institutions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political
scientists are also involved with the resolution of conflict
in policy-making and decision-making and the imposition of
decisions once they are finalised. Here there is scope for
numerous fields of study.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In
most developed states a good deal of decision-making,
certainly the most visible part, is standardised by
procedural
rules, institutional processes and constitutions.
The study of political
institutions
is a major part of the discipline. Frequently the political
institutions of
|
|
|
|
one
country are studied, but quite as often countries and their
political institutions are compared under the heading of
comparative institutions. The subject may require knowledge
of constitutional law, historical background and social and
cultural environment. It is the framework which shapes the
political life of countries and within which decision-making
takes place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
imposition, or implementation, of decisions once they are
made is another wide field of study. The modern state has a
large apparatus of administrators concerned with applying
the numerous laws which modern legislatures produce (see
Chapter 4). This apparatus, or bureaucracy, needs
coordination and supervision. As its officials are often
appointed for life while the incumbency of democratic
politicians is transitory, the bureaucracy
may also wield some power. All these themes come under the
heading of public
administration
(see Section Four) which was one of the early foundations on
which university political science was built. It has always
been concerned with management and in recent years
management studies has partly developed from it. In
addition, the study of policy-making has become important
because of the increasing degree to which specialised
administrators, or technocrats, have moved away from the
role of the neutral administrator as a mere implementer of
policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political
scientists are also concerned to study reasons for the
maintenance and breakdown of political systems. Rebellions
and revolutions are, after all, not uncommon and even
apparently stable regimes have been known to collapse. The
Russian Revolution in 1917 and the dramatic and sudden
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989-90 are both evidence of
political forces erupting in authoritarian states. Even more
alarming to liberals are instances of the collapse of
democracy as in Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s
and, more recently, in Greece in 1967. Thus the conditions
underlying stability are a natural subject of study. This
leads to the investigation of social and other cleavages
within states their depth and intensity and how to deal with
them. Surprisingly, political scientists have not been
active in studying political skills. The art of diplomacy in
both domestic
and international settings
has been somewhat neglected. Only in the area of
international relations has crisis management received any
attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In
recent years attention has turned to the environments
which affect conflict and its resolution. Especially the
economic
and social environments
of the political system have interested political
scientists, leading them to study the areas where the polity
overlaps with the economy and society. These two areas are
known repectively as political
economy and political sociology.
|
|
Political
economy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This
was a seventeenth-century term meaning the public management
of the affairs of the state. The contemporary mercantilist
doctrine implied that those with political power controlled
the economy.
There are several reasons why interest in relations between
politics
and the economy
have revived in recent decades. The most obvious is the
importance of the economy for democratic politicians. A
perception of prosperity is a great help towards winning
elections and the reverse is true: a feeling of depression
is bad for incumbent governments at the polls. Consequently
governments are bound to be tempted to manipulate the
economy. Political scientists have identified a 'political
business cycle' showing that boosts to the economy are often
administered in the months before elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
influence, however, is not all one way. An unstable
political system can ruin an economy. Visible examples from
the developing world are not difficult to find. Political
scientists who study development perceive political
development as part of the process of modernisation. For the
political system this implies the development of
specialisation, structural differentiation, accommodation
with pluralism and secularisation. It presumes the growth of
a bureaucracy and, perhaps, democracy in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There
have also been attempts by political scientists to borrow
economists' models. (Models are dealt with in Chapter 6).
One wellknown example is the analogy between oligopoly,
a market with few sellers, and a state with only a few
political parties. Another more fundamental one is the claim
that the individual voter, faced with an array of policy
options to choose from, is in an analogous situation with
the sovereign consumer in the market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
relationship between political science and sociology
proceeded in rather the same fashion, from empiricism
towards model-building. It was the study of electorates and
their motives which led to the conceptualization of
political culture (culture is a term whose origins are in
anthropology see Chapter 6). This is the set of beliefs,
attitudes and values which people hold towards their
political system. Then the concept of socialisation, the
process through which people are prepared to participate in
social systems, was borrowed to construct the concept of
political socialisation, the process by which people become
aware of their political systems. Other political scientists
studying public opinion became interested in propaganda and
mass behaviour (on the margins of psychology, though
political psychology, as yet, is an infant social science).
|
|
|
A
further borrowing from sociology relates to social systems
as integrating and stabilising agents, a notion first
advanced by Talcott Parsons. 3
David Easton produced a more sophisticated model with input
and output functions that owed much to computer systems (see
Chapter 6).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 Вопрос
The
most common field of study; its
subfields
include public opinion, elections,
national
government, and state, local, or
regional
government. C
A.
International Relations
2.
Studies constitutions, legal systems,
civil
rights, and criminal justice. G
B.
Political Theory
3.
Studies the role of the bureaucracy. It is
the
field most oriented toward practical
applications
within political science and is
often
organized as a separate department
that
prepares students for careers in the
civil
service. D
C.
Domestic Politics
4.
Considers the political relationships and
interactions
among countries, including the
causes
of war, the formation of foreign
policy,
international political economy, and
the
structures that increase or decrease
the
policy options available to
governments.
A
D.
Public Administration
5.
Includes classical political philosophy
and
contemporary theoretical perspectives
(e.g.,
constructivism, critical theory, and
postmodernism).
B
E.
Comparative Politics
6.
Focuses on politics within countries
(often
grouped into world regions) and
analyzes
similarities and differences
among
countries. E
F.
Public Policy
7.
Examines the passage and
implementation
of all types of government
policies,
particularly those related to civil
rights,
defense, health, education,
economic
growth, urban renewal,
regional
development, and environmental
protection.
F
G.
Public Law
8
Resources
of power
While
some of the resources of power are material and easily identified,
others are more subtle.
Weaponry
Everyone
knows Mao Tse-tung's (see Chapter 4) remark, 'Power grows out of the
barrel of a gun.' The death threat is clearly a good way of making
people do what they do not wish to do. All arms from knives to
nuclear missiles deserve respect, especially from the unarmed. They
are very important in the evaluation of power in relationships
between states, but they can also be used by military dictatorships
to cow populations. 'Why are they not in power everywhere,' Finer
enquires; 'they have all the guns?'10 It is a rhetorical
question. Guns are not appropriate in some contexts. The President of
the USA is a powerful international figure who is commander-in-chief
of the us armed forces, yet he cannot use arms to make Congress pass
his proposals. Nor do the big guns always win. The heavily armed USA
could not, after many years' fighting, defeat the guerrilla armies of
the Vietcong.
Wealth
Wealth
is a power resource in most circumstances. In primitive societies it
will not be wealth measured in money. Wealth will be most effective
where law and order is enforced. Wealthy people hold power because
they can use it to buy people and politicians in order to achieve
their ends. In modern democratic politics money is particularly
important in election campaigns when it is used for publicity
purposes. Political parties and pressure groups may depend on wealthy
donors for a good deal of their income. Industrialists and financiers
are often perceived as manipulating markets and stock exchanges in
order to obtain the sort of government they want. Left-wing
governments tend to suspect them of this intention. Socialist parties
saw the 1931 financial crisis as a 'bankers' ramp'.
Numbers
Other
things being equal (which frequently they are not), it is better to
be supported by more people than less. In democracies it is clear
that more than 50 per cent support at elections usually confers
power: at least the power to assume office. But one can overestimate
the power of numerical majorities. Stein Rokkan, a Norwegian
political scientist, said 'Votes count: resources decide', 11
meaning resources other than numbers of people. Organised numbers,
whose support is unconditional, confer more power than disorganised
supporters with ephemeral allegiance. In the field of international
relations large armies confer power on states. Stalin, whose view of
power was brutally cynical, summed it up when he enquired 'How many
divisions has the Pope?
Strategic
location
Position
may be a power resource in all senses of the word. A small country in
a strategically important position may find its bargaining strength a
help even in terms of international trade. People who hold strategic
positions in organisations may acquire power. They may be in
situations where they can control the flow of resources, including
information and access to a power hierarchy. Such people are known as
'gatekeepers'
Information
The
amount of information (or 'intelligence' in diplomatic terms) one has
about a situation is clearly a power factor. Rational decision-making
depends on complete information, a rare position. Without knowing the
'background' of an issue or piece of policy-making one is at a
disadvantage. One's opponents are likely to withhold as much
information as possible. They may bluff and pretend they have
information they do not possess: in fact, information about the
amount of information opponents have will be an asset. Those in
power, in particular, will have a tendency to keep information
secret: hence campaigns for open government by opposition groups. It
is not easy to make governments accountable if one does not know what
they are doing or proposing to do.
Skills
The
capacity to attain desired ends will also depend on the skills of
those leading enterprises with policy goals. Various types of skills
may be important. Personal attributes of democratic politicians tend
to shade into political skills because they depend on public support:
an attractive personality wins votes. An important political skill is
the ability to persuade. This may involve not just oratory, a gift
for stating an argument, but also an ability to explain and a
willingness to listen. Less public political skills are those
concerned with negotiation, mastering details and striking a
compromise. Some of these skills are learnt; others are inherited.
Reputation
A
reputation for good judgement and success in making decisions gives a
political leader power. Sometimes reputations are unjustified. In
some circumstances, especially where people are gullible or unused to
assessing their political leaders, reputations may be artificially
created by the image-makers. Sometimes the reputation of one's family
will confer poweras with the Kennedys or Gandhis. Conversely a
reputation for failure will deny one power.
Hence
the resources of power are many and heterogeneous. Their scope and
range vary greatly as do the contexts in which they are likely to be
deployed. The ways in which power is deployed are also varied.