Foundation Course Politics PDF

International Foundation Programme
Foundation course:
Politics

Jose Olivas-Osuna and
Pon Souvannaseng

FP0004

2013
This guide was prepared for the University of London International Programmes by:
J. Olivas-Osuna, The London School of Economics and Political Science

P. Souvannaseng, The London School of Economics and Political Science
This is one of a series of subject guides published by the University. We regret that due to pressure
of work the authors are unable to enter into any correspondence relating to, or arising from, the
guide. If you have any comments on this subject guide, favourable or unfavourable, please use
the online form found on the virtual learning environment.
University of London International Programmes

Publications Office
Stewart House
32 Russell Square
London WC1B 5DN
United Kingdom
www.londoninternational.ac.uk
Published by: University of London

© University of London 2013
The University of London asserts copyright over all material in this subject guide except where
otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, or
by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher. We make every effort to respect
copyright. If you think we have inadvertently used your copyright material, please let us know.
Cover image © Ocean/Corbis

i
POLITICS
Contents
Introduction to the course...........................................................................1
Unit 1: Introducing politics and political thought

Introduction to Unit 1...................................................................................9
Section 1.1: What is politics?.......................................................................................................13
Section 1.2: Studying politics.....................................................................................................18
Section 1.3: Political thought 1.................................................................................................24
Section 1.4: Political thought 2.................................................................................................28
Test your knowledge and understanding..........................................................................33
Concluding comments..................................................................................................................34
Unit 2: States, nations and regimes

Introduction to Unit 2.....................................................................................................................36
Section 2.1: States and regimes................................................................................................40
Section 2.2: Nations and nationalism....................................................................................45
Section 2.3: Democratic regimes.............................................................................................50
Section 2.4: Authoritarian regimes.........................................................................................55
Unit 3: Representation and government

Section 3.1: Representation and political parties..........................................................66
Section 3.2: Elections.......................................................................................................................71
Section 3.3: Assemblies..................................................................................................................78
Section 3.4: Political executives................................................................................................84
Unit 4: Economy and society

Section 4.1: Political participation and movements....................................................97
Section 4.2: States and markets................................................................................................101
Section 4.3: Multilevel governance and sub-national politics..............................105

Contents ii
Section 4.4: Globalisation.............................................................................................................109

Unit 5: Public policy and administration

Section 5.1: Bureaucracy...............................................................................................................120
Section 5.2: Public policy..............................................................................................................125
Section 5.3: Armed forces ...........................................................................................................130
Section 5.4: Interest groups.........................................................................................................135
Appendix 1: Sample examination paper..................................................143

Appendix 2: Glossary....................................................................................145
1
Introduction to the course
Introduction to the course
Route map to the guide 2
Introduction to politics and political thought 2
Syllabus 3
Aims of the course 5
Learning outcomes for the course 5
Overview of the learning resources 6
Examination advice 7

Introduction to the course 2
Route map to the guide

The International Foundation Programme (IFP) course in politics will introduce you to the key
ideas political scientists use to study how politics works and the effects it has in the world. The
course looks at the history of these ideas and old and new ways of understanding political life,
and attempts to explain the different ways in which political processes operate and the different
policies that result from them. It tries to show what’s important about political and economic
change, why it’s worth working out what the issues are and trying to understand the policies the
politicians come up with. This guide covers the main ideas and topics we use to organise and
make sense of the political world.
The key themes in the academic discipline known as politics or political science are introduced
over the course of five broad units. Each unit consists of four integrated sections which cover the
unit’s core ideas. Each section contains associated readings from A. Heywood Politics (Houndmills,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Foundations, 2013) fourth edition [ISBN 9780230363380]. Where relevant,
the section will direct you to other readings and resources, including some you’ll find in the
virtual learning environment (VLE). The following sections provide general descriptions of the
major themes and concepts of the course.
Introduction to politics and political thought

Political relations and institutions help shape the world around us – the society we live in,
the kind of laws we have to live by, and newsworthy events and actions of people around the
world. Studying politics gives us what we call an analytical perspective or a frame we can
use to better understand government, political events and the nature of political and economic
change. We now live in an age where political news, facts, and information saturate our
computer screens, TVs, airwaves and around-the-clock Twitter feeds. How do we compare and
pick between different views and accounts, or work out which kinds of data are more reliable
and accurate than others? Political unrest and environmental catastrophes in one part of the
world have the ability to raise consumer prices or cause shortages in another region, while the
interconnected nature of financial markets ties the political fates of different nations together.
How can we make sense of these processes and who can we hold accountable if things go
wrong? How do we tackle issues of poverty, inequality, and conflict? How can we make sense of
acts of political violence without understanding the repression or frameworks of ideas known as
‘ideologies’ that underpin them? Studying politics and political thought equips social scientists
and the wider public with the tools to make sense of the complex world we live in and shine a
light on the web of political, social and economic relations we call politics.
This subject guide will introduce you to three broad areas in the study of politics: political
thought, comparative politics, and public policy and administration. It will equip you with an
understanding of the core ideas or concepts, the language people use to discuss them and
the frameworks we use to make sense of politics in a variety of contexts. It offers an accessible
route to the academic discipline of political studies from anywhere in the world, at any level, no
matter where you are starting out. The guide sets out the theoretical foundations and concepts
you will use in the future to analyse political situations across countries, helping you to build a
framework for comparison. Why is comparison important? How do we know how well a regime
distributes resources between its citizens or how democratic it is without comparing it with
the regime of another country? Unit 1 introduces you to the study of politics, the concepts of
power and politics in organising rule, and the three classic schools of political thought which
provide the philosophies that underpin most political writing. Unit 2 focuses on the primary
institutions of authority, legitimacy and rule – the state, the nation as a human community and
regimes as political systems. Unit 4 introduces other social and economic actors that interact
and pose challenges to state rule. Units 3 and 5 take you inside the machinery of government,
helping you to find your way around the institutions, agencies and processes that make political
representation, participation and policy outcomes possible.
Syllabus

What is politics? How should it be studied? Unit 1 helps you adjust to thinking like a social
scientist. Section 1.1 defines the concept of politics by outlining basic concepts such as
government, public affairs and power, and how these shape the way that political systems and
institutions develop and operate. Section 1.2 familiarises you with different approaches to the
academic study of politics and introduces key concepts in the empirical, philosophical and
scientific study of political phenomena. Section 1.3 continues the themes of power and politics
and uses the ideas of classic political thought to examine three broad approaches to organising
power and political rule: liberal, corporatist, and communitarian forms of thought. Sections 1.3
and 1.4 further discuss examples of the three broad approaches to political thought in the form
of classic and contemporary political ideologies, an ideology understood as an ideal political
system and the proscriptions for achieving and maintaining it. From all four sections, you will
derive a grounding in the meta-traditions and ideologies which shape different conceptions of
social rule and governance to carry with them into the next three units of study.

Why are some states democratic and others not? Why do authoritarian countries bother holding
elections? Why are some forms of nationalism inclusive while others are staunchly ethnic? Where
does the state come from? Unit 2 delves into the historical and conceptual story behind politics’
main objects of study: states, nations and political regimes. Political scientists think of ‘the state’ as
political power exercised over a defined geographic territory through a set of public institutions.
They view the ‘nation’ as a human community with a shared culture and history. ‘Regime’ is the
word that is used for the sets of rules and institutions that control access to, and the exercise of,
political power. These rules and institutions tend to pass from government to government (a
government being a collection of individuals who occupy political office or exercise state power).
Section 2.1 discusses the premodern world of medieval Europe up to the Age of Enlightenment,
tracing the emergence of the early modern nation state. It will help you to recognise that
there has not always been a system of states that more or less control what happens within
their territorial borders. Section 2.2 discusses the idea of a nation as a political and cultural
community, and as a subjective and popular phenomenon. It also covers contemporary forms
of nationalism and the nature of political change in the developed economies of the global
‘North’ and the underdeveloped economies of the global ‘South’. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 compare
and contrast different types of democratic and authoritarian regimes and trends that can be
seen within them, from the third wave and democratisation phenomenon discussed in Section
2.3 to the persistence, legitimacy and stability of certain forms of authoritarianism in the twenty-
first century. Using examples from different countries, all four sections provide an introductory
grounding in basic concepts, history and core themes in the study of comparative government.

The third unit delves into the politics and institutions of government and governance. It looks
at how people’s views are represented by those that govern them and how the different
branches of government operate. In particular, it looks at electoral institutions and the rise of
political parties, the nature of elections, legislative assemblies and the executive branch of
government. Section 3.1 lays out the development of political parties and how they operate
within a liberal democratic framework. Section 3.2 helps to explain theories of voting, while
3.3 and 3.4 link the matter of institutional design to different electoral and empirical outcomes.
Section 3.4 also introduces you to the comparative differences between presidential and
parliamentary systems and the differences you might expect in the way political decisions are
taken. All four sections together aim to arm you with the basic analytic tools and concepts
to identify, compare and contrast the the ways in which institutional government and
governance work across a wide array of countries.

Politics is all about the interactions between state and society, as well as the way in which the
state exercises its power within a specific economic system. This unit thus covers two aspects of
the relationship between state and society – political mobilisation and sub-national politics.
Sections 4.1 and 4.3 examine how citizens participate in politics in a variety of ways which
support and undermine a political system. Political participation may be voluntary or forced, and
may move along a continuum from behaviour that supports a regime to behaviour that seeks
to change or overthrow it. We examine the role of social movements, their diversity, and their
interaction with other groups demanding attention by their states. While covering the ways that
citizens can act politically through traditional means such as voting to more forceful action such
as insurgency or revolt, the unit also discusses the role of various media within countries, their
relations with the state and their ability to shape and influence public beliefs, perceptions and
action. It also looks at the impact of government institutions on social divisions arising out of
issues surrounding political representation and the redistribution of wealth. The theme of scalar
politics , which look s at interactions between different levels of national, regional and local
government, and the scope of the state’s role in the economy is explored in Sections 4.2 and 4.4.
These examine different approaches to political economy and the nexus of state and market at
the national and supranational level. All four sections bring out the various actors, interests and
processes which may work to bolster or pose challenges to the power and survival of the state.

The last unit of the course introduces the study of public policy and administration. It analyses
some of the instruments, actors and processes associated with policy-making. Governments
need to provide services and protect the rights of citizens. Policy-making is one of the main
activities of government. Governments decide on public policies concerning, among other
things, education, health, taxation, transportation, security and defence. In order to implement
these policies government relies on the ‘machinery of the state’ or public administration. Section
5.1 and 5.2 explain the role two crucial ways in which policy is delivered and enforced: the
bureaucracy (civil servants) and the armed forces (the military). Section 5.3 outlines the basic
steps in the policy process: policy initiation, formulation, implementation and evaluation. Finally,
Section 5.4 stresses the relevance of interest groups and other forms of coordinated social action
in the process of policy-making.
Week Unit Section

1 1: Introducing politics and Introduction to the course
political thought 1.1: What is politics?
2 1.2: Studying politics
3 1.3: Political thought 1
5 2: States, nations and regimes 2.1: States and regimes
6 2.2: Nations and nationalism
7 2.3: Democratic regimes
8 2.4: Authoritarian regimes
9 3: Representation and 3.1: Representation and political parties
10 government 3.2: Elections
11 3.3: Assemblies
12 3.4: Political executives
13 4: Economy and society 4.1: Political participation and movements
14 4.2: States and markets
15 4.3: Multilevel governance and sub-national
politics
16 4.4: Globalisation
17 5: Public policy and administration 5.1: Bureaucracy
18 5.2: Public policy
19 5.3: Armed forces
20 5.4: Interest groups
Aims of the course

This course aims to:
provide an introduction to the discipline of Political Science, its key theories, areas of study,
and empirical issues at the focus of political inquiry
introduce students to the methodological approaches used in political research, deepening
their understanding of the field and the ways in which scholars analyse contemporary
political issues
provide the analytical foundations required to address issues in contemporary politics,
including:
how and why different forms of government exist
what key state institutions are
the process of democratisation
how people are represented in governments
the role of political cleavage
the impact of non-state actors in political action.
Learning outcomes for the course

At the end of this course, and having completed the Essential reading and activities, you should
be able to:
identify and explain key concepts and theoretical approaches to the study of politics
apply concepts and approaches to the analysis of the nation state and governance
mechanisms
contrast different types of government and representation that exist in the world today.
Overview of learning resources
Essential reading
In every section of this guide one or two short readings are recommended. These focus on key
theoretical debates in politics and serve as a basis for class discussion. Most of the essential
reading in this course can be found in:
Heywood, A. Politics. (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Foundations, 2013) fourth edition
[ISBN 9780230363380].
This book offers a very broad overview of politics and you should buy it if possible. It is sold
online new and second hand. We would encourage you to read beyond the excerpts indicated
in each section of this guide. The book provides definitions of many important political concepts
and introduces you to the most important key political thinkers.
Further reading
In every unit other academic books and journal articles will be suggested as Further reading.
They provide more detailed coverage of each topic and should help to clarify some of the ideas
you come across on the course. These readings can be very helpful for some of the activities
proposed in this subject guide.
The most helpful textbooks are:
Axford, B., G. Browning, R. Huggins and B. Rosamond (eds) Politics: an introduction. (London:
Routledge, 2002) second edition [ISBN 9780415226424].
Colomer, J. The science of politics: an introduction. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)
[ISBN 9780195397741].
Hague, R. and M. Harrop Comparative government and politics: an introduction. (Houndmills,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) eighth edition [ISBN 9780230231023].
Tansey, S.D. and N. Jackson Politics: the basics. (London: Routledge, 2008) fourth edition
[ISBN 9780415422444].
These books offer additional and sometimes alternative explanations to those you’ll come across
in the Heywood textbook and this guide. In each unit, specific chapters from these books are
suggested.
Accessing the Student Portal and virtual learning environment

To manage all of your student administrative processes you will need to log in to the Student
Portal via: http://my.londoninternational.ac.uk
You should have received your login details for the Student Portal with your official offer, which
was emailed to the address that you gave on your application form. You have probably already
logged in to the Student Portal in order to register. As soon as you register, you will automatically
be granted access to the VLE, Online Library and fully functional University of London email
account. If you have forgotten these login details, please click on the ‘Forgotten your password’
link on the login page.
In order to access your learning materials for each course, you can click on the VLE tab within the
Student Portal or login to the VLE directly via: https://ifp.elearning.london.ac.uk/
Please check the VLE regularly for updates on readings and alternative materials. For this and your
other courses in the IFP the VLE has been designed to complement and enhance your learning
experience. The VLE is structured in the same way as this subject guide and provides a wide
range of resources for courses. These include:
updated reading lists
magazines and newspapers articles (links and uploaded files) to illustrate and develop some
of the class debates
videos relevant to the subject topic
external links to websites and databases
a discussion forum where you can seek support from your peers and exchange information,
sources and views
Sample examination papers.
You can also make use of the Online Library, which provides many valuable resources for the
study of politics and the other disciplines that comprise the IFP.
Finally, we would also encourage you to read relevant newspapers, magazines and websites
regularly as it is extremely helpful to link the theoretical concepts studied on the course with the
current state of political affairs. Publications such as The Economist, the Guardian, The Independent
and the International Herald Tribune offer very interesting and accessible articles. Many of these
can be read online without a subscription.
Glossary of key terms

Coloured words are included in the full glossary of key terms provided in Appendix 2.
Examination advice
Important: the information and advice given in the following section are based on the
examination structure used at the time this subject guide was written. We strongly advise you to
check both the current Regulations for relevant information about the examination and the VLE
where you should be advised of any forthcoming changes. You should also carefully check the
rubric/instructions on the paper you actually sit and follow those instructions.
In the examination you’ll be expected to choose from a number of ‘short’ and ‘long’ questions and
answer in the form of ‘short’ or ‘long’ essays. Short questions are more specific and usually relate
to one section or unit alone, while long questions call for a more elaborate answer and often
invite you to link more than one section or unit you’ve studied during the course. You should
always answer exactly the question that is asked. Do not answer a different question. You need
to show that you understand exactly what the Examiners are asking. Copying out something
you’ve memorised beforehand will not be rewarded with a good grade (particularly in the long
questions).
It is also important to link concepts and examples. Your answers should not be just a list of bullet
points – they need to be written in clear language and they need to follow a logical structure.
Organise your essay in paragraphs and finish it with a summary or conclusion.
In the examination you’ll need to be able to explain key concepts and theories, analyse real
situations, give examples and think critically about how course material relates to the current
state of political affairs. Discussions and activities in class will help you to prepare for the
examination. You should practise answering the Sample examination papers found on the VLE
and you should also look at Appendix 1, which contains a Sample examination paper.
Good luck!
9
Introduction to Unit 1
Overview of the unit 10
Aim 10
Learning outcomes 10
Essential reading 11
Further reading 11
References cited 11

Unit 1: Introducing politics and political thought 10
Overview of the unit

This unit introduces the study of politics and the main streams of political thought, generally
referred to as schools of political thought. It first provides several definitions and approaches to
politics. It shows that politics is everywhere in modern society and links politics with the concepts
of power and authority. Second, it explains that politics is a very broad academic discipline and
that it can be studied in many different ways. It also stresses some of the main concerns that
those studying politics face. For instance, whether you should focus on individuals or institutions
and whether it is better to undertake a very deep analysis of just one case or country or a more
superficial analysis but cover many cases or countries. A brief introduction to some basic concepts in
classic political thought are also covered.
Week Unit Section
1 1: Introducing politics and Introduction to the course
political thought 1.1: What is politics?
2 1.2: Studying politics
Aim
This unit aims to:
answer the questions: What is politics? Why should politics be studied? How can politics be
studied?
Learning outcomes
By the end of this unit, and having completed the Essential reading and activities, you should be
able to:
describe and discuss the different dimensions of power and authority
discuss to what extent politics can be considered a science and some of the theoretical
dilemmas faced by those academics who study politics
critically distinguish between the following political ideologies:
liberalism
conservatism
socialism
other ideologies
make use of real world examples to illustrate political ideological debate
explain the following concepts:
politics
power
authority
agent and structure
case studies and comparative studies
theocracy/secularism
fundamentalism
critically assess and distinguish between liberal, conservative and social arguments
identify single- and multi-party forms of socialism and be cognisant of their general historical
and philosophical lineage.
Essential reading
Section 1.1
Heywood (2013) pp.2–12.
Section 1.2
Heywood (2013) pp.12–23.
Section 1.3
Heywood (2013) pp.30–37, 60–62.
Section 1.4
Heywood (2013) pp.38–48.
Further reading
Chamberlain, W.H. ‘Making the collective man in Soviet Russia’, Foreign Affairs January 1932.
Hague, R. and M. Harrop Comparative government and politics: an introduction. (Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) eighth edition [ISBN 9780230231023] Chapters 2 and 3.
Huntington, S. Political order in changing societies. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968)
[ISBN 978030001715] pp.334–43.
Leftwich, A. ‘Thinking politically: on the politics of politics’ in Leftwich, A. (ed.) What is politics?
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004) [ISBN 9780745630564].
Rawls, J. A theory of justice. (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2005, reprint, orginally published 1971)
[ISBN 9780674017726].
Tansey, S.D. and N. Jackson Politics: the basics. (London: Routledge, 2008) fourth edition [ISBN
9780415422444] Chapter 1 ‘Politics’.
References cited
Axford, B. ‘Is politics really about people?’ in Axford, B., G. Browning, R. Huggins and B. Rosamond
(eds) Politics: an introduction. (London: Routledge, 2002) second edition [ISBN 9780415251815].
Crick, B. In defence of politics. (New York: Penguin, [1962] 2005) [ISBN 9780826487513].
Dahl, R. Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. (New Haven, CT: Yale University,
1961) [ISBN 9780300000511].
Duverger, M. Political parties: their organization and activity in the modern state. (New York: Wiley,
1954) [ISBN 9780416683202].
Giddens A. The third way. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998) [ISBN 9780745624495].
Hay, C. Political analysis: a critical introduction. (London: Palgrave, 2002) [ISBN 9780333750032].
Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) eighth edition [ISBN 9780230231023].
Heywood, A. Politics. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Foundations, 2013) fourth edition
[ISBN 9780230363380].
Lasswell, H. Politics: who gets what, when, how. (New York: Whittlesey House, 1936).
Leftwich, A. (ed.) What is politics? (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004) [ISBN 9780745630564].
Lukes, S. Power: a radical view. (London: Macmillan Press, 1974) [ISBN 9780312427191].
Niskanen, W. Bureaucracy and representative government. (Chicago: Aldine, Atherton, 1971)
[ISBN 9780202060408].
Sen, A. Development as freedom. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) [ISBN 9780198297581].
Thomas, G. ‘A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition,
discourse and structure’, Qualitative Inquiry 17(6) 2011, pp.511–21.
Weber, M. The theory of economic and social organization. (New York: Free Press,1964)
[ISBN 0684836480].
13
Section 1.1: What is politics?
Introduction 14
Politics in people’s everyday lives 14
Power 15
Authority 16
Unit 1: Introducing politics and political thought • Section 1.1: What is politics? 14
Introduction
Defining what we mean by politics is challenging. There is not one single correct answer to the
question ‘What is politics?’ Politics can be many things. It depends who is asking the question, and where
and when they are doing so (Leftwich, 2004). Probably the definition of politics most often used came
from Harold Lasswell in 1958. For him politics is ‘who gets what, when, how?’. This definition refers to a
basic problem in society: humans do not always share the same interests and goals and the resources
available for them are limited. Therefore, in human communities there are always conflicts of interest and
competition for resources. Politics is generally seen as the actions taken by some in order to influence
others and reach a desired outcome.
Nonetheless this is only one approach to what politics can mean. Politics is a broad and complex
concept that can be interpreted in many different ways. First, politics can refer to the ‘art of
government’; the skill or talent necessary to rule a community. Politics can be interpreted as ‘public
affairs’ that part of public life where the actions that concern the government of a community are
discussed and decided. Politics can also be thought of as ‘compromise and consensus’, a way of
resolving conflicts relying on persuasion and negotiation rather than on violence. It can also be
associated with ‘power’, the capacity to influence people’s actions and control available resources
(Heywood, 2013, pp.3–10). Finally, politics is also an academic field or discipline; the study of the
processes, institutions, actors and ideas through which the life of social communities are organised and
administered.
It is important, then, to acknowledge that there are many acceptable definitions of politics and many
ways to approach this concept. All of them capture part of a very complex reality. When referring to
politics different people may mean different things but all these things are in some way related.
Politics in people’s everyday lives

As explained above, there is no single definition that captures the complexity of the concept. Politics is
everywhere in today’s world and in people’s lives. Politics is in people’s ideas, in the way communities
are organised, in how people participate in collective decisions, and in how public resources and
services are allocated.
We make sense of the world we live in through a series of assumptions and ideas – most of which
are ‘picked up’ from our surroundings as we grow and mature. These political ideas are part of an
individual’s mind-set and serve to filter and influence ways in which the individual perceives reality
and behaves. For instance political ideas such as solidarity, equality, freedom, individualism, hierarchy,
transparency, etc. determine many of an individual’s choices and the way they interact with others in
a community. Understanding political ideas and ideologies is important in order to make sense of the
behaviour of other people and the decisions made by political leaders. For instance, the views and life
choices of someone who is deeply conservative are likely to be different from those of someone who
is a convinced Marxist.
The communities in which people live are organised according to political principles and agreements.
People live in states, which are the basic political units of communal organisation in today’s world. In
addition to states there are other levels of communal organisation such as regions, provinces, towns
and supranational organisations. These organisations are responsible for structuring the lives of the
people that belong to that community in such a way that helps them to operate effectively. The type
of regime or political system in each state, whether democratic or authoritarian, has important
consequences in the life of the people that live there. The rights and obligations of those people are
defined by the type of political system that governs them. The recent revolutions and changes in the
political regimes in the Middle East (e.g. Egypt, Libya and Tunisia) illustrate how people are concerned
by the political regime in which they live.
People participate, to a greater or lesser degree, in the decisions that concern their state.
The clearest example is that in most countries people vote and choose their political
representatives at different levels (local, regional and state). Sometimes they also vote for
international representatives (this is the case in elections to the European Parliament). People
also influence politics by coordinating their actions through what are known as interest groups
(e.g. trade unions, think tanks, business lobbies, environmental organisations, etc.) or by
expressing their views in the public media. Even in non-democratic regimes there are ways
in which people participate in politics. For instance, the citizens in a dictatorship can become
members of official parties or civil servants in a position to influence decisions.
People not only participate in decision-making but also suffer or enjoy the political decisions that
are taken. What governments do affects people’s daily lives? For instance, a government can
decide to ban smoking in restaurants, to increase taxes, to open new hospitals or to subsidise
public transport and universities. All these actions have a direct impact on the lives of citizens.
Understanding politics therefore contributes to a better understanding of human life. All the
issues above are dealt with throughout this subject guide.
Power
Power is the capacity to influence the action of others and bring about intended effects. Political
ideas are very powerful weapons or instruments of control. People exercise power over others.
Power is sometimes called the ‘currency of politics’ (Hague and Harrop, 2010, pp.10–11). Power
supports collective decisions and their execution. Without it, decisions risk being delayed and,
if taken, ignored. Politics is often identified with consensus and negotiation (Crick, [1962] 2005).
However, politics can also be identified with the exercise of power (Hay, 2002).
The word ‘power’ comes from the Latin word ‘potere’ that means ‘to be able to’. The greater
the capacity someone has to determine the course of events, the more powerful they are.
For instance, China and the USA are considered among the most powerful countries in the
world because they have a greater capacity to control their own fate. Other smaller or poorer
countries may lack the human, economic or military resources to achieve their goals. Less
powerful countries may also come under pressure from other more powerful countries and find
themselves limited in their ability to reach their goals. Colonies are clear examples of this power
relation; one country imposes its will on another country or territory in order to gain access to
resources or a strategic position. This is another aspect of the concept of power; having not
only power to do something but also power over people or countries. ‘Power over’ includes
the capacity to influence the action of others, sometimes imposing a completely different course
of action. For instance through laws (and even coercion) governments have the capacity to
impose on individual citizens some paths of action in order to achieve collective goals. Thus,
governments exercise their power over citizens to protect the environment, collect taxes, ensure
security, etc.
Another way of thinking about the concept of political power is by looking into what Steven
Lukes (1974) called the three different dimensions or faces of power:
1. Decision-making power is the capacity to make and implement decisions. This dimension
is based on Dahl’s (1961) idea of power as the capacity to make people do what they would
not otherwise have done. This can be achieved by the use of force or intimidation, by mutual
exchanges and agreements or by the creation of obligations and commitments. For instance,
governments can set prohibitions and legal obligations, can subsidise certain activities
and imprison offenders or those who behave in a way the government doesn’t consider
acceptable.
2. Agenda-setting power is the capacity to set agendas and limit the range of what can be
discussed by decision-makers. For instance, sometimes politicians and groups of interests
campaign to include issues in the public and parliamentary debates. Alternatively, they
can veto or try to block parliamentary discussions or expert commissions on issues – the
National Rifle Association in the USA, for example, has successfully campaigned to prevent
the US Congress from including on the political agenda any discussion about banning the
possession of firearms. Exercising this kind of power ahead of any decision-making also
influences policy outcomes.
3. Ideological or psychological power is the capacity to influence another by shaping what
that person feels, thinks or wants. This type of power is usually associated with techniques
of indoctrination and psychological control. There are many examples of this kind of power
in politics. For instance, the propaganda campaigns in many authoritarian regimes aim at
shaping the minds of the citizens so that they internalise the interests and goals of the regime
as their own. In the extreme, the use of this power is known colloquially as ‘brainwashing’.
There are other less intrusive ways to exercise this power. For instance, political parties
and interest groups often launch information campaigns in order to convince or persuade
citizens to take a particular stance in an issue. There are information campaigns against fast
food, drinking and driving, tobacco consumption, discrimination, etc. and in favour of fruit
consumption, literacy, taking part in sport, etc.
There are many ways in which power can be exercised. All of them are used to some extent in
politics.
Authority
Authority is another basic concept that can help us to understand politics, and which is closely
linked to the concept of power. Authority refers to the recognition or acceptance of power and
the capacity of others to act. It is the acknowledgement of a right to exercise power. In politics
authority is granted to political leaders and governments by the people. These people accept the
authority of their leaders and their capacity to give legitimate orders. This means accepting the
superiority of another in a power relation. The greater the authority someone holds, the more
power they have. The more people accept a leader’s authority, the easier it is for this leader to
rule and exercise power. However, authority does not always mean that people agree with the
decisions taken or that they would have spontaneously accepted the authority of the person
taking the decisions. In non-democratic regimes authority is imposed. People may unwillingly
recognise the authority of the dictator and obey. In democratic regimes people who did not
vote for a president or prime minister usually respect his or her authority once they have won an
election.
Weber (1964) distinguishes three types of authority according to how political power is
validated:
1. Traditional authority is validated by custom and the established way of doing things
(Hague and Harrop, 2010, p.12). It is similar to the authority of a father or eldest sibling in a
patriarchal society. The best example of traditional authority in the sphere of politics is the
monarchy. Kings are granted power by birth and family ties thanks to a tradition that specifies
that the eldest child will inherit the position of king and rule the country.
2. Charismatic authority is based on the admiration of exceptional qualities or outstanding
actions and the devotion they inspire. The political leader gains authority as a result of
inspirational or heroic behaviour. Sometimes the context can help strengthen this type of
authority. Usually in times of crisis charismatic political leaders emerge. For instance, the
political leaders during the Second World War, such as Churchill, Stalin, Hitler and Roosevelt
enjoyed a particularly high charismatic authority among their countrymen. Other typical
examples of charismatic leaders are the revolutionary Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara, the civil rights
activist Martin Luther King and the Indian nationalist leader Mahatma Gandhi. This type of
authority has several problems. For instance, a regime created by a charismatic authority
can collapse after the charismatic leader abandons office, loses his or her popularity or dies.
Yugoslavia, for example, entered a crisis and eventually collapsed after the death of Marshall
Tito whose charismatic authority had helped to forge a multinational state.
3. Legal-rational authority is based on the rules and regulations and not on the specific
qualities of an individual leader. The authority rests on the official position and not on
the person who holds it. According to Weber this type of authority is the one you come
across most often in modern society. People are willing to accept the authority of political
leaders and to obey to their orders because they have gained a legal status or position in a
government. People do not follow a politician’s orders because he or she is wise or persuasive
but because he or she is recognised by the legal system as president or prime minister. Once
he or she leaves that position, people will stop following his or her commands and start
following those of his or her successor.
Finally, the concept of authority is closely linked with that of legitimacy, which refers to a wider
acceptance of the authority of a political system or regime. So a legitimate government is one
based on extensive popular support. Political legitimacy is needed for democratic government.
Usually dictatorial regimes enjoy authority but not legitimacy.
Activity
Brainstorming: write down briefly how the following concepts are linked to notion of
‘politics’:
Individual behaviour
Conflict and collective action
Power
List important actors, institutions and organisations that operate in the political realm.
18
Section 1.2: Studying politics
Introduction 19
Can politics be considered a science? 19
Studying individuals or institutions 20
Research strategies in politics 21

Unit 1: Introducing politics and political thought • Section 1.2: Studying politics 19
Introduction
After asking ‘What is politics?’, the next questions are probably ‘Why study politics?’ and ‘How
can politics be studied?’. These questions have many possible answers too. Depending on the
definition of politics you choose, there are several valid answers. For instance, you could argue
that politics needs to be studied because it is a basic human activity or because understanding
politics helps us understand history and human life or because politics is a necessary means to
reach the collective goals of a society or because politics shapes human lives by establishing
rights and setting limits to what individuals can do.
Given that there are plenty of reasons to study politics, the next step is to decide how politics
should be studied. As Section 1.1 shows, politics can be defined and approached in many
different ways (Heywood, 2013, pp.12–18). Usually when we talk about studying politics we are
comparing different institutions, countries and historical periods. We also need to gather a wide
variety of empirical evidence from many different sources. Those studying politics collect
evidence from historical and media archives, interviews, socio-demographic and economic
statistics, opinion polls and surveys, laws and constitutions, etc.
Politics is a broad academic discipline composed of many sub-disciplines. You will be impressed
to see how many different topics can be taught and researched in the department of politics
at a university. At the University of London, for example, politics students can study courses
such as: Political philosophy; Public policy analysis; History of political thought; Democracy and
democratisation; Political economy; Theories and problems of nationalism; Empirical research in
government; From empire to globalisation; Politics of money; Finance and trade; Comparative
politics; Law and politics of regulation; Public management; Legislative politics; Group
working and leadership; Conflicts and state-building; Game theory; Social theory and political
commitment; and Political parties and elections – among many others.
Different sub-disciplines may look at different aspects of politics or approach the same aspects
with different methodologies and assumptions.
Can politics be considered a science?

Ultimately there is no consensus in the academic community on whether politics can be
considered a full-fledged science or whether, in practice, it’s just an interpretation of unique
political situations. You need to ask yourself several questions if you’re going to take a stance
on this issue: Are there general laws that guide or dictate politics? Can the impulses that push
individuals and institutions to act the way they do be identified? Can political events happening
in different contexts be connected? Can future political decisions or actions be predicted? Those
who think that politics can be a science would answer ‘yes’ to these questions.
On the other hand, there are some who believe that politics cannot be a science. They usually
argue that decisions are just ‘accidents’ and do not follow a rational pattern. The complexity of
the feelings, interests and ideas involved in political decisions would challenge the capacity of
general scientific laws to capture politics. This second group believes that politics can only aspire
to understand particular political events as they happen and these findings will not help us to
understand other past, present or future situations.
There are also more nuanced positions than these two extreme ones. Politics does not have to
be a science grounded on grand laws with general applications such as you find in the natural
sciences. Neither does the study of politics have to be restricted to a collection of particular
observations and singular explanations. Many political scientists go beyond these pure ‘scientific’
and pure ‘interpretive’ approaches to politics and adopt some sort of middle ground. In politics
it is probably not possible to establish laws like the laws of gravity and thermodynamics.
However, it is possible to identify patterns and trends. Some would argue that comparisons
are meaningful and that even particular stories may fit in more general theories about social
and political behaviour. In politics experiments can rarely be conducted in the same way as
in the natural sciences, what’s significant cannot always be quantified and theories cannot be
rejected or supported with total confidence. The study of politics can, however, be consider
scientific in as far as it is possible to gain some ‘objective’ or at least verifiable knowledge. This
requires that we follow a rigorous analytical process grounded in a clear and transparent use
of theoretical assumptions to think critically about empirical cases. As in other social sciences,
such as economics and sociology, theories and models in politics can be used to understand
cases beyond those that originally inspired them and may even help us anticipate future political
developments. In politics, theories may find a link between a country’s electoral systems and
the number of its political parties (Duverger, 1954), discuss models of bureaucratic behaviour
(Niskanen, 1971) or associate a state’s defence of civil liberties with its level of socio-economic
development (Sen, 1999).
Finally, questions about whether politics is a science and how politics should be studied are
part of wider philosophical debates involving the concepts of ontology, epistemology and
methodology. Ontology refers to what is out there or to what exists. Epistemology refers to what
you can expect to know about what exists. And methodology refers to the different methods
you can use to acquire that knowledge (Hay, 2002, pp.61–65). The way people approach the
study of politics will largely depend on how they understand these concepts. The ways in which
academics think about ‘reality’ (their ontological positions) and their views on what it is possible
to learn about reality (their epistemological position) will influence the methodology they
choose to use when studying politics. This is why academics choose different research strategies
to deal with different kinds of topics. These methodologies range from qualitative historical and
philosophical analyses to quantitative models based on statistical regression.
So there are still unresolved debates about whether politics can be considered properly scientific,
about the scope and validity of researchers’ findings and about what the best methods to
approach the study of politics are. It is important to understand the advantages and limitations
of each of these positions.
Studying individuals or institutions

Should someone keen to find out about politics study individuals or institutions? The
relationships between individuals (often referred to as agents) and institutions (often referred to
as structures) are another fundamental concern in politics and in other social sciences (Axford
et al., 2002, pp.18–23). Individualistic or agent-centred accounts are based on the assumption
that each institution or organisation is merely the sum of the individuals within it. Therefore
the dynamics and actions of institutions can be explained by the motives and actions of the
individuals that compose them. In simple terms in an agent-centred account the whole is
basically the sum of the parts. According to these accounts individuals’ interests are what shape
politics. Agent-centred explanations usually emphasise the role of leaders and the adaptable
nature of institutions. Accounts that explain the fall of the Soviet Union in terms of the actions of
Gorbachev and Reagan are good examples of this approach.
On the other hand, structuralist or institutionalist accounts of politics are based on the idea that
institutions and organisations are more than simple sums of individuals. The behaviour, motives
and beliefs of the individuals are shaped by specific rules and accepted behaviours adopted in
the institution to which they belong. The actions and choices of individuals, in these accounts,
depend not only on the values and interests they had before they joined the institution, but
also heavily on the institutional context in which they have come to operate. Moreover, often
the individuals that are part of an institution pursue very different interests. Choices that serve
the interests of individual members of a political community are not beneficial to the group as a
whole. For instance, in a fishing community near a lake the interest of each fisherman would be
to capture as many fish as possible. If all fishermen fished as much as possible, however, the stock
of fish would soon be depleted. The government of such a community would usually introduce
regulations to limit the fishing activity to make it sustainable. In this kind of case the individuals’
(or agents’) leeway would be constrained by the laws imposed by the government. The most
extreme structuralist views assume that individual actors have no independent decision-making
power, choosing instead to explain political events as the result of structural forces that limit the
choices open to individual actors. For instance, the fall of the Soviet Union can be explained by
the structural weakness of the communist economy and the failure of the Soviet bureaucracy
to deliver basic services rather than by looking at the individual choices of Soviet leaders and
citizens.
Many academics nowadays adopt an approach somewhere in the middle of the two. They
tend to look at the dynamics of individuals (agents) but take into consideration institutional
(structural) limitations and rules. They acknowledge the mutual interdependence between
the two. Individuals construct institutions but in doing so individuals also change their own
behaviours and interests. For instance, politicians may design institutions, but once they work
in them these institutions affect politicians’ actions. Academics who acknowledge this study
individual actors (e.g. presidents, ministers, senior bureaucrats, party leaders, military officers),
as well as institutions (such as legislative assemblies, committees, cabinets, state departments,
supranational organisations, non-governmental organisations, and trade unions).
Research strategies in politics

How do we find out about political behaviour, institutions and types of regime? Academics use
a wide variety of methods and research strategies to understand politics. They conduct research
in order to come up with concepts, models and theories about politics and then test them
(Heywood, 2013, pp.18–23). Research strategies fall broadly into two groups: case studies and
comparative studies.
A case study is an intensive analysis of one country, institution or actor. Case studies add value
by providing a systematic illustration of a wider policy issue in a specific context. For instance,
someone interested in new techniques of electronic voting could undertake a case study about
the process of online public consultations in Switzerland. Cases can deal with contemporary
or historical events, actors and institutions. Some case studies are ‘descriptive’, such as those
that narrate a series of events or actions that happened during a specific period of time. Others
are ‘explanatory’ and try to identify what caused particular political behaviours or institutional
development. It is important that the researcher chooses a case that will help to illustrate the wider
political issue. Thus cases can be chosen because they are representative, prototypical, influential
or exceptional. For instance, someone interested in constitutions may choose to study the US
Constitution because it is the oldest and probably most influential one. Someone more interested
in the dynamics of supranational organisations may choose to study the European Union.
The analyses of persons, events, decisions, projects, policies or institutions in a case study can use
several sources and methods of analysis (Thomas, 2011). Researchers doing case studies read the
academic literature about the specific country, actor or organisation they are interested in. They
collect data from archives (e.g. reports, news, letters, statistics) from interviews with the actors
involved (e.g. political leaders, civil servants, members of interest groups) and from visits and
direct observations of the country or institution. The analysis of the data can be both quantitative
– based on the study of statistical patterns – and qualitative – based on narrative-driven
descriptions of historical and contemporary conditions and characteristics. What is learned from
a case study can often be used to understand other contexts and cases.
Comparative studies are another popular research strategy. Comparative studies prioritise
breadth over depth. Rather than focusing on a single in-depth case study, comparative studies
analyse a political phenomenon across all countries that experience it. By comparing different
cases, the researcher broadens his or her understanding of an issue. Comparisons help the
researcher to confirm or reject theories they have developed through studying single cases
(Hague and Harrop, 2010, pp.46–53).
Comparative studies can use quantitative and qualitative techniques. Qualitative comparisons
are usually made between two or among a small number of cases. For instance, you could
compare the French and American revolutions or the development of the welfare state in
western European countries. Quantitative comparisons are usually based on statistical analysis
and cover many countries at once. One of the reasons for this is that you need a relatively large
sample (or number of cases) if the results of the analysis are going to be statistically significant.
Among the quantitative techniques one of the most commonly used is regression analysis.
Regression analysis finds statistically relevant patterns in the relationship between different
political variables. It then uses these patterns to identify correlations and explain political events.
For instance, a regression analysis can show that there is a correlation between individuals’
income and the type of political party they vote for (e.g. richer people tend to vote more often
for conservative parties).
To conclude, the approaches are equally valid. Academics choose them according to the goals of
their research and the data available to them. Often they combine both approaches in order to
strengthen their conclusions.
Activity
Divide into groups. Each group should select a major political problem or issue and
discuss how each of the different conceptions of political science would approach this
problem (noting their advantages and limitations).
Political issue:
Traditions Advantages Limitations

Philosophical
Empirical
Scientific
Other
24
Section 1.3: Political thought 1
Introduction 25
Liberalism 25
Core elements of liberalism 25
Negative and positive liberty 26
Conservatism 26
New Right and neo-liberalism 27

Unit 1: Introducing politics and political thought • Section 1.3: Political thought 1 25
Introduction
What distinguishes a belief or an idea from a theory? In the last two sections you have had
a chance to explore the subjects of politics and power, and why it is both interesting and
important to study them. You have also looked at how both can be studied. In this unit we take
a slight detour away from politics as a science, which is all about the testing and proving of
theories, towards political thought, the study of politics as a way of seeing and understanding
the world, and the ways in which people construct their political world view. Political thought,
then, can be thought of as a lens for seeing and understanding the world, either as it really is or
as we perceive it to be. A political doctrine or political ideology is, according to Heywood
(2013), a more or less coherent set of ideas that provide a basis for organised political action.
Political ideologies are often developed by forming theories, which are then tested empirically
in the material world. This view of theory-formation combines rationalist and positivist views of
social science because it assumes that the world can be understood and explained through the
use of human reason (the basis of rationalism) while at the same time accepting the need to
base knowledge on sensory information about the world in which we actually live (the basis of
positivism).
In this section, you will learn about two of the classic schools of thought which have dominated
Western political philosophy for centuries: liberalism and conservatism. Both may be considered
ideologies. Both are also meta-theories (broad sets of beliefs that embrace a wide range of
values and beliefs).
Liberalism
Liberalism, or liberal theory, has been gradually developing since the 1700s as a response to
the breakdown of feudal society, which was a society organised around a hierarchy in which
resources were very unequally shared out. In its early form, liberalism challenged the privileged
position and absolutism of those at the top of the hierarchy and proposed a more equal
society based on merit and a constitutional form of government. Liberalism’s core principle is the
importance of the human individual as opposed to any group or collective body. Individuals
are each considered of equal moral worth, and the goal of a liberal society is therefore to allow
each unique individual to develop and flourish according to his/her abilities.
Core elements of liberalism

This idea of individuality incorporates the themes of freedom, progress, equality and reason.
Liberal doctrine is the great equaliser because it proposes that people are born equal and should
have the equal right or opportunity to pursue their full potential. It is also a protection doctrine
because it focuses on the sacredness of the individual, argues for toleration, emphasises the
need to rule with the consent of the governed, and seeks to create a political system based on
meritocracy. Built into liberal doctrine is the forward-looking idea of human progress under
meritocratic systems of advancement. Taken to the extreme, the protective view of liberalism
or ‘negative’ liberty (see below) assumes that human beings are absolutely autonomous –
capable of acting without any structural or communal constraints on their decisions. This can
lead to an atomistic view of society, in which political communities lose their collective identity
and become mere collections of self-interested individuals.
Negative and positive liberty

The classic political philosopher Thomas Hobbes viewed the human condition as necessarily,
‘nasty, brutish, and short’ and therefore viewed society as being composed of selfish individuals
in a state of anarchy, or disorder, in need of a strong monarch or state to bind individuals
together with rules and with force to make sure they did not harm each other or get in the
way of each other’s liberty. Hobbes’ view of individuals and what he referred to as ‘the state of
nature’ formed the basis of thinking about the state as a ‘leviathan’, existing to regulate people’s
behaviour and prevent them from harming one another. This view is known as ‘negative’
liberty or the freedom to not be harmed. Other liberal philosophers such as John Locke, John
Stuart Mill and Jean Jacques Rousseau developed a more ‘positive’ tradition of freedom, which
views liberty not as Hobbes saw it, which was the right to be left alone, but as people being born
with the right to flourish and personally develop as individuals. This early tradition of positive
liberty paved the way for a modern form of liberalism which saw the state expand from merely a
leviathan, to a provider of needs and entitlements that allow human potential to flourish in terms
of health, education and other areas of social development. Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke and many
early liberal thinkers are credited with the formation of what is known as a contractarian view.
This emphasises the importance of social contracts that establish the rights and responsibilities
of both the government and the governed. These contracts take the form of bargains that
individuals agree to in order to form a society, and to bargains that civil societies strike with the
state to ensure that the government acts in conformity with ‘general will of the people’.
The modern philosopher John Rawls departs slightly from the idea of ‘god-given’ or natural
rights to the notion of distributive justice. Rawls developed the idea of a ‘veil of ignorance’ in
which, if each individual could decide what kind of society – or social contract – to construct
before actually entering the living world, most would choose a more equal or fair society since
they would not want to risk being born into the bottom position in a less equal society. Rawls’
reasoning follows the positive liberty tradition and opens up room for thinking about the role
of the state in allocating assistance and resources to those whose individual capacity is not
flourishing or is under-resourced. Redistribution leads to a reduction of material inequalities and
can be achieved in many direct and indirect ways through economic and social policies such as
taxation and social spending.
Conservatism
Schools of political thought often develop in reaction to existing political ideas. Conservatism
developed as a reaction against liberalism’s challenge to established or traditional systems
of government. Conservatism then is sometimes called reactionary because, in contrast to
liberalism’s sense of forward progression, conservatism attempts to reform or turn back social
changes out of a desire to ‘conserve’ traditions. Traditions are important to conservatives
because they are associated with continuity and stability, and are seen as the accumulated
wisdom of the past. The desire to conserve social practices or institutions is also linked to a sense
of social and historical belonging. In this way, conservatives view society as organic – structured
by what they see as ‘natural’ institutions such as traditional family structures, local communities,
and the nation. In comparison to liberalism, conservatism is corporatist, insofar as it emphasises
collective and traditional forms of society. Conservatives are therefore more likely to use the
language of patriotism and nationalism to rally a group than they are to proclaim the rights of
the individual against the society of which she or he is a member.
The emphasis on organicist views of society based on tradition was bolstered by the
philosophical and scientific development of the 19th century and by a misreading of Charles
Darwin’s writings on natural selection. Darwin’s main proposition, often wrongly called the
‘survival of the fittest’ thesis, is popular with conservatives because it seems to support their belief
that there is a natural aristocracy – a born class of leaders and elites with qualities that cannot
be acquired merely through effort or achievement. Conservatism’s link with organicism leads
to a view of authority ‘from above’ rather than ‘from below’ because it views people as having
been born unequal and therefore in possession of unequal potential for future development.
A paternalistic vein of conservatism is consistent with this view of a naturally bred elite class
because such an aristocracy should be the caretakers and leaders of society. Paternalism is a
policy or attitude that demonstrates care for those who are, or are viewed as, unable to help
themselves and implies the help of a superior to a less developed inferior. It differs from the
liberal idea of redistributive justice because the help which people receive under a paternal
relationship is given charitably, not because the giver thinks the receiver is capable of becoming
an equal.
New Right and neo-liberalism

In contrast to the paternalistic tradition of conservatism, the New Right and neo-liberal
versions of neo-conservatism take an entirely different direction. As will be discussed in later
sections (see Section 4.2), neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism revisit Hobbes’ leviathan and the
concept of negative liberty, but combine the self-centred focus of negative liberty with market-
based capitalist ideology. Neo-conservatism is like the conservatism discussed above in that it
emphasises the return of tradition, stable family and national corporatist structures, and in that
it tends to use patriotic and nationalistic language. It is a reaction against multiculturalism and
what is viewed as an ‘anything goes’ attitude when it comes to identity that can undermine a
state’s national unity. The New Right combine cultural neo-conservatism – which is corporatist
– with economic neo-liberalism – which is atomistic, concluding that a strong state breeds
dependence, and that national governments should therefore limit themselves to protecting
economic individualism.
28
Section 1.4: Political thought 2
Introduction 29
Socialism 29
Socialism in practice 30
Other ideologies 31
Introduction
The end of the Cold War in the late 1980s marked the conclusion of an intense ideological stand-
off between Soviet political and economic systems and US liberal democratic capitalism. The
apparent victory of the US system led political scientist Francis Fukuyama to proclaim that the
world had reached, ‘the end of history’. Fukuyama’s proclamation did not foretell an apocalyptic
end of time. Rather, his thesis referred to the end of the ideological battle between state
socialism and liberal democractic capitalism, which he saw as the primary driver of history in the
20th century. The victory of liberal democracy and capitalism, he argued, would soon result in
their global acceptance. Given the defeat of the socialist political project around 1990, what is
the future for socialism as a form of political thought, and what remains of it in the 21st century?
In this section you will explore the roots of communal and socialist thought as distinct from
the liberal and conservative traditions discussed in the previous section. While liberal and
conservative traditions arose in the 17th and 18th centuries, communism and socialism arose
in response to social changes linked to industrial development in the 19th century. Further
ideologies which arose in the 20th century such as fascism and anarchy will also be discussed.
Socialism
Socialism developed in the 19th century out of the work of social reformists in Britain and France
who were concerned about the vast and rising social inequality generated by industrialisation.
Socialism is a term coined by Henri de Saint-Simon in contrast to the atomistic ‘individualism’
of liberalism, which Saint-Simon worried led to a society based on egoism at the expense of
cooperation and the public good. As a political philosophy, socialism includes a wide range
of forms. As an economic system, socialism has taken on different characteristics in different
countries. Socialists generally agree that capitalism concentrates power and wealth in the hands
of a small segment of society who control all the technology, machinery, resources and other
means of production. This wealthy capitalist segment gains its wealth through a system of
exploitation, forcing the majority of the population to sell their labour at unfair prices in order
to be able to buy the things they need for survival. This creates an society of highly unequal
classes. The result is a society that does not provide equal opportunities for individuals of all
classes to reach their potential. Moreover, the domination of politics by the capitalist class
means that government will use available socio-economic and political resources to protect the
interests of the dominant class rather than those of the general public.
Vladimir Lenin, the Russian communist revolutionary and political theorist, proclaimed that under
socialism there would be no rich or poor, but that everyone would work. The workers’ state
would also belong to all citizens through common ownership. While liberalism emphasises
social equality at birth, socialists seek to tackle inequalities by changing the environment in
which people live after birth. Rather than seeing humanity as being born innately equal or
unequal, as argued by liberals and conservatives, socialists see man as being continually shaped
and reshaped by his environment and conditions. For example, Welsh social reformer Robert
Owen observed in the 1800s that no one could be solely responsible for his or her own actions
since people are products of their heredity and environment. Socialism therefore argues in
favour of programmes that improve people’s life chances, such as education and labour reform.
Socialism does not view human potential and human nature as fixed. Both are open to change
through cultivation. This viewpoint differs from conservatism, which focuses on an ‘organic’
social order. For socialists, no social order is ‘organic’; instead it is thought to evolve as a result of
social relations that make some individuals into winners at the expense of hard-working losers.
Socialists therefore promote reform in the belief that humans can improve their lives if wealth
and resources are allocated equally.
Early reformers like Robert Owen formed small utopian communities which tried to abandon
or isolate themselves from capitalism – a school of thought called ‘utopian socialism’. Later
variants of 19th century socialism advocated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels abandoned this
goal in favour of taking control of the state in order to ‘crowd out’ capitalism by emphasising
economic planning and common ownership as an alternative to capitalist relations. Thus,
whereas Owen’s utopian socialism draws on humanist and ethical principles, the 19th century’s
‘scientific socialism’ is a form of revisionism. This seeks to modify established beliefs and
advocates for the abandonment of current principles. Revisionistic ’scientific socialists’ therefore
seek to replace capitalist relations with socialist systems of common ownership.
Socialism in practice
If you look around the globe, there are only few countries today that are still officially socialist in
the Cold War sense of the word – with a centrally organised economy and principles of common
ownership. With the exception of Cuba, most are clustered in Asia, for example, China, Vietnam,
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Laos). Only
50 years ago, there were at least 25 states that considered themselves to be socialist, with the
Soviet Union forming the longest-lived and largest polity within the Socialist International.
Revolutionary socialism, which sought to seize state power and change the institutions and
relations in society completely towards a planned economy and national ownership of the
means of production, evolved into single party states which called themselves communist, a
term used by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels to describe the final stage of socialist development.
These states practise a brand of socialism best described as Marxist-Leninism. This calls for
control of the state by a vanguard party: a set of professional revolutionaries who dedicate
their lives to leading the struggle towards Marx’s communist goal.
Though revolutionary socialism has declined since 1990, reformist socialism continues to flourish
in many parts of the world. Reformist socialism embraces constitutional politics, meaning that
socialist politicians participates in competitive elections against other political parties. This is
very different from Marxist-Leninist communism, in which there is no political competition and
a single party governs society and economy alike. Over many decades, reformist socialism has
since evolved into different forms of social democracy in places like Germany and Sweden.
This philosophy encourages socialist parties to govern via the electoral process according
to constitutional practices. Portugal and Sri Lanka, for example, have enshrined democratic
socialism in their constitutions in order to combine the benefits of socialist redistribution with
the stability afforded by representative democracy.
With its focus on equality and human progress, how does socialism differ from liberalism? The
key elements of socialism are the ideas of community, fraternity, social equality, need, class
and ownership. Rather than taking the individual as a starting point, socialism starts with a
vision of a common humanity and the idea that individuals are shaped by their interaction
with their communities. Individual behaviour from the socialist perspective is thus more a
matter of social factors than biological ones. The values of solidarity or comradeship arise from
favouring cooperation over competition, and the sense that unity and equality in society are
more important than division. The last three principles of socialism – need, class and common
ownership – relate to the material side of socialism. This seeks to redistribute wealth according
to individuals’ needs rather than their positions in a class system, taking ‘from each according to
his ability’, while distributing resources ‘to each according to his need.’ It reflects the belief that
goods should be distributed based on human need rather than on the basis of merit and work,
and has a moral component that pure materially driven competition does not. Socialism, as a
reformist project, seeks to end class inequality and sees the revolutionary worker as the main
source of change in human history.
Other ideologies
Anarchy is a belief that the state should not exist or is undesirable. There are both liberal and
social traditions of anarchy, both of which advocate turning towards autonomous community
level government and away from a centralised state.
Social democracy differs from democratic socialism because social democrats try to
advocate the cooperative values of socialism within a capitalist system. Democratic socialism
seeks to establish an economy with economic democracy, while rejecting Marxist-Leninist
centralised vanguard parties for a more inclusive form of government.
While liberalism, conservatism and socialism were established prior to the 20th century, fascism
arrived in the early decades of the 20th century as a reflection of growing nationalisms in the
modern world. The core of fascism is the national community, which it sees in entirely organicist
terms. Fascism disagrees profoundly with liberalism when it claims that freedom, equality and
rationalism are less important than heroism, unity and national self-assertion. Benito Mussolini,
the leader and major proponent of Italian fascism, once declared, ‘...everything in the state,
nothing against the state, nothing outside the state’. In this way, fascism is totalitarian because
it is all-encompassing. Although some communist regimes such as the Soviet Union have
also exhibited totalitarian traits, fascism and communism differ in that fascism transcends the
individual, while socialism and communism are still founded on humanist principles that reflect a
concern for individual welfare, needs and progress. Fascism is thus an extreme glorification of the
state over both the individual and society.
There is a degree of fundamentalism involved in fascism that is common to other ideologies as
well. Fundamentalism is a style of thought in which certain principles are seen as essential ‘truths’
that cannot be challenged. Other forms of fundamentalism include religious fundamentalism,
which may either advocate an anarchic system with no state at all, or a theocratic course in
which state policy is controlled by religious rather than secular or civic law. Incidentally, it is
important to note that secularism does not call for the abolition of religion, but simply argues
that religion should not intrude on the affairs of the state. It therefore calls a separation between
the civic and religious realms, whereas proponents of theocracy see these realms as innately
fused. Turkey is an interesting case of secularism, in which the military has intervened regularly
in domestic politics to keep religious parties and religious influences out of secular politics.
Meanwhile, following the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has undergone
a theocratic revolution in which religious leaders have taken on the role of supreme arbiter in the
country’s political affairs.
Activity
After reviewing the VLE resources for this section, please list historical country examples
of either revolutionary or reformist socialist regimes. Discuss key similarities and
differences as well as what form of government accompanies each type of regime.
Revolutionary socialism Reformist socialism Form of government: one
(communism) (constitutional socialism) party, multi-party, military
33
Test your knowledge and understanding
Section 1.1
1. Briefly explain what politics is and why it is important for humans.
2. ‘Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable, the art of the next best.’ Discuss.
3. What is the relation between power and politics?
4. Explain Luke’s three faces of power.
5. What is authority and what are the most common types of authority?
Section 1.2
1. Why is it important to study politics and how can we study it?
2. ‘Politics is not an exact science…it is an art’. Discuss.
3. Can politics be ‘scientific’?
4. What are the main research strategies and why are they used?
5. ‘In politics what cannot be “objectively” measured is not worthy of study’. Discuss.
6. ‘Politics is just about understanding the interests and actions of political leaders’. Discuss.
Section 1.3
1. Justify from the standpoint of conservatism the importance of a ruling elite and religion for
ruling a country.
2. Explain three fundamental elements of conservative ideology.
3. During the 19th century, liberals and conservative competed for power in most European
countries. What where the main differences between these two streams of thought?
Section 1.4
1. Socialism is extinct. Discuss.
2. Fascism is just an extreme form of conservatism. Discuss.
3. Have we reached the philosophical ‘end of history’?
4. Are liberalism and theocracy compatible?
34
Concluding comments
Politics is about human relations and how we interact with our social environment. It is about
conflict of interests and allocation of limited resources. There are nonetheless many accepted
different definitions of politics. Each of them covers a partial aspect of this broad concept.
Politics is pervasive in humans’ lives. It is fundamental in how people understand the world.
Politics defines how people organise their communities and how these communities are
governed and interact with each other. Politics regulates the allocation of public resources,
obligations and rights. Power, authority and legitimacy are basic elements of politics.
The study of politics is prominent in academia. Nonetheless, different traditions coexist and
there are many sub-disciplines within the broad academic field of politics.
Different sub-disciplines may look at different aspects of politics or approach the same
aspects with different methodologies and assumptions. There are still unresolved
philosophical debates on whether politics can be considered fully scientific, on the scope and
validity of the findings and on what the best methods to approach the study of politics are.
Case studies and comparative studies are the most common research strategies in politics.
Long-standing traditions in Western political thought have different views on the issue of
human equality, and focus on different units of analysis – the individual, the nation or the
society – in the case of liberalism, conservatism and socialism.
A reminder of your learning outcomes

Having completed this unit, and the Essential reading and activities, you should be able to:
describe and discuss the different dimensions of power and authority
discuss to what extent politics can be considered a science and some of the theoretical
dilemmas faced by those academics who study politics
critically distinguish between the following political ideologies:
liberalism
conservatism
socialism
other ideologies
make use of real world examples to illustrate political ideological debate
politics
power
authority
agent and structure
case studies and comparative studies
theocracy/secularism
fundamentalism
Unit 1: Introducing politics and political thought • Concluding comments 35
critically assess and distinguish between liberal, conservative, and social arguments
identify single- and multi-party forms of socialism and be cognisant of their general historical
and philosophical lineage.
36
Aim 37
Further reading 38
References cited 38

Unit 2: States, nations and regimes 37

The primary focus of political study is usually the state. What are the historical origins of the
state, and how did we become a world governed by nation states? What communities qualify
to be formally considered nations? What are the key characteristics of the two major regime
types – democratic and authoritarian – governing the contemporary world? On what basis is rule
established and run in each kind of regime? This unit covers the historical and conceptual basis
of political study and, in the last two sections, provides a foundation for comparative analysis of
government. You will be able to recognise both the large-scale trends, which led to the global
rise of the nation state, as well as how different political patterns of rule have evolved. This unit
connects to later units, such as Unit 4, which further discusses issues in comparative government.
Week Unit Section
5 2: States, nations and regimes 2.1: States and regimes
6 2.2: Nations and nationalism
7 2.3: Democratic regimes
8 2.4: Authoritarian regimes
Aim
This unit aims to:
introduce you to causes and course of the transition from feudalism to a system dominated
by the territorial state.
Learning outcomes
able to:
describe and apply the following concepts in appropriate contexts:
state
regime
sovereignty
territoriality
nationalism – various forms
nation
outline the key institutional and political differences between democratic and authoritarian
regimes, as well as the various types of democratic and authoritarian regimes
discuss the tensions and tradeoffs between participation and representation
critically analyse themes of inclusion and exclusion in different political regimes, particularly as
regards citizenship and participation
identify on what grounds rule is established and who the key rulers are in democratic and
authoritarian systems of governance and distinguish such concepts in practice through
application to an actual case.
Essential reading
Section 2.1
Heywood (2013) pp.56–60, 80–82.
Section 2.2
Heywood (2013) pp.108–122.
Section 2.3
Heywood (2013) pp.86–105.
Section 2.4
Heywood (2013) pp.71–72, 269, 275, 277–83.
Further reading
Collier, D. and S. Levitsky ‘Democracy with adjectives: conceptual innovation in comparative research’,
World Politics 49(3) 1997, pp.430–51.
Finer, S.E. ‘Conceptual prologue’ in S.E. Finer, The history of government from the earliest times. Vol. 1
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) [ISBN 9780198207894].
Gandhi, J. ’What is dictatorship?’ in J. Gandhi Political institutions under dictatorship. (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2008) [ISBN 9780521897952] pp.2–16.
Geddes, B. ‘What do we know about democratization after 20 years?’, Annual Review of Political Science 2
1999, pp.115–44.
Hintze, O. ‘The formation of states and constitutional development: a study in history and politics’ and
‘Military organisation and the organisation of the state’ in The historical essays of Otto Hintze. Edited
by F. Gilbert. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975) [ISBN 9780195018196].
Hyok Kang, This is paradise! My North Korean childhood. (New York: Little, Brown Book Group, 2007)
[ISBN 9780316729666].
Levitsky, S. and L. Way ‘Elections without democracy: The rise of competitive authoritarianism’, Journal of
Democracy 13(2) 2002, pp.51–65.
Linz, J. and A. Stepan ’Modern nondemocratic regimes‘, in Problems of democratic transition and
consolidation: southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe. (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1996) [ISBN 9780801851582] pp.38–54.
Poggie, G. The development of the modern state: a sociological introduction. (Palo Alto: Stanford University
Press, 1978) [ISBN 9780804710428].
Wimmer, A. and Y. Feinstein ‘The rise of the nation state across the world, 1816–2001’, American
Sociological Review 75(5) 2010, pp.764–90.
Zakaria, F. The future of freedom: illiberal democracy at home and abroad. (New York: W.W. Norton & Co.,
2007) [ISBN 9780393331523].
References cited
Anderson, B. Imagined communities: reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. (London: Verso,
1991) [ISBN 9780860915461].
Dahl, R. A preface to demcratic theory. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956)
[ISBN 9780226134260].
Gellner, E. Nations and nationalism. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983)
[ISBN 9780801492631].
Hobsbawm, E. Nations and nationalism since 1780. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)
[ISBN 9780521439619].
Huntington, S.P. ‘Democracy’s Third Wave’ in Larry Diamond and Mark F. Plattner (eds) The
global resurgence of democracy. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996) second
edition [ISBN 0801853052].
Schmitter, P. and T.L. Karl ‘What democracy is and is not’ in Diamond, L. and M.F. Plattner (eds)
The global resurgence of democracy. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996) second
edition [ISBN 9780801853050] pp.49–62.
Smith, A. The ethnic origins of nations. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986) [ISBN 9780631161691].
Spruyt, H. The sovereign state and its competitors. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996)
[ISBN 9780691029108].
Tilly, C. The formation of national states in Western Europe. (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1975) [ISBN 9780691007724].
Tilly, C. ‘War making and state making as organized crime’ in Evans, P., D. Rueschemeyer and
T. Skocpol (eds) Bringing the state back in. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)
[ISBN 9780521313131].
40
Section 2.1: States and regimes
Introduction 41
State formation 41
State expansion 42
One world, a variety of states 43

Unit 2: States, nations and regimes • Section 2.1: States and regimes 41
Introduction
It is hard to imagine a time before the political system of nation states we now inhabit, but not
long ago, states were not the only political units on the historical map and they may not be in
the future.
The state finds its origins in medieval Europe (c.1000–1500). Rule in the Middle Ages was
dominated by the Roman Catholic Church, monarchs and feudal lords. The umbrella of religion
allowed the Church to rule over a vast cosmological empire, with kings serving as agents of
a higher ecclesiastical order through the principle of divine right, or ‘god-given’ authority. At
a lower level, noblemen exercised more direct control over subjects living in their immediate
domain through feudal society. Between the power of the Church, which operated across
borders, and the everyday forms of domination exercised by feudal lords – which operated at a
very local level, how did the state – which is stuck between these extremes – become a universal
form of political organisation over the last 500 years?
This section discusses the origins and formation of the early modern state and the social and
political developments that gave rise to it. One source of these developments arose out of
causes external to the state itself – such as changes to the nature of warfare. Others involved a
shift in the ways we legitimise authority, moving from absolutist rule based on an idea of divine
right, to centralised authority based on contractrarian relations (see Section 1.3).
State formation: warfare and the birth of institutions in the

premodern era
How did the borderless religious kingdoms that populated 15th-century Europe transform into a
system of territorially bounded political states? Charles Tilly (1985) has compared the process of
state formation to a protection racket. According to him, ‘war made the state, and the state made
war’ (Tilly, 1975). This thesis argues that as various lords competed for revenue and loyalty from
their subjects, they turned to kings as the most efficient providers of protection. This displaced
lesser lords and led to increasingly centralised authorities that saw it as their role to provide
protection to their subordinates in exchange for revenue.
Changes in technology have transformed the scale and organisation of rule. The introduction
of gunpowder in the 14th century phased out the era of knights on horseback and replaced it
with much more expensive armies of organised infantry armed with firearms and heavy artillery.
Standing armies swelled in the following 400 years of European history, growing in size tenfold
in England and France between the 15th and 18th centuries. The growth of large armies helps
to explain the drop in the number of independent political units from 1500–1800. As polities
competed for manpower and revenue to support standing armies, they were forced to protect
themselves from one another, often by annexing neighbouring territories. This led to political
units of increasing size and decreasing number.
The growth of large standing armies was accompanied by an increase in the number of
administrators needed to recruit, train, equip and pay them. This was the start of premodern
bureaucracy, when kings relied on to extract resources and taxes from society in order to pay
for military protection. The growth of this bureaucracy boosted the ability of the early state to
intervene in and extract resources from society, and enabled the penetration of state power
over a larger territory. As kings and their administrators acquired the ability to collect resources
from ever-larger domains, their budgets grew to pay for the establishment of strong military
and bureaucratic institutions. These parallel developments mark the centralisation of political
authority and helped to define the territorial boundaries of Europe’s early states.
State expansion: legitimising the state in newly emerging polities

Under feudalism, a tri-level political order was based on that of heaven. At the top were ‘those
that prayed.’ The religious top level of the order were served by ‘those who fought’ – the military
and aristocracy. Lastly, ‘those who worked – the commoners and serfs – occupied the bottom of
the hierarchy. The state’s need to mobilise increasing amounts of revenue to pay for its growing
military and bureaucratic organs transformed ‘those who worked’ into budget-generating tax
payers, changing the nature of the social relations which had underpinned the previous order.
How did ‘those who worked’ eventually come to support the rise and expansion of the state?
The sovereign state gained legitimacy as a result of three key processes: the defeat of
transnational theocracratic trends in Europe that empowered the Roman Catholic Church against
territorial governments; the transfer of citizens’ loyalty to a state-supported national identity; and
the building of trust, accountability and legitimacy through ongoing negotiations between the
state and the society over which it exercised control.
The first triumph of the state involved rule based on territoriality. This turning point is most
notably associated with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years’ War and
established the right of states and their territorial rulers to control the exercise of religion within
their boundaries. Consequently, this diminished the previous wide-ranging authority of the
Church and established borders to papal dominion. The idea of a theocratic, universalist and non-
territorial organisation based on a Christian community was overruled and displaced by territorial
identification. By the 1500s, the principle of cuius region, eius religio – ‘whose realm, his religion’
– had already become a precursor to the definitive 1648 Treaty which overturned papal rule. Max
Weber’s observation that the state is the entity which ‘upholds the claim to the monopoly of the
legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order’ defines the state as successfully
claiming authority over the legitimate use of violence in a given territory. While private warfare
was permitted under feudalism, in the Westphalian era, the application of physical coercion was
regulated, delegated to and permitted only by the state.
Alongside establishing territorial sovereignty, the state also attended to the issue of mass
belief and legitimacy. By overturning the universalism of theocratic (religious) rule, territorial
rulers then faced the challenge of alternative areas of identification and loyalty from below.
Feudal obligations based on kinship, clans, ethnic community and trans-territorial loyalties posed
a challenge to the state and were met with a range of new policies. The newly emerging polities
of early states was accompanied by the construction of national languages, compulsory military
service, and the introduction of public education to forge ‘peasants into Frenchmen’ (Weber,
1979; Spruyt, 1996). Peasants were asked to defend the new national territorial community with
their lives, above and beyond existing as mere taxpayers, as they had in the feudal years. The
decay of local ties and local identification paved the way for the construction of the national
citizen. This construction of nationality, although there are debates about its precise origins (as
we shall see in Section 2.2), went hand in hand with the expansion of the state as it set about the
task of public provisioning and protection.
The greater the contractrarian nature of rule, the greater the legitimacy the state developed
through popular support. Even authoritarian states could count on their citizens for support
in times of need, such as war. However, the era of absolute monarchical authority and the
rule of kings did not last long after the establishment of territorial sovereignty. Just as warfare
undid the foundations of religious empire, social mobilisation eventually did away with the
notion of absolutist rule in favour of popular sovereignty. Rule by the ‘those who worked’ over
‘those who fought’ and ‘those who prayed’ became a reality. The birth of the state in the 17th
century brought with it classical liberal rule, the idea of a social contract and the leviathan
(as discussed by Hobbes, see Section 1.3). However, by the 18th century, Britain (the home
of classical liberalism) functioned on the basis of an uneasy co-existence between monarchy and
parliament, two pillars of British authority and eventually settled into monarchical constitutionalism
(or constitutional monarchy). This meant that the monarch no longer had absolute power, had to
govern through parliament and became more figurehead than a ruler, although still retained some
powers. In France, the monarchical system gave way to full democracy in the form of the French
Revolution in 1789 and the abolition of the institution of monarchy altogether. In what was a mass
revolt, Louis XVI was deposed and a republic based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity
was declared in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, giving rise to modern republicanism. The
American Revolution or War of Independence from 1776–1783 saw it break away from British rule to
establish a federal republic along classic liberal lines.
One world, a variety of states

How then, from the rise of early states in premodern Europe, did we get to a contemporary world
characterised by a variety of states? According to Heywood, a political system or regime is a term that,
‘encompasses not only the mechanisms of government and the institutions of the state, but also the
structures and processes through which these interact with larger society’ (2007, p.26). Governments
may come and go in dynastic succession, but a political regime is enduring, and the relations which
make up the complex whole determine the distribution of power and resources. While secular
liberalism went hand in hand with the development of territorial European nation states in the 18th-
century Age of Enlightenment and political thought, ideology, religion and politics still play a role in
posing challenges to the notion of territorial sovereignty.
Ideology describes an ideal political system and prescribes the rules for achieving and maintaining it.
Those in power preserve and promote the ideology. Ideological writings and principles are a source
of law. Religion explains the creation and working of the universe and sets guidelines for human
behaviour. Many religions have rules about who should rule, how they should rule, and sacred texts and
beliefs are a source of law. Politics determines ‘who gets what and why.’ Policies change over time as
sources of power, rulers and institutions change, and laws are made by those in charge.
We have already discussed the ideology, religion, and politics of the premodern feudal era and the
impact of the Enlightenment on the formation of territorial states and popular rule. Ideology, religion
and politics in the 21st century have also come a long way. The 20th century saw the rise of non-
territorial political ideologies such as socialism, the return of religion and theocratic rule within national
borders (such as the Iranian Revolution of 1979 resulting in the establishment of an Islamic Republic)
and spread of successive ‘waves of democratisation’ following the political independence of many
former imperial colonies.
The next three sections of this unit examine the rise of different types of contemporary regimes, their
basis for authority, and their sources of legitimacy and stability. In Section 2.2 we explore the concept
of the nation – a self-defining community – and the role of nationalism in expanding the enterprise
of statehood. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 examine democratic and authoritarian forms of rule, and the many
types of institutional and social arrangements which underpin their legitimacy and stability.
Activity
Compare and contrast the (pre-state) medieval and (state) modern periods according to
the following categories. If you are working in a group, please complete the chart with
reference to different countries.
The Western state

Medieval Modern
Territory
Society
Force
Size
Function of
authority
45
Section 2.2: Nations and nationalism
Introduction 46
Nationalism: cultural versus political community 46
Varieties of nationalism: early and late developing nations 47
The de-coupling of nation states: a world of nations or a world

of states? 48
Unit 2: States, nations and regimes • Section 2.2: Nations and nationalism 46
Introduction
In the last section we discussed the rise of territorial sovereignty and state rule and the
transformation of feudal polities into larger-scale polities that included significant bureaucratic
organisations to provide revenue and mobilise manpower. The shift from feudal to national
polities marks the birth of the nation between the 16th and 18th centuries in Europe, leading
to the eventual rise of an ‘ideal’ nation state from a combination of late medieval developments
and the principle of popular sovereignty. This unit takes the late medieval period as a point
of departure and focuses on the development of modern nations and nationalism. As the state
system has expanded across the globe, how have different human communities responded to
the concept of nationalism, its territorialisation and de-territorialisation? What political forms
has nationalism assumed and what causes has it articulated? How can we explain the growth of
nationalism at a time when states are sometimes considered to be in decline?
The central issues examined in this unit concern different conceptions of nationalism, its
definition and the way that has changed over time, the forms it has taken in different parts of the
world and different moments in time, and where the notion of nationalism may be headed in the
future.
Nationalism: cultural versus political community

Watch the news on television and you will often notice the terms ‘nation’ and ‘state’ used
interchangeably. The annual Six Nations Championship is a rugby competition involving six
European teams representing the countries of England, France, Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales.
The renowned United Nations (UN), an international organisation and multilateral institution, is
made up of 193 member states. UN member delegations come from areas of the world with
mutually recognised territorially sovereign status, and yet this popular interchangeability of the
words ‘nation’ and the ‘state’ is reflected in the very name of the organisation. Are the state and
the nation interchangeable? Not to a historian of nationalism, a social scientist interested in state
relations or an international lawyer. There are a number of analytical distinctions to be made and
the stakes concerning these distinctions are high – they could mean the difference for a stateless
minority between having rights or life in a refugee camp.
The nation, broadly defined, is a human community with a shared culture and history. According
to Heywood (2013) nations are, ‘complex phenomena that are shaped by a collection of cultural,
political, and psychological factors’. A group of people bound together by a common language,
religion, history and traditions could consider itself a nation, even if it exhibits various levels of
heterogeneity within its boundaries. The nation as a cultural community traces its roots to the
18th century and the romanticism of writers such as Johann Gottfried Herder who thought of
national groups as having an ‘innate character.’ This innate character, according to Herder, is
most importantly expressed through distinctive traditions and memories, which are captured
by myths, legends and songs, and which give language a place of great significance in the
notion of the nation as a cultural entity. Herder’s views are romantic to the extent that nations
and their identity were seen as arising ‘naturally’ or organically, stretching way back into history
and forward into the future; the characteristics of nationalism according to Herder, were thus
considered primordial or as integral to a community as DNA to an individual. This notion is
captured in the Germanic term volksgeist, which means ‘spirit of the people’. This view is further
reiterated by scholars such as Anthony Smith, who extended the idea of organic continuity
within communities across time in The ethnic origins of nations (1986). The primordial or organic
view of national identity is a challenge to the idea and institution of statehood because it asserts
that premodern ethnic communities predate the achievement of statehood and the quest for
national political independence.
Other scholars view the development of nationalism as part of the process of modernisation
and state-building. The key era of nation formation for scholars like Ernest Gellner (1983) was the
era of industrialisation in Europe, which reorganised previous premodern societies, structures
and values, and promoted new sources of allegiance and cultural cohesion. Nationalism served a
role in easing the social tumult of industrialisation and rising urbanisation, migration and a sense
of atomism in the cities. Benedict Anderson has portrayed the development of the modern
nation as an ‘imagined community’ (1991). According to him, nations exist on the subjective and
sentimental level; people hold on to memories and social ties even when there is no face-to-face
contact to sustain a genuine community, and in doing so, they create common identity.
The modernisation school of nationalism gives way to the idea of the nation as a political and
cultural community. Rather than emphasising cultural or ethnic identity, this view of the nation
emphasises political allegiance, ideas of democracy and political freedom, and civic loyalties or
patriotism. According to Eric Hobsbawm (1992) nations are ‘invented’ and develop a mythology
to cover up the things that really underpin nationhood. One example of this in the United
States is the rhetoric surrounding the ‘founding fathers’ – the key political figures responsible
for the founding of the US constitution. Despite 200 years of social upheaval and change, the
mythology and symbolism of the ‘founding fathers’ surrounding the political constitution has
contributed to its longevity and integrity not only as a document or artefact that can be revised
or redrafted, but as a sacred institution to be honoured and which is above revision. Marxist
belief considers nationalism a form of bourgeois ideology through which elites prevent the
threat of social revolt through class solidarity by asserting the importance of national loyalty.
Whether invented or arising out of a genuine mass desire for shared freedom, some nations such
as the United States do not have the organic ethnic pedigree referred to by Herder. These ‘land
of immigrants’ countries have a multicultural and multi-ethnic character with a citizenry from
diverse backgrounds, making multinational nationhood a reality and an example of voluntary
shared common values or goals, as opposed to a coherent pre-existing cultural identity.
Varieties of nationalism: early and late developing nations

Nationhood has taken on many forms in the course of time, exhibiting a certain amount of
‘elasticity’ by stretching the boundaries of large colonial empires, and contracting the boundaries
of many 21st-century newly independent states. European nation states formed in the 19th
century were all justified on nationalist grounds. However, many went on to extend the
boundaries of their rule in other parts of the world in the age of imperialism and the epoch of
global territoriality. The expansion of British colonial rule and the pursuit of its economic and
military interests were justified on political and cultural nationalist grounds. After the principle of
nation state territoriality replaced religious empire in the 17th century, how then, did the nation
become the basis for modern imperialism led by the state?
The violent, aggressive and expansionist character of European colonial nationalism developed
alongside late 19th-century commercial and military intervention on the African continent.
Major European nations (the so-called great powers) carved up African lands and divided
existing ethno-linguistic and kinship communities in the ‘Scramble for Africa’, often with popular
support. Jingoism (extreme patriotism in the form of popular support for an aggressive
foreign policy, often from citizens of the great powers), was characteristic of the imperial age
(Heywood, 2013, p.120). National prestige and popular nationalism in the European north was
seen to be increasingly linked to the ‘possession’ of a territorial empire and the conquering of
subject people. Extreme forms of popular nationalism and jingoism are known to place the idea
above the views, rights and liberties of any individual, and thus fanatical patriotism, majoritarian
nationalism and the valuing of unity over citizen is antithetical to the individual-affirming
principles of a liberal democracy. The belief in equal rights and self-determination at the core
of liberal nationalism is not only antithetical to the corporatism of extreme nationalism, but to
the rights-oppressing nature of colonial rule for what were subject peoples. Subjects of empire –
those who were governed by colonial nationalism – did not benefit from the full rights of liberal
citizenship, nor the participatory aspects of consent which are the hallmark of contractarian
forms of rule.
The contradiction between colonial rule and developing principles of self-determination soon
led to anti-colonial forms of nationalism. One of the most successful was Mohandas Gandhi’s
‘Quit India’ movement, which used widespread civil disobedience to call for immediate
independence from the British empire. The idea of ‘national liberation’ was shared by a wide
variety of African and Asian movements for independence. The success of these movements
eventually turned nationalism into a political creed around the world. These forms of anti-
colonialism drew on classical European nationalism, inspired by the idea of national self-
determination. Twenty-first century anti-colonial movements not only called for an end to
political subordination, but also encompassed a desire for social development and better
economic relations with the industrialised north of European states and the USA. Post-colonial
nationalism thus carries many of these social and economic goals forward into current national
projects.
The de-coupling of nation states: a world of nations or a world

of states?
We can see from the history of anti-colonial and post-independence countries that nationalism
– however defined – is used as a tool of statecraft to consolidate power. From Egypt to China in
its communist peak, to Iran with its mixture of theocratic and anti-imperial nationalism, a political
change meant increasingly that the nation engaged in a process of state-building rather than the
state creating a nation.
While the 20th century saw the rise of many new states formed from the process of
decolonisation, it also saw the unravelling of large territorial states, particularly federal states,
into smaller republics. The end of the Cold War and the transformation of Eastern European and
Soviet communism saw the unravelling of the Soviet Union into many different states on the
basis of national self-determination. In one of the most gruelling examples, the breakup of the
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1992–1995 has been categorised as both a period
of moves for secessionism by elites of ethnic groups claiming national autonomy, and as a
civil war, as it could not be decided within the former Yugoslavia or internationally whether the
new territorial and identity-based borders which were being redrawn were abolishing a nation
state or creating nation states. The massacre of religious and ethnic populations in the struggle
to conform to the idea of an ethno-homogenous nationalism resulted in large-scale violence
and genocide known as ‘ethnic cleansing’. The appeal of the nation state ideal is that it offers
nationalists the prospect of constituting a political community at a level they think is the most
viable political unit. But is the nation state the most viable unit?
In nationalism’s historic heartland, European countries have moved into what some call a period
of post-nationalism, as borders between political communities become more porous, citizens
become more mobile and multilingual, and the European Union pushes for further social and
economic coordination and political cooperation. However, whatever the design and creation of
supranational institutions at the EU level, they will not rival the capacity of national governments
to command popular allegiance or establish legitimacy. Whatever the fate of the state or the
nation, it is likely to be some time before either of these phenomena become completely de-
coupled from the other.
Activity
Find lyrics from a national anthem of your choice. Try not to choose your own country’s
anthem. Analyse the lyrics of the anthem and highlight phrases that reflect political
or cultural forms of nationalism. What can you interpret about the form of nationalism
expressed in the meanings and allusions of the song?
50
Section 2.3: Democratic regimes
Introduction 51
Direct democracy 51
Representative democracy 52
Deliberative democracy 52
Elitist views of representation 53
Democratisation 53
Unit 2: States, nations and regimes • Section 2.3: Democratic regimes 51
Introduction
For the first time in history, most of the world’s people live under democratic rule, or ‘rule by the
people’ – however, this has only recently been the case. In the latter half of the 20th century,
the number of democracies in the world increased rapidly, from fewer than 40 to more than 85
countries in the world stretching from Europe to Latin America and parts of Asia and Africa. Why
do so many groups and societies across the world struggle for this thing called democracy?
In previous sections you covered the concept of rule, governance and the right to self-
governance by a people or nation. This section highlights the core concepts and principles of
democratic systems while discussing the patterns of variation across democratic states and
societies. As democracy is built upon rule by the people, it is also a form of regime. ‘Rule by
the people’ comes in many forms and many democratic forms. In this unit you will learn and
be able to distinguish the different ways in which democratic societies can design the rules and
institutions of self-government.
Direct democracy
The word democracy comes from the Greek word demokratia meaning ‘rule’ (kratos) by the
‘people’ (demos). The core principle of democracy is, therefore, self-rule, but what does that mean
in practice? For the Greeks, democracy meant not only the election of rulers by the ruled, but
that there was no separation between the two; the ruled became those who govern. This model
of democracy revolves around self-government by which decisions are decided as a collective
by all adult citizens in an environment of political equality and open discussion.
Athens was the leading community in Ancient Greece from 461–322 bc to practise open and
deliberative democracy. Athens was both a city and a community forming a polis, or a small
independent political system. In many countries today, we can think of small towns or local
district government as variants of the original Greek polis. For the Athenians, there was no
separation between the state and society. The inhabitants of Athens were also its caretakers
and rulers, each citizen taking part in a form of direct democracy where by all could attend
meetings of the assembly, serve on a governing council and sit on citizens’ juries. A key principle
of this community democracy was: ‘all to rule over each and each in his turn over all.’
Athenian democracy was characterised by a people’s assembly, where any citizen over the age
of 20 could attend and address peers. A key distinction from modern forms of democracy is that
meetings were of citizens, not of representatives. There were at least 40 meetings a year to settle
issues and make collective decisions over matters such as war and peace. Administratively, an
executive council consisting of 500 citizens over the age of 30 was tasked with executing and
handling day-to-day affairs. Members joined the council on a one-year rotation drawn from
the citizen body, and at least one in three citizens could expect to serve in the council at some
time in their lives. The Athenian form of direct democracy was therefore very participative
because most members of society were likely to be included in decision-making and governance
at some stage. This form of socially active and inclusive political life is therefore usually called
participatory or direct democracy since it requires citizens to engage and partake actively
in the community at large. Athenian democracy is considered a distinct model and it is
worth studying because it was highly inclusive and is without counterpart in contemporary
democracies, which happen on a larger scale in larger, modern societies.
Participation in Athenian democracy, however, had limitations. Citizenship was restricted to men
only, and to men whose parents were themselves citizens. In this sense, much of the rest of the
adult population including women, slaves and foreign residents were excluded from political
life. On the one hand, many positive things have been said about the sense of equality and
dynamism characteristic of Athenian democracy, but viewed from the perspective of those it
excluded, it can also be argued that the people’s assembly was highly elitist because those who
debated and engaged in decision-making ruled over those who were not considered citizens.
The example of Athenian democracy then should remind us to ask who ‘the people’ in any
democratic system are, and to be aware of who is included or excluded.
Representative democracy
Athenian direct democracy is in many ways unique because the polis, or civic community,
consisted of only roughly 40,000 members. Modern democratic government functions on a
much larger scale, with millions of members, and thus is characterised more by representative
than direct democracy. At the national level, all contemporary democracies are representative,
meaning that the democratic principle of self-government is transposed to elected
government. A representative stands for another person, group or entity. Elected politicians
represent their electors, districts and parties.
As large modern states emerged for reasons previously discussed (see Section 2.1), so did the
need for a new kind of democracy – one that was compatible with large states and that was
more inclusive of the majority of the adult population than Athenian democracy had been.
According to the 18th-century revolutionary political writer Tom Paine in Rights of Man (1791,
p.180): ‘Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of secondary means.
By grafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable
of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and
population.’ By this, Paine meant that a representative system would be able to unite the interests
of all the social groups involved in the democratic process. Scalability is the main strength of
representative institutions. While the benefit of Athenian democracy was the number of people
who could gather together to hear a speaker, modern representative democracy allows mass
populations to exercise popular control over rulers. India, with a population of over one billion
people, and the United States of America, with 300 million people, are both democracies that
would quickly become unmanageable were all decisions taken directly by these enormous
populations.
Deliberative democracy
The idea of representative government would have been an anathema to the ancient Greeks,
as well as to the late 18th-century political philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau. According to
Rousseau, ‘the moment a people gives itself representatives, it is no longer free. It ceases to
exist’ (1762, p.145). The comment by Rousseau reflects a concern for the loss of the participatory
aspect of direct democracy characteristic of representative democracy. The key difference
between supporters and detractors of representative democracy is how one conceptualises
deliberation. Deliberative democracy is an open debate, in which free and sincere discussion
delivers decisions on which all can agree. The Athenian People’s Assembly is held as an example
of an authentic form of debate, where public opinion is formed and consensus can be reached.
Voting serves to follow the debate, encouraging the weighing of judgements among debaters
rather than crafting compromise between interests. Deliberative democracy is compatible with
representative democracy, for example, in the institutional form of a parliamentary system. The
idea of parliamentary debate is precisely to discuss matters of concern to the public by members
of parliament, who are elected to represent the concerns and interests of different elements of
society.
The pluralist view of representative deliberative democracy differs from the Athenian model
because it assumes that different interests and conflicts are beneficial to representative politics.
James Madison, a key actor in the USA’s formation and one of the authors of the Federalist Papers,
stressed the need for different groups to provide a check on one another. In a departure from
the consensus view of deliberative politics, Madisonian democracy calls for pluralism. In the
broad sense. Pluralism is a belief in the benefits of diversity and multiplicity of values, sometimes
embodied by political competition.
Elitist views of representation

A slightly different view of democracy supports systems of representation precisely because
they limit direct participation by members of society; we may classify this view as an elitist view
of democratic participation. The elitist view is represented by Joseph Schumpeter who once
referred to representative democracy as nothing more than ‘the opportunity of refusing or
accepting the men who are to rule them.’ Schumpeter’s comment reflects a sense of scepticism
about the political capacity of all voters to take part meaningfully in the political process,
and a rejection of the notion of political equality. According to this view increasing citizen’s
involvement in the political process may not always be beneficial as the majority of citizens are
seen as predisposed to manipulation and authoritarian mindsets. Voters are seen not as citizens
enacting their political will in the democratic process, as in the Athenian model, but as gullible
accessories to large campaigns of persuasion in a system organised to elect rulers. Elitist views
of democratic politics serve to create and enact barriers to democratic participation. This may
take the form of certain historical requirements such as owning property, attaining a certain level
of education or being of a certain gender or class. Such views also reflect a fear of the potential
for majoritarian rule when electoral politics reaches a mass scale, and fear that the majority are
susceptible to being told who to elect. Political scientists Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom
have coined the term ‘polyarchy’ to define a form of government in which each person in a
political community is entitled to have equal consideration given to their interests. However, in
A preface to democratic theory (1956) Dahl is pessimistic that the involvement of more citizens
might lead to better government and warns of the reverse. Dahl views poorer classes as being
more predisposed to being authoritarian-minded and therefore their inclusion in political life is
said to undermine the norms of polyarchy. Elitest views of democratic participation, then, view
representative democracy as a way of ‘taming the masses’ while also bringing more people into
the democratic political process through electoral institutions.
Democratisation
Democratisation stems philosophically from the idea that it is both feasible and desirable
to have universal democracy. Scholars of democracy theory draw on philosopher Immanuel
Kant’s writings on perpetual peace to argue for a link between democracy and peace or the
absence of war. Some scholars have argued that democracies are less likely to go to war with
one another than with non-democratic regimes. However, Kant was not in favour of direct
democracy, echoing the view that it leaves open the potential for a tyranny of the majority. When
national leaders speak of promoting democracy, they tend to have in mind a limited form of
representative democracy, hence the spread of electoral institutions around the world to ensure
inclusive voting, but not necessarily direct or participatory politics. The spread of representative
democratic institutions such as elections, without other kinds of social and political rights usually
alongside democracy, has led to democratisation also being called a form of regime installation.
The spread of elections and electoral democracy is criticised by some as merely procedural rather
than substantive, meaning that democracy has been reduced to a set of ballots and elections
at the expense of a deeper debate and discussion around values and interests inherent in direct
and popular forms of democracy. To add to the confusion, countries which hold democratic
elections but are plagued by systematic abuses of social rights or discrimination of minority
groups or women are known as illiberal democracies. Whether illiberal democracies are
actually democratic in the substantive or Athenian sense or democratic only in as far as they hold
elections, is a matter for debate.
Activity
In groups or as a class, get together and role-play the Athenian citizens of a fictional
political community. Decide – by means of democratic discussion – what to do about
immigrants and migrant communities living among you.
Your tutor should assign different roles/identities, for example Group A: Citizens who
rely or work with migrant labourers and Group B: Citizens who have no connection to
migrants.
55
Section 2.4: Authoritarian regimes
Introduction 56
What is authoritarian rule? 56
Types of authoritarian regimes 57

Unit 2: States, nations and regimes • Section 2.4: Authoritarian regimes 56
Introduction
Authoritarian regimes come in all shapes and sizes. Nine of the 45 largest countries in the world
by population are governed by authoritarian means, and many authoritarian states possess
young and expanding populations. It is important to study non-democratic government not
only because it has been the norm for most of human history, but also because non-democratic
governments play a large role in everyday global affairs and matters of security, yet so little is
known about them. It would be wrong to assume that all authoritarian governments are on their
way to becoming democratic regimes at some point in time, and therefore not worth studying;
authoritarian rule is a broad category and covers many stable forms of rule. Even some societies
which show certain features of democracy such as presidential elections can be considered
authoritarian or hybrid regimes if they exhibit severe disregard for civic rights and place
restrictions on society.
You have so far covered the rise of states and nations, and the expansion of democratic
regimes across the majority of the world’s countries. In this unit you will learn the key features
of authoritarian rule, as well as the kinds of authoritarian rule that exist across time and in the
present day. You will be able to identify forms and features of authoritarian rule in real country
cases. If you have ever considered becoming a political analyst, a journalist, a political reporter,
a political scientist, a social activist or a government worker involved with political affairs, or
are just a curious citizen engaged with everyday political issues, learning to identify signs of
authoritarianism will be beneficial to you. Even democratic countries may experience moments
that are less democratic than others.
What is authoritarian rule?

Many non-democracies are authoritarian; that is, rulers seek to maintain their control by
limiting mass participation in politics. People sometimes assume that authoritarian rule and
totalitarian rule are one and the same, but there is a key difference. Under a totalitarian
regime, states place total, unlimited power in a ruler or group of rulers who seek to control the
whole population through fear and surveillance. Authoritarian regimes likewise can either be
ruled by a single dominant leader or an elite group such as a military or religious council. But
authoritarian regimes operate by negotiating with other power holders such as business and
regional territorial leaders. This makes authoritarian regimes formally unlimited in their authority,
but politically vulnerable because they rely on the assistance and support of lesser power holders
to strike deals. The limits of power are unclear and unspoken, and non-democratic leaders can
stand above the law. Laws may be vague and contradictory, with civil rights poorly respected
and private gatherings or associations outlawed. The powerless, including prisoners, women,
minority groups and non-nationals may be treated callously.
It is no coincidence that many authoritarian regimes are run by military figures who were
instrumental in the early formation or independence period of a state. An example of this is
Robert Mugabe, current president, former prime minister and ruler of Zimbabwe for over 30
years since it became officially independent from the United Kingdom in 1980, and who was a
key figure in the liberation movement against white majority rule during the 1960s and 1970s.
Spending on the military and armed forces in authoritarian regimes is high in order to buy off
potential opposition and suppress domestic opposition. Where the military does not rule directly,
it makes up a key base of power for political executives. But where do authoritarian rulers find
the resources and money to maintain power? Often high spending on military control is made
possible by revenues from natural resources sold to other countries, democratic and non-
democratic alike. Other sources of revenue may be support, loans or aid from other authoritarian
regimes, and taxation from the general public, as is the case in North Korea.
How do authoritarian rulers persist in maintaining rule? They rely on three key resources: the
military, patronage and the media. The maintenance of a strong military and security presence
sustains authoritarian rule because it creates the perception of the regime’s willingness to use
force when necessary. An example of this is the 1989 use of state force against pro-democracy
protestors in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China. This historical event gave a clear message from
China’s authoritarian rulers to current and future dissident and opposition groups in terms of
their unwillingness to accept large-scale challenges to their rule. More recently, state violence
in Syria in 2012 also shows the willingness of an authoritianian regime to maintain power in the
face of social opposition by using force and violence against civilians.
The maintenance of a coercive apparatus is only one part of the triad that maintains authoritarian
rule. The second is unofficial patronage. Patronage involves power-holders transferring or
providing resources, which can include money, money-making opportunities, access to jobs,
or other goods, to those from whom they seek cooperation and allegiance. In the wake of the
so-called ‘Arab Spring’ in which civil uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen shook the
confidence of the authoritarian leaders in the Middle East and North Africa, King Abdullah of
Saudi Arabia announced a $113 billion plan to tackle youth unemployment in a bid to quell
potential unrest in the country. Robert Mugabe, as cited above, has used a mixture of coercion
and patronage to maintain decades of rule, rewarding those loyal to him with access to state
employment and the ability to collect bribes, while punishing those perceived to be disloyal by
withholding assistance and even using intimidation and violence. Allegiance to the patron, and
indirectly to the regime, thus becomes key to a successful career path in an authoritarian society.
Distributing jobs, contracts and finances to private networks leads to a sharp distinction between
‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ and, in some cases, can lead to weakness in key economic sectors such as
banking and industry since the most skilled are not necessarily those most recruited or rewarded.
However, as long as rulers control access to key resources, they can buy political loyalty.
The third key institution in an authoritarian regime is the media. Authoritarian rulers use mass
media to set the official cultural discourse, setting the boundaries of what is permissible for
discussion. Censorship therefore plays a large role under authoritarian rule. This means ensuring
that media content is favourable to the messages and views of those in political power, and
banning or blocking anything that threatens the state. For example, some countries with
authoritarian rule such as China have privatised many parts of the economy – meaning the state
has let independent business take control of the management of companies – but the mass
media sector has remained under state control. Social networking websites such as Facebook
have intermittently been banned in countries such as China, Pakistan and Iran.
Types of authoritarian regimes

Authoritarian regimes have great political variety, and many are in fact a mixture of different
forms of rules and institutions at different points in time. For example, where military
dictatorships undergo a transition to permitting electoral competition, the new elected
governments often feature many former military officials who campaign to be elected to office.
Examples of this can be seen in places such as Myanmar, Pakistan and Russia, where Vladimir
Putin, a member of the national security agency of the former Soviet Union, the KGB, has at
different times taken on the offices of both prime minister and president in Russia. The political
scientist Barbara Geddes has described three kinds of durable authoritarian regimes:
military juntas
one-party states
personalistic regimes.
According to Geddes, military juntas are most vulnerable to breakdown because not all
members want the junta to remain in power, but all want the military to remain united. A junta
is a term used to describe any form of military rule, though it is normally associated with the
dominance of a military committee. When divisions within the junta arise, the military becomes
more likely to negotiate with opposing groups such as civil society organisations and political
parties in order to facilitate the transfer of power to civilian hands. This means that a split among
the elite must usually occur for a military junta to voluntarily leave power. The more united the
junta or the more hierarchical its command structure, the less likely the military is to leave power.
Some military juntas are less concerned with staying in power than with preserving the military
as an institution and defending its position as a major power-broker within the state. This can be
observed in the case of Turkey, whose system of representative democracy has historically been
prone to intervention by its secular military, which has acted to guard the state against perceived
threats from organised religious groups. The system of government in Turkey, therefore,
represents some democratic and some authoritarian elements discussed in the previous unit,
making it a stable hybrid regime.
Personalistic regimes revolve around a dictator’s clique or group agreeing to cooperate in
support of the leader. The leader may be an elected president who stays in power longer than
constitutional term limits allow, such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez who amended the constitution
to enable himself to stay in power or the leader may be a monarch or despot. A monarch is
a ruling king who emerges from the royal family with other family members in key political
and military posts. Examples of this include the Gulf states of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar,
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Thailand which currently has the world’s
longest-reigning monarch and purports to be a constitutional monarchy but has recently seen
clashes between members of the aristocracy, pro-military factions and pro-democracy groups.
A despot is a single individual owing allegiance to no institution, who rules through fear and
rewards, relying on personal security forces to maintain power. Robert Mugabe and the late
Kim Jong-Il of North Korea, although formally belonging to political parties, exemplify certain
elements of despotic rule because their regimes revolve strongly around cultivating allegiances
directly to themselves. Other examples include François Duvalier of Haiti and Rafael Trujillo of
the Dominican Republic. Despotic and inherited monarchies tend to fall apart when there is
not a clear procedure for determining succession – or who is to inherit power. The interesting
dynamics of a personalistic regime on its way down is how political competition begins to
take shape in the last days of a dictator’s life. Unlike democracies, which have institutionalised
competitive elections for refreshing leadership and selecting new rulers, personalistic regimes
are characterised by weak and uninstitutionalised mechanisms for the continuation of leadership.
The health and wealth of dictators thus plays an important dimension in the dynamics of
personalistic regimes. Despots and monarchs also run the risk of being removed by younger
upstarts, making vigilance and rule based on constant fear or insecurity a reality. In the face of
trouble from challenges to rule from within or from outside, personalistic regimes tend to end in
violence and bloodshed.
One-party dictatorships monopolise public authority on behalf of the nation in the name of
economic modernisation, social development or nationalistic grounds. Single-party regimes
can be communist, nationalist or fascist. All of these groups use ideological commitment to
justify their hold on power. In authoritarian regimes that permit elections, the governing party
enjoys an enormous advantage over its rivals, providing stability to the system. In the case of
Mexico, the Partido Revolucionario Instituticional (PRI) performed this role for many decades
before the country’s democratic transition in 2000. Singapore’s People’s Action Party (PAP) is
another example of a political party that, until recently, dominated every election. It is perhaps
Communist parties, such as the Communist Party of China (CPC), which have proved most
resilient. Under state socialism, the party controls and the government implements policy,
leading to the concept of a party-state. This means that in a party-state the level of involvement
in society is much more extensive than in other forms of state. With the exception of Cuba,
today’s surviving communist governments are found in Asia with China, Vietnam and Laos as
prime examples of leaders willing to open control over the economy to market forces but not
letting go of political power. According to Geddes, single party regimes are most resilient and
long lasting because they possess the ability to co-opt or bring in critics. For members of the
party who are dissatisfied, their dissatisfaction is not enough to leave and form an opposition
because the privileges and benefits of being in the party are too great to walk away from. Hence,
single party regimes are considered more durable than personalistic or military rule.
Activity
In groups of two or three, match the countries and regime types below and discuss your
reasons for the pairings.
Country Regime type
China
Iran
Venezuela
Myanmar
North Korea
Cuba
Saudi Arabia
Zimbabwe
Regime types: military
mix/hybrid (state what mix)
personalistic
single party
theocratic
60
Section 2.1
1. Is the development of modern nation states a universal process?
2. ‘The rise of the modern state has always involved an element of violence.’ Discuss.
3. ‘A state is only one of many ways to organise governing power.’ Discuss.
4. Explain the historical challenge of the state to religion, and the challenge religion may now
pose to the state.
5. Why did the territorial nation state come to dominate Western Europe between 1550 and
1700?
Section 2.2
1. Is colonialism a form of nationalism?
2. Can cultural nationalism be at odds with political nationalism? Discuss with reference to at
least one example.
3. Are all nation states equal?
4. Compare and contrast the formation of in early and more recent nation states.
5. Are nations artificial or natural formations?
Section 2.3
1. Compare and contrast two models of democracy using at least two examples.
2. Under a democratic constitution, how is citizenship linked to the notion of rule?
3. Can a democratic political system of rule be composed of both citizens and non-citizens?
Discuss.
4. Why is democracy important to development?
Section 2.4
1. ‘Authoritarian regimes do not need to concern themselves with the notion of legitimacy.’
Discuss.
2. ‘There is no such thing as “authoritarian politics”, as all politics under authoritarian regimes are
struggles for democratic freedom.’ Discuss.
3. Should states under authoritarian rule be considered ‘failed states’?
61
Concluding comments
The rise of the sovereign territorial state first followed a process of breaking away from
large religious empires to form smaller territorial kingdoms, and then expanded into modern
states through the process of warfare and technological change.
Nations and national identity developed alongside the formation of modern states in order
to mobilise and build support across large regions. Modern states provided the basis for
nationalism through an expansion of social provisioning such as education and literacy.
Democratic regimes exhibit tensions between the desire to be participative and direct,
and the necessity for representation over large territory in the modern world. Both
representation and direct democracy may be very inclusive or exclusive depending on how
systems of participation are designed and who is considered or not considered a citizen.
Authoritarian regimes exhibit different varieties, with different mechanisms for durability.
Personal, one-party, and military regimes have different political dynamics and prospects
for longevity.

describe and apply the following concepts in appropriate contexts:
state
regime
sovereignty
territoriality
nationalism – various forms
nation
outline the key institutional and political differences between democratic and authoritarian
regimes, as well as the various types of democratic and authoritarian regimes
discuss the tensions and tradeoffs between participation and representation
critically analyse themes of inclusion and exclusion in different political regimes, particularly as
regards citizenship and participation
identify on what grounds rule is established and who the key rulers are in democratic
and authoritarian systems of governance; distinguish such concepts in practice through
application to an actual case.
62
Aim 63
Further readings 64
References cited 64

Unit 3: Representation and government 63

As argued previously, democracy is thought to be the best method of government because it
brings more people and therefore more opinions and sources of information into the process of
decision-making. Democratic decisions are usually closer to the will and needs of the people in a
society than those taken in non-democratic regimes where the ideas and interests of a few can
be imposed on the majority (Christiano, 2008, pp.81–84).
This unit explains how government in modern democracies is based on the principle of
representation. Politicians and political institutions are in charge of chanelling the will of the
people and transforming it into policies.
This unit presents four fundamental elements of a political system: the political parties, the
electoral system, the legislative assemblies and the political executive. All these elements are
necessary for the functioning of modern liberal democracies. These are the instruments that
enable citizens to participate in government.
Week Unit Section
9 3: Representation and 3.1: Representation and political parties
10 government 3.2: Elections
11 3.3: Assemblies
12 3.4: Political executives
Aim
This unit aims to:
introduce you to the fundamental political institutions that structure modern liberal
democracies (i.e. political parties, electoral systems, assemblies and political executives).
Learning outcomes
able to:
list and describe the fundamental political institutions that structure modern liberal
democracies (i.e. political parties, electoral systems, assemblies and political executives)
describe how political institutions articulate and represent the interests of the individual
critically assess different political systems according to their electoral systems, the distribution
of power among different government branches, type of assembly and political executive
illustrate the functioning of different types of governments with real world examples
representative democracy
one-party, two-parties and multi-party systems
referendums
majoritarian, proportional and mixed electoral system
party-identification, ideological, sociological and rational-choice voting theories
three branches of power
legislative assemblies
political executives
parliamentarism and presidentialism.
Essential reading
Section 3.1
Heywood (2013) p.201, 227–33.
Section 3.2
Heywood (2013) pp.206–13, 217–19.
Section 3.3
Heywood (2013) pp.318–23, 326–29.
Section 3.4
Heywood (2013) pp.288–98.
Further readings
Christiano, T. ‘Democracy’ in C. McKinnon (ed.) Issues in political theory. (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2008) [ISBN 9780199217007].
[ISBN 9780195397741] Chapter 9 ‘Political parties’.
Graham, B.D. Representation and party politics: a comparative perspective. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993)
[ISBN 9780631173953].
Hague, R. and M. Harrop Comparative government and politics: an introduction. (Houndmills,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) eighth edition [ISBN 9780230231023] Chapters 15
and 16.
Horowitz, D. ‘Comparing democratic systems’, Journal of Democracy 1(4) 1990, pp.73–79.
Huggins, R. ‘Democracy and democratisation’ in Axford, B., G. Browning, R. Huggins and B.
Rosamond (eds) Politics: an introduction. (London: Routledge, 2002) second edition
[ISBN 9780415251815].
Inter-Parliamentary Council ‘Declaration on criteria for free and fair elections: Inter-Parliamentary
Council at its 154th Session (Paris, 26 March 1994)’; available at:
www.ipu.org/cnl-e/154-free.htm
Linz, J. ‘The perils of presidentialism’, Journal of Democracy 1(1) 1990, pp.51–69.
Tansey, S.D. and N. Jackson Politics: the basics. (London: Routledge, 2008) fourth edition
[ISBN 9780415422444] Chapter 7 ‘Democracy’.
References cited
Altman, D. Direct democracy worldwide. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011)
[ISBN 9781107001640].
BBC ‘UN blasts Israeli marriage law’; available at: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3152651.stm
(15 August 2003).
BBC ‘Scottish independence: Experts to compose single question’; available at: www.bbc.co.uk/
news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18546829 (10 July 2012).
Clarke, H.D., D. Sanders, M.C. Stewart and P. Whiteley Political choice in Britain. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004) [ISBN 9780199266548].
[ISBN 9780195397741].
Duverger, M. Political parties: their organization and activity in the modern state. (New York: Wiley,
1954).
Eurobarometer ‘Standard Eurobarometer 76, Autumn wave 2011’. http://ec.europa.eu/public_
opinion/archives/eb/eb76/eb76_en.htm
Horowitz, D. ‘Comparing democratic systems’, Journal of Democracy 1(4) 1990, pp.73–79.
Jackson, R. and C. Rosberg Personal rule in Black Africa: prince, autocrat, prophet, tyrant. (Berkeley:
University of California Press 1982) [ISBN 9780520041851].
Kurland, P.B. and R. Lerner (eds) The founders’ constitution. (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press,1987) [ISBN 9780865972797]. Open online source:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/
Latinobarómetro ‘InformeAnual, diciembre2010’; available at:
www.latinobarometro.org/latino/LATContenidos.jsp
Linz, J. ‘The perils of presidentialism’, Journal of Democracy 1(1) 1990, pp.51–69.
Mair, P. and I. van Biezen ‘Party membership in twenty European democracies, 1980–2000’, Party
Politics 7(1) 2001, pp.5–21.
Massicotte, L. ‘Legislative unicameralism: a global survey and a few case studies’, Journal of
Legislative Studies 7(1) 2001, pp.151–70.
Michels, R. Political parties: a sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy.
(New York: Free Press, [1911] 1962) [ISBN 9780765804693].
Mill, J.S. ‘Consideration on representative government’ in O. O’Grady and B. Robson (eds) Collected
works of John Suart Mill. Vol. 19. (Toronto: Toronto University Press, [1861] 1991)
[ISBN 0802018750].
Montesquieu, C.L. The spirit of the laws. (New York: Hafner, [1748] 1949).
Norris, P. Democratic deficit: critical citizens revisited. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011)
[ISBN 9780521127448].
Powell, G.B. Elections as instruments of democracy. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000)
[ISBN 9780300080162].
Reding A. ‘Mexico at a crossroads: The 1988 election and beyond’, World Politics 5(4) 1988,
pp.615–49.
Sartori, G. Parties and party system: a framework for analysis. (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1976) [ISBN 9780954796617].
Sartori, G. Comparing constitutional engineering: an Inquiry into structures, incentives and outcomes.
(New York: New York University Press 1994) [ISBN 9780814780633].
Shugart, M. and J. Carey Presidents and assemblies: constitutional design and electoral dynamics.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) [ISBN 9780521429900].
Schumpeter, J.A. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. (London: Routledge, 2010)
[ISBN 9780415567893].
Stepan, A. and C. Skach ‘Constitutional frameworks and democratic consolidation:
parliamentarism versus presidentialism’, World Politics, 46(1) 1993, pp.1–22.
Valenzuela, A. ‘Latin America: presidentialism in crisis’, Journal of Democracy 4(4) 1993, pp.3–16.
Wilson, A. Ukraine’s orange revolution. (Filey, North Yorkshire: Yale University Press, 2005)
[ISBN 9780300112900].
66
Section 3.1: Representation and

political parties
Introduction 67
Is direct democracy better than representative democracy? 67
Political parties, a lesser evil? 68
Party systems and the future of political parties 69

Unit 3: Representation and government • Section 3.1: Representation and political parties 67
Introduction
As has been established in previous units, the state may take many different shapes. There
is consensus about the fact that a democracy implies some type of popular government. A
government led by one person or by a few individuals is not a democracy. A quote from US
President Abraham Lincoln captures the essence of what a democratic government should
be: ‘the government of the people, by the people and for the people’. The government of the
people means that the function of a democratic government is to rule over all the people, to
organise and guide them. For the people indicates that the aim of a democratic government
is to achieve the welfare of the people and to protect their interests and rights. Finally, the
government by the people refers to the basic principle of popular participation in the
process of government.
In the oldest form of democracy – the Athenian one – all citizens (that is, all men excluding
slaves and foreigners) collectively decided on the most fundamental issues of government. The
Athenian model was an example of direct democracy – the citizens met in an assembly and
took decisions by majority vote. They exerted their rights and participated in the government of
the city-state without electing representatives to act on their behalf.
With the increase in size and complexity of societies, direct democracy of this kind became
extremely difficult in practice, so modern democratic societies have opted for representative
democracy. In representative democracy the idea is still to keep as many people as possible
involved in government. In modern liberal democracies the people elect a group of political
representatives that, acting on behalf of the citizens, take decisions and govern society.
Although there are still some features of direct involvement of the people in decision-making,
referendum elections have become the main instrument through which the people participate
in the government (Heywood, 2013, p.201). Through periodic elections, the people choose
their representatives at the national (national parliaments and assemblies), regional (regional
governments) and local levels (city authorities and councils).
Political parties play a central role in modern liberal democracies. They are the organisations
that contest elections in order to win government power. They compete to represent the people
and they constitute the fundamental link between the people and the government institutions.
Political parties are supposed to embody different political ideologies and interests within a
society. They are the mediators that establish and articulate the views of the people.
Is direct democracy better than representative democracy?

The fundamental difference between these two models is that in representative democracy
there is a divide between those governing (representatives) and those governed (the people)
and in direct democracy that distinction is blurred. The principle is self-government. Direct
democracy, also called plebiscitary democracy, has some very important advantages. For
instance, direct democracy is the most pure form of democracy, it increases the control citizens
have over political decisions, strengthens political culture and involvement in political activities
and it provides legitimacy to the decisions made, because it is the citizens who have taken
them (Heywood, 2013, p.92). But it also has limitations. Mass meetings and discussions with
the participation of all citizens are not possible beyond small communities. Ordinary citizens
may lack sufficient background information and expertise to decide on some technical issues.
Moreover, it is commonly argued that direct democracy is more prone to populism and
demagogy; leaders with good oratory skills can more easily manipulate the masses in that type
of democracy.
Representative democracy, on the other hand, gives less room for participation but counters
some of the drawbacks of direct democracy. Representative democracy can be used in larger
communities because the discussions and decisions are not made by the whole population
but by a subset. The members of the parliament and the executive are the representatives in
charge of ruling. In this system decisions are usually taken by people with good education,
expert knowledge and experience. Despite these advantages there are still some problems with
representative democracy. Popular participation is infrequent and brief. The act of participation
is usually confined to voting in elections every few years in order to select a representative.
The act of representation itself can be controversial: how can one person represent the interests
(sometimes incompatible) of many people? How does the representative communicate with the
people represented? Do representatives favour the interests of the people they represent or are
they more likely to favour their own?
Representative democracy can be supplemented by some of the instruments of direct
democracy such as referendums and popular initiatives. Referendums can be advisory or
binding and are generally used in decisions concerning constitutions or other fundamental
laws governing things like electoral systems. Popular initiatives are petitions that, when
signed by a minimum number of citizens, oblige the government to discuss an issue or to
submit it to referendum. The best example of direct democracy is Switzerland where the use
of these instruments is extremely frequent at the federal (state), cantonal (regional) and local
levels. Moreover the development of electronic direct democracy thanks to innovation in
communication technology is creating new opportunities for the direct participation of citizens
in government.
The use of the instruments of direct democracy nevertheless entails some dangers. For
instance, the choices offered to citizens in referendums are few and are fixed beforehand.
The citizens may not be interested or not agree with the options presented. Whoever has the
power to compose the question has the capacity to shape its outcome. For instance, there is
a great controversy about the wording of the question and the options for the 2014 Scottish
Independence Referendum (BBC, 2012). In many authoritarian regimes, referendums and acts of
mass acclamations (voice votes) are used to legitimise policies that could be considered non-
democratic elsewhere. Some of the questions proposed in a referendum could violate individual
or minority rights. Others could have wider implications that are difficult for the public to assess.
Moreover, where political views are polarised or popular leaders claim to speak on behalf of ‘the
people’, referendums can be utilised to bypass some of the representative institutional checks
and balances (Altman, 2011).
Political parties, a lesser evil?

Political parties are permanent organisations of individuals that compete for political power
with the aim of shaping government policies to serve the interests of the citizens they represent.
There are many different types of political party and in many democratic countries they do not
have a good reputation. Parties are accused of not delivering on their promises, of favouritism
and even of corruption. For instance, in most European and Latin American democracies
citizens show lower confidence in political parties than in any other democratic institution
(Latinobarómetro, 2010; Eurobarometer 2011; Norris 2011, p.76).
There are various reasons for this dissatisfaction with political parties. One can be traced to their
origins. After the American and French revolutions at the end of the 18th century, parties were
simply informal alliances known as ‘factions’ and were associated with the interests of particular
groups of people often against the collective good (Colomer, 2011, pp.136–37). This perception
has persisted in many countries and it is reflected by the iron law of oligarchy formulated by
Michels ([1911] 1962). This law states that all political organisations have the tendency to become
oligarchic, that is, controlled by a cohesive elite group. The members of these organisations,
in this case the political parties, may have a tendency to prioritise the interests of this small
elite and the veneration of the party leaders over the best interests of society in general. Other
criticisms are linked to the narrow choice of parties. The electorate (the voters) often do not find
a party that completely represent their interests. The choice of parties is always limited, while the
diversity of interests and ideas in the population is great.
Despite all these criticisms, the political parties are considered necessary and basic elements
of modern liberal democracies. They carry out many different functions such as recruitment
of political elites, the formulation of policies, support for government, identification and
aggregation of interests, social mobilisation and, above all, representation of the views and
interests of citizens (Heywood, 2013, pp.227–31). During elections the action of the parties
becomes extremely important and visible to the public. The political parties communicate
with the local ‘grass-roots’ of the parties and select the candidates that will run for each
constituency. They provide economic and logistic support for the candidates. They run poster
and media campaigns and organise political rallies and fundraising activities. They analyse the
political needs of the citizens and write the political manifestos. They monitor the actions of the
rival parties and candidates and prepare strategies to counter their influence. The role of the
parties becomes more salient at the level of national elections. The larger the political space,
the more important becomes the action of the parties. Candidates running for president in
national elections, for instance, need to rely more heavily on the structure of the political parties
than those in local elections. The target population is wider and it becomes more difficult for
candidates to reach it. For the electorate, it is difficult to know the qualities of every candidate.
The political party provides a valuable reference point for facilitating the decision of the voter.
It’s also the case that over time different candidates stand for election and the political parties
guarantee continuity in political action and coherence in the political debate.
Party systems and the future of political parties

According to Sartori, a party system is ‘the system of interactions resulting from inter-party
competition’ (Sartori, 1976, p.39). This widely cited definition of a party system refers to how
parties interact with each other in the context of political competition. One of the main ways
to analyse different party systems is by looking at the number of parties competing for power:
It is possible to distinguish one-party systems, two-party systems, dominant-party systems
and multi-party systems (Heywood, 2013, pp.233–41). It is important to take into consideration
the relevance of the parties competing: are the parties big enough to have the chance to win
the elections or at least be part of a coalition government? Thus, it is possible to distinguish
between ‘major’ and ‘minor’ parties. It is also important to study the dynamics among them,
whether parties are prone to cooperate with each other or to reach consensus, or whether they
follow more adversarial dynamics and there is a culture of political polarisation. As the next unit
shows, the type of party system depends to a great extent on the type of electoral system. The
electoral system creates incentives and limitations to the emergence of parties and also shapes
the interaction between parties. For instance, ‘majoritarian’ electoral systems tend to produce
more adversarial dynamics and two-party systems while ‘proportional’ electoral systems induce
consensus politics and multi-party systems.
In a democracy the system of political parties must represent the interests and concerns of all
significant groups in a society (Christiano, 2008, p.94). Societies are growing increasingly complex
and diverse and new parties are emerging to represent the new ideologies and concerns
of modern society. For instance, the Green parties (which are concerned with ecology and
sustainability), the Pirate Party (which champions the freedom of information on the internet)
and feminist parties are becoming important players in some European countries. Another
important phenomenon is a crisis of traditional political parties which is reflected in the

decline of both party membership and partisanship (Mair and van Biezen, 2001). Class and
ideological identification with the parties are declining. The public image of parties has been
affected by scandals and corruption cases and citizens have become more critical of them thanks
to the new alternative sources of information available. This crisis is also fuelled by the advent of
new popular (and arguably populist) leaders outside the traditional structure of political parties.
This is the case of leaders such as Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand and
Evo Morales in Bolivia. In parallel the appearance of social movements and organisations that
challenge the traditional structures of political power (e.g. 15-M, ‘Anonymous’, ATTAC, ‘Occupy’) is
also contributing to the disillusionment.
Activity
‘Referendums in representative democracies. Virtues and risks’.
List the advantages and disadvantages associated with using referendums in modern
democracies.
Advantages Disadvantages
Debate
Divide into groups. Half of you should argue in favour of the utilisation of referendums
and the other should argue against. You need to consider examples of referendums and
their repercussions in order to illustrate the virtues and risks of using this instrument of
direct democracy.
71
Section 3.2: Elections
Introduction 72
Are all elections democratic? 72
The design of electoral systems 73
Trends in voting behaviour 76

Unit 3: Representation and government • Section 3.2: Elections 72
Introduction
As explained in the previous section, democratic representation is organised by political parties
and elections. Democratic elections involve competition among different candidates who
champion alternative policy proposals and ideologies. The importance of elections is such that
some thinkers equate democracy with elections. For instance, Joel Schumpeter’s definition: ‘[d]
emocracy means only that the people have the opportunity of accepting or refusing the men
[sic] who are to rule them…democracy is the rule of the politician’ (Schumpeter [1942] 2003,
pp.284–85). This minimalist approach to democracy is widely criticised today, especially after the
problems experienced in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti where the introduction of
elections has been insufficient for the achievement of a fully fledged liberal democratic system.
However, although elections may not be a sufficient condition for democracy there is little doubt
that they are a necessary condition. Elections reward and punish politicians by voting them in
and out of office, decide the makeup of government, channel representation, influence policy
and build legitimacy (Heywood, 2013, pp.205–06).
The electoral system consists of the rules that define how people vote, how these votes are
counted and how the outcome of the election is established. The electoral systems have an
important impact on how representative democracy works. The rules of voting affect voters’
behaviour and also the composition of the representative institutions. There are different
electoral systems in different countries. Broadly speaking, electoral systems tend to be
‘proportional’ or ‘majoritarian’. In proportional systems the number of seats that each party
receives in the parliaments or assemblies is proportional to the votes received. The basic principle
is representation; the composition of the parliaments or assemblies should mirror the views of
society. In majoritarian systems the representation is not proportional to the votes obtained.
Usually the parties that receive more votes obtain a percentage of seats that is higher than the
percentage of votes they receive. Conversely, small parties usually receive a smaller share of seats
than that of votes. ‘Majoritarian systems’ are supposed to create stable single-party governments
that can govern without needing the support of other parties (Powell, 2000). Within one state
different types of electoral systems can coexist. For instance, in the UK the majoritarian ‘first past
the post system’ is used for the Westminster parliamentary elections and the proportional ‘party-
list system’ for the European Parliament elections.
Are all elections democratic?

In a democracy elections must be free and fair. As the Inter-Parliamentary Council defends: ‘In any
State the authority of the government can only derive from the will of the people as expressed
in genuine, free and fair elections held at regular intervals on the basis of universal, equal and
secret suffrage’ (IPC ,1994).
In liberal democracies elections are usually held every four years (e.g. USA, Germany, Spain,
Japan) or five years (e.g. UK, France, Italy, India). However, there are also countries where elections
are held every six years (Mexico) and others that hold some mid-term elections to renew totally
or partially one of the chambers of the parliament. These mid-term elections take place every
two years (e.g. USA, Argentina) or three years (e.g. Mexico, Japan). The interval is not always fixed
and in most parliamentary systems early elections can be called.
Universal suffrage refers to the principle of ‘one person one vote’. No discrimination based on
gender, religion, ethnic origin, ideology etc. can be introduced. All votes should have equal value.
In the past gender and even ethnic background led to exclusion. The first country to recognise
women’s equal right to vote was New Zealand in 1893. Other democracies have adopted
women’s suffrage gradually; the UK, for example, in 1918, the USA in 1920, France in 1944, Italy
in 1946, Japan in 1947 and Switzerland in 1971. Ethnic discrimination has also been an issue in
the past. Until 1965 in some southern states of the USA the participation of the African American
population in elections was limited and in South Africa the black and other populations were
disenfranchised until the end of apartheid in 1994.
The only widely recognised grounds for discrimination are age, nationality and criminality. There
is always a minimum age attached to the right to vote. In most democracies, the minimum
age is 18, although there are countries with different age requirements: Austria and Brazil, the
minimum age is 16, in Japan it is 20, and in Malaysia it is 21. Foreigners are usually not allowed to
vote in elections. Sometimes nationality has also been used to exclude certain groups of people
from political activity. It is arguable, for instance, that the Russian-speaking minority in Estonia
and Latvia following the breakup of the USSR has faced discrimination. Similarly, Palestinians
residing in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip who are married to Israelis have been denied Israeli
citizenship and voting rights since 2003 on the basis of state security (BBC, 2003).
Another principle of universal suffrage is that there should be a secret ballot. The underpinning
idea is that people must vote without any type of coercion or bribery. When the vote is secret
it is more difficult to influence the voter’s decision. Although secret voting limits the chances
of electoral fraud, there are other ways in which the result can be manipulated, such as the
misrecording of votes, ballot stuffing, destruction or invalidation of votes, barriers to voters’
registration, etc. The 1988 Mexican and 2004 Ukrainian elections are well-known cases of
electoral fraud (Reding, 1988; Wilson, 2005).
Finally, elections must be competitive. In some authoritarian regimes there are elections but
sometimes with only one candidate or a small number of similar candidates belonging to the
same party. These types of elections are not considered democratic. They are used as tools to
legitimise the authoritarian regime in the eyes of internal and external public opinion. In liberal
democracies in principle any citizen must have the right to compete in elections and parties
should represent different views and ideologies.
The design of electoral systems

Although there is consensus on the need for free and fair elections, the specific rules and
methods that should be used in an electoral process are much more open to discussion.
Different countries adopt different types of electoral system. As we have seen, they can be
classified in two groups ‘majoritarian’ and ‘proportional systems’. Electoral systems are defined
by many different rules, however, and changes in these rules can have significant consequences
(see the green boxes in Heywood, 2013, pp.206–13). For instance, the number of seats elected
per district or constituency influence whether a system is more or less proportional. The fewer
the seats per district, the less proportional it becomes. An extreme case is when there is only one
representative per district (e.g. parliamentary elections in India, France, the UK and the USA). In
these cases the ‘winner takes all’ and the votes cast for other candidates are ‘wasted’’. This usually
results in a very disproportionate composition of parliament. For instance in the United Kingdom
general election of 2005 the Labour party obtained 35 per cent of the votes in the country but
55 per cent of the seats in the House of the Commons. At the other extreme are countries where
all members of the parliament are elected in just one nationwide district such as the Netherlands
and Israel, producing highly proportional results.
The electoral system also influences the number of parties that exist and the dynamics within
the party system. For instance, as Duverger’s Law (1954) states, ‘simple-majority single-ballot
system favours the two-party system … the second ballot and proportional representation
favour multi-partism’. Thus ‘majoritarian’ systems tend to reduce the number of parties that are
in a position to win the election. There are, nonetheless exceptions to Duverger’s law usually
linked to multicultural countries (e.g. Canada and India). Moreover, the electoral system can have
other important implications, for instance at the level of the representation of minorities, the
composition and stability of governments, and the capacity to approve and change policies (Table
1 summarises some of these consequences). Therefore the definition of the electoral system is
always a crucial step for a democracy because it affects largely how politics are conducted.
Electoral Features Advantages Disadvantages

systems
Single member - Majoritarian system. - Simplicity. - Very disproportional.

plurality - Single-member - Avoid coalition - Many votes are
(also called ‘first districts. governments. ‘wasted’.
past the post’, - Winner needs only - It creates stability. Single - It offers limited choice
or ‘winner-take- one more vote party governments rarely (usually two or very
all’). Used in the than the second collapse. few parties).
UK and India candidate (plurality - Facilitates the - Undermines the
(in the lower of the votes). identification of the legitimacy of the
house) Canada - Favours two-party candidate with the district. government that only
Philippines, USA. system (Canada - Make difficult the enjoys the support
and India are appearance of extremist of a minority of the
exceptions). parties. population.
- It manufactures - Easier to undertake - Easier to see U-turns in
majorities. legislative reforms. policies.
Two-round - Majoritarian system. - It broadens choice thanks - Very disproportional.

majoritarian or - Single-member to negotiations among - Many candidates
second ballot districts. parties to support each are encouraged
system - The candidates with other in a second round. to abandon the
Used in French more votes pass to Some candidates retire second round due to
legislatives the second round in the second round and agreements between
and many (e.g. >12.5% of the support other candidates. parties.
presidential votes in France, or - Candidates need the - Many voters end up
elections (e.g. the two candidates majority of votes in the voting for the ‘least
Argentina, with the highest second round; usually they bad’ candidate. This
Brazil, Colombia, number of votes moderate and broaden can distort the real
France, Peru, in presidential their discourse. level of support of the
Uruguay). elections). - Facilitates the identification candidate.
- Usually in the first of the candidate with the
round voters vote district.
with their hearts and - Make difficult the
in the second vote appearance of extremist
with their heads. parties.
Table 1: Electoral systems in comparative perspective.

Alternative vote - Majoritarian system. - Fewer votes are wasted - Still very
Used in Australia - Single-member than in single member disproportional.
and in Ireland districts. plurality systems. - Winning candidates
(for presidential - Party agreements - Party deals cannot may not receive the
elections). take place before influence the result (unlike most ‘first preference’
the elections so in two-round systems). ballots, permitting
some parties do not second and third votes
present candidates to put ‘less unpopular’
in some districts. candidates in office.
Party-list - Proportional system. - Facilitates multi-party - Unpopular candidates

system - Electors vote for system. can obtain a seat if
Used in Belgium, party lists not for - It is supposed to be well placed in the list.
Denmark, candidates. fairer because the - Secret coalition
Brazil, Israel, - Multi-member representation obtained is bargaining after
Netherlands, districts. more proportional to the election unknown to
Spain, Sweden. - Favours a multi- votes received. the electorate when
party system - It facilitate the they vote.
and coalition representation of - Extremist parties can
governments. minorities. appear more easily.
- Different rules are - Emphasis on negotiation, - The need of coalitions
used to attribute bargaining and consensus may slow down or
the seats (among politics. block policy decisions.
which the d’Hondt - Governments can be
method is the most unstable.
popular). - Link between
representative and
district is weakened.
Additional - Proportional system. - Same as party-list system. - Same as party-list
member system - Mixed electoral - It allows voters to choose system.
Used in Bolivia system. Some of the one party list and a - It creates two types of
Germany, seats are allocated candidate from a different representatives (with
Hungary, New by first-past-the-post party in their district. arguably different
Zealand, Russia, majorities and the - The party list usually levels of legitimacy).
Venezuela. rest are allocated serves to ensure - It can be more difficult
proportionally by proportionality by for the electorate to
party lists. compensating for the understand.
- Electors cast two disproportionality
votes one for the generated by the single-
district election and member plurality in the
the other for a party districts.
list.
Table 1: Electoral systems in comparative perspective.

Trends in voting behaviour

In addition to the electoral system it is important to understand the motivations of the citizens
when they cast their votes. There are different factors that influence their decisions; such as
psychological identification with a political party; sociological issues such as social-class, age,
gender and occupation; individual self-interest; and ideology (read Heywood, 2013, pp.217–19).
It is important to be aware that no one single theory of voting can capture the complexity of
voters’ behaviour. All these factors are interrelated and their relative impact evolves across time.
For instance, in the UK social class was very important in defining the sense of the vote until
the 1970s with the working classes mainly voting for the Labour party and the middle and
upper classes voting for the Conservative party. Since the 1970s there has been a process of
‘class dealignment’ in which changes in the structure of society have weakened class identity
and the links between a class and a particular party (Clarke et al., 2004). Party identification
and membership have declined. Voters in the UK have increasingly decided who to vote for
by considering the position of the parties on specific issues such as the economy, terrorism,
education, public health or even the Iraq war.
Access to new sources of information, greater diversity in society as a result of migration
movements and the emergence of new values and ideologies make it more difficult to explain
voting behaviour in terms of economic social class alone. Social divisions in terms of ethnic
origin, religious views and even sexual orientation can also serve as predictors of the way in
which someone will vote. For instance, in the USA African Americans and gay people tend to
vote for the Democratic party while highly religious Protestants vote for the Republican party.
Beyond the social deterministic explanations mentioned above, it is important to consider
individual interests. Economic management is highly relevant in informing the vote.
Governments that have achieved economic growth and prosperity tend to be re-elected.
Conversely economic problems tend to result in the ruling party being replaced. The defeat of
the Republican party in the USA in 1992 and Bill Clinton’s famous statement ‘it’s the economy,
stupid’ capture the salience of economic performance in deciding the vote. A more recent
example can be found in the defeat of many ruling parties in Europe during the recent financial
crisis (e.g. Portugal and Spain in 2011, Greece and France in 2012). Taxes and social services
also influence the decisions of the electorate. For instance, Reagan and Thatcher gained a lot
of support as a result of campaigns promising lower taxes, and President Lula in Brazil was re-
elected in 2006 arguably as a result of the new social services he had developed.
Finally, political ideas still remain important. Voters with strong ideological convictions would
rarely vote for parties from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. Ideological shifts in
parties can also be punished or rewarded. For instance, the Labour party in the UK may have
lost the elections in 1983 as a result of policies in their manifesto that were perceived as a drastic
ideological move towards the left. Conversely Tony Blair’s victory in 1997 can be associated with
an ideological shift of the Labour party towards the centre. In addition to the traditional left-wing
and right-wing ideologies, new political views have emerged (e.g. environmentalism, feminism,
freedom of information, regionalism and indigenism). In countries in transition to democracy
often the electorate is polarised between those who supported the former regime and those
who were against it (e.g. Spain, Chile, Central and Eastern European countries).
Activity
Divide into groups and each group choose a country. Then try to answer the following
questions:
a. Describe the electoral system and the party system (in terms of proportionality,
voting process, main parties, election interval, etc.).
b. Are the elections free and fair?
c. What are the fundamental social divisions in this country and how do they affect the
political game?
d. Would you propose any reform in the electoral system? If so, what would you change
and why?
78
Section 3.3: Assemblies
Introduction 79
Separation of powers; checks and balances 79
Functions of assemblies 81
Problems faced by assemblies 82

Unit 3: Representation and government • Section 3.3: Assemblies 79
Introduction
Legislative assemblies, also called parliaments or legislatures, are symbols of popular
representation in politics that have existed since antiquity. They hold the legislative power
which constitutes one of the three branches of government in liberal democracies (together
with the judiciary and the executive). These institutions adopt different names in different
countries, such as assembly, chamber, senate, house, council, duma and diet. These are all
collective representative bodies generally elected by popular vote that have the power to
oversee and make laws and, in most cases, the capacity to approve budgets and to monitor the
actions of the executive. Assemblies deliberate, debate and vote on policies.
The structure of these assemblies varies. Some countries have one chamber (unicameral
system), such as Finland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal and Sweden, and other countries
have two chambers (bicameral system), such as Australia, Brazil, India, Nigeria, Germany, the
UK and the USA. In most bicameral systems one chamber is dominant (the USA is an exception)
and the second has more limited powers and often is designed to represent the interests of
subnational territorial units (e.g. states, regions, provinces). The legislative assemblies usually work
through a system of special committees in charge of specific policy issues. These committees
comprise members of the legislative assemblies and are supported by administrators, researchers
and clerks. The members of these committees are supposed to develop expertise in one area of
policy, and deliberate on and inform the decisions taken in the assembly.
Separation of powers; checks and balances

As explained earlier in this guide, a democracy is not merely a system in which a ruler with
unlimited powers is elected by the people. Far from it. A fundamental principle in liberal
democracies is that of the separation of powers. The separation of powers aims at protecting
the people from the arbitrary use and abuse of power by a ruler and thus preserving the liberty
of individuals. This principle already existed in ancient Greece and in the Roman Republic. In
the Athenian democracy there was a distribution of functions and powers among the popular
assembly, the council and the courts and in the Roman Republic among legislative assemblies,
the senate and the executive magistrates.
Modern democracies have also adopted the logic of the separation of powers in their
constitutions based on the writings of the French political philosopher Montesquieu (Kurland,
1987). Montesquieu, ([1748] 1949) defended a type of government based on a tripartite division
of powers among the legislative, executive and judiciary. The legislative branch is normally a
deliberative body that approves, amends or repeals laws. The executive branch is in charge of
the daily administration of the state and of the implementation of the laws. The judiciary or
judicial system interprets and applies the law for the resolution of disputes.
The principle of separation of powers does not imply the severing of all ties between branches of
government. Rather, it calls for a careful balancing of responsibilities and powers. Though held by
different institutions, these powers remain dependent on each other. Montesquieu argued that
the influence of any one organ of state should not exceed that of the other two. In reality, this
separation of powers varies from country to country. Usually, in countries with a presidential
system (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, the USA) this separation is accentuated by a formal,
constitutional division of responsibility. In countries with a parliamentary system (e.g. Australia,
Canada, New Zealand, the UK), this separation tends to be more nuanced, in particular between
the political executive and the legislative powers. In parliamentary systems, the prime minister
is normally elected by the parliament (legislative) and can be subject to a vote of no confidence.
At the same time, the prime minister is responsible for advising the executive branch. In many
constitutional monarchies, this gives prime minister’s de facto executive power by making the
head of state dependent on the legislature. Thus, in practice, the party of the prime minister
often controls both the executive and the legislative branches. The independence of the judiciary
is nonetheless respected in all liberal democracies.
The USA is a very clear example of a presidential system with strong separation of powers. The
‘founding fathers’ were concerned with the possibility of the accumulation of too much power
in the hands of the president. Based on the ideas of Montesquieu and Locke, they designed a
system of checks and balances among the three branches of power. This system grants each of
the branches some mechanisms of control over the other two (see Table 2).
Checks Over the legislature Over the political Over the judiciary
executive
Legislature - Can override presidential - Sets up federal courts.
vetoes. - Can remove judges
- Has power over funding through impeachment.
of executive actions. - Senate approves the
- Can remove the appointment of judges.
president through
impeachment.
- Senate approves treaties.
- Senate approves
presidential
appointments.
Political - Can veto laws. - Appoints Supreme Court
executive - Has the ability to call judges.
special sessions of - Can grant pardons to
Congress. convicts (except in case
- Can recommend of impeachment).
legislation.
- Can appeal to the
people to put pressure
on legislature.
Judiciary - Can judge some actions - Can judge some actions
of the legislative as of the executive as
unconstitutional (judicial unconstitutional (judicial
review). review).
- Determines how laws - Supreme court judges,
should be interpreted. once appointed for life,
are free from controls
from the executive
branch.
- Determines the
interpretation of
laws enacted by the
executive.
Table 2: Checks and balances in the USA.

The legislature can be unicameral or bicameral. Unicameral systems are usually founded on
a majoritarian approach to popular control; the decisions of the assembly reflect the popular
will of the majority and should not be obstructed. The bicameral arrangement of the legislature
introduces additional checks to a democracy. In countries with federal systems the second
or upper chambers (e.g. the German Bundesrat, the Senate of the USA and Canada) aim to
represent subnational (regional) territorial units and defend their interests as a balance to central
power. In non-federal states, the second chamber is meant to be a check against governments
promoting radical reforms and against infringements on liberties (Massicotte, 2001).
Finally, there is what is known as a vertical separation of powers. In modern Western
democracies many of the functions are transferred from the central governments downwards to
regional and local governments (see Unit 4 Section 4). In some cases, powers are also transferred
upwards to supranational organisations; the best example is the European Union. Usually both
at the subnational and supranational levels, the separation of powers among the legislative,
executive and judiciary branches is replicated.
Functions of assemblies
Assemblies play a number of roles in modern democracies (Hague and Harrop, 2010, pp.296–301).
First, assemblies ensure the representation of society in government. They tend to mirror, or
at least reflect, the diversity of views and interests in a country. Their members are accountable
to the citizens who through elections can renew their mandates or replace them. Assemblies
represent the people and in some cases subnational territories. The representation of ethnic
or religious minorities is also a very important role because it gives voice to some collectives
that could be otherwise discriminated against. In some assemblies there are seats reserved for
particular groups (e.g. in New Zealand for the Maoris and in India for particular castes). The fact
that the members of assemblies are elected is what gives the institution legitimacy.
Second, assemblies deliberate issues of importance for the country. The members of the
assemblies are supposed to be well qualified and have the capacity to freely discuss matters
independently from the party they represent or the party they belong to. The word ‘parliament’
derives from the French parler (‘to speak’). English political philosopher John Stuart Mill argued
that the most important function of a representative assembly was to host debates about
the public interest (Mill, [1861] 1991, p.353). This is the underpinning principle of debating
assemblies such as the House of Commons, where the most important discussions are plenary
(with all members invited) and take place on the floor. In assemblies like the US Congress, on the
other hand, most debates take place in special committees.
Third, assemblies have the authority to make legislation. This is where bills and policy proposals
are transformed into laws. Assemblies can propose, approve, amend and repeal laws. In practice
legislative proposals usually emanate from the executive but the members of the assemblies
have the authority to initiate the legislative process. In presidential systems, due to a clearer
separation of powers, the assemblies enjoy more autonomy in the law-making process.
Fourth, assemblies scrutinise the actions of the executive. Assemblies can question the
executive or conduct enquiries and investigations. This kind of monitoring can lead to a vote
of confidence or censure motion in which the members of the legislature vote to decide
whether the action of the executive deserves the support of the assembly. If the executive loses
the vote it may be forced to resign (different rules apply in different countries). In presidential
systems the legislature can also initiate a process of impeachment in a case where the president
is carrying out unlawful activities. Finally, assemblies also control expenditure and have the
authority to approve or reject the budgets that the government proposes.
Finally, assemblies serve to recruit and train politicians who are destined to become decision-
makers in government. The members of the parliaments are supposed to be elected on the
strength of their expertise and special skills. By participating in high-level deliberations and
policy decisions they further develop these skills and become good candidates to lead national,
regional or local governments and administrations.
Problems faced by assemblies

A fundamental concern for democratic systems is finding the right balance of power between
the assemblies and the executive. Sometimes the assemblies are dominated by the executive.
This happens often in parliamentary democracies with majoritarian electoral systems in which
the party of the prime minister has a very clear majority in the assembly. In these cases most of
the laws proposed by the executives (prime ministers and their cabinets) are approved by the
assemblies with little debate and no amendments. The members of the assembly that belong to
the party in government respect party discipline and avoid opposing any action of the prime
minister who is usually the leader of their party. This has historically been the case in Australia
and the UK. In these assemblies the functions of scrutiny and legislation are limited.
In very fragmented assemblies, which tend to be the result of proportional representation
systems, the risk can be the opposite: a certain degree of immobilism or policy deadlock.
The executive may not have sufficient support in the legislature to pass laws or get budgets
approved. In those situations it is very important that the party in government manages to
develop alliances with other parties. This could also be true of countries with a majoritarian
electoral system in periods of ‘hung parliaments’, namely parliaments in which no single
party has a majority of the seats and therefore agreement among parties is needed to approve
laws (this has been the case in Australia since 2010 and in the UK since 2011). In presidential
democracies when the party in government does not control the assemblies, the legislative
process can also be considerably slowed down.
The selection of the members of second or upper chambers and their tenure can also be
considered problematic. In some countries all the members of these second chambers are
selected by direct election (e.g. the senates in Australia and the USA, the Japanese House
of Councillors). In other cases they are appointed by the executive or by another branch of
government (e.g. the House of Lords in the UK, the Irish Senate), or are indirectly elected through
regional or local governments (e.g. the German Bundesrat, the French Senate). Where upper
chambers are directly elected, a common issue is that territories with very different populations
tend to have a similar number of representatives. For instance, in the USA two senators are
elected per state regardless of population. Wyoming, with slightly over half a million inhabitants,
has the same number of senators as California, with over 37 million inhabitants. Another source
of concern is the lack of legitimacy and independence on the part of members who have been
appointed rather than directly elected. The tenure of the members of some upper chambers
tends also to be longer. In the USA, senators sit for six years instead of the two-year term for the
House of Representatives. In other countries, members can serve for life (e.g. in the UK House
of Lords and some Italian senators). The accountability of non-elected and life members of the
assemblies will naturally raise doubts in states which rely on popular sovereignty to justify their
claims to legitimacy.
Finally, authoritarian and non-fully democratic regimes use assemblies for the purpose of
legitimisation. These assemblies contribute to the appearance of democratic functioning and
are used internally and externally as propaganda. The assemblies are normally subordinate to
the executive and do not perform most of the functions mentioned above. Often the limited
powers of the legislature are explained by the need for a ‘strong government’. This is the
case with the Russian Duma for example. The assemblies in some dictatorships are designed to
replicate the social composition of the country; however, the executive controls the process of
appointment of new members and all decisions taken. Often these assemblies lack the financial
and organisational resources to operate (Diamond, 1999, p.98). Though in non-fully democratic
regimes the assemblies are often used as a propaganda or merely as another administrative
body, in some countries, they have actually contributed to a certain degree of liberalisation.
Opposition movements are sometimes allowed to participate in the assemblies and unanimity
is no longer the outcome in all votes. Assemblies can also become crucial instruments in
transforming transitional processes into a liberal democracy (e.g. Spain after Franco’s dictatorship,
Brazil after the military dictatorship).
Activity
Compare the legislative assemblies in your country, with those in the USA and the UK.
Do not forget to refer to the number of chambers, capacity to dismiss the executive
(vote of no confidence), importance of committees, and so on.
Your country USA UK
Main features
Advantages
Disadvantages
84
Section 3.4: Political executives
Introduction 85
Functions of the political executive 85
Presidentialism versus parliamentarism 86
The executive in non-democratic regimes 88

Unit 3: Representation and government • Section 3.4: Political executives 85
Introduction
The executive is the branch of government that implements policies and laws. Unlike the
legislative branch, the executive is organised in the form of a hierarchical, typically pyramidal
structure with the president or the prime minister on the top and the street-level civil servants
at the bottom. The executive is composed of the political executive (covered in this section) and
the bureaucracy (which is explained in Unit 5). The political executive is the core and face of
the government which coordinates and directs policy-making. It consists of the top tier of the
government (presidents, prime ministers and heads of ministries, departments and agencies
which are entitled to sit in the cabinet or senior committees). The members of the political
executive are chosen by political means; some of them are elected and others are politically
appointed. The distinction between the political executive and the bureaucracy can sometimes
be blurred because senior civil servants work closely with the political executive, influencing
policy decisions. Although the media often refers to the political executive as ‘the government’
it is important to remember that, in theory, a government also includes the legislative and
judiciary branches.
In democracies the political executive is directly or indirectly elected by the people and subject
to constitutional constraints and power limitations (as explained in Section 3.3). In authoritarian
regimes the executive tends to holds unlimited powers and is not usually subject to popular
election. The organisation of the executive power varies in presidential and parliamentary
democracies. In parliamentary systems the post of ‘head of state’ is separated from that of
‘head of government’ while in presidential systems they are held by the same person. The head
of state holds formal authority and has the important symbolic function of representing the
country and its people. The head of state is usually the president or the monarch. The head of
government, on the other hand, is the chief officer of the executive, presiding over the cabinet
and holding the political leadership of a country. The president is the head of government in
presidential systems and the prime minister in parliamentary systems.
This section discusses the functions of the political executive and the implications of presidential
and parliamentary democracies as well as non-democratic regimes.
Functions of the political executive

The fundamental purpose of the political executive is to establish the overall political direction
and lead the government and the policy-making process. Heads of government are usually
chosen on the basis of their leadership skills. Figures such as UK Prime Minister Churchill, French
President De Gaulle and US President Kennedy have been praised for their capacity to lead their
countries through difficult times. But what specific functions do these political leaders perform?
The functions can be summarised as follows (Heywood, 2013, pp.286–88).
The political executive leads and controls the policy-making process. Its members are
responsible for articulating a programme of social and economic policies for their countries to
improve the living conditions of the citizens. They are also in charge of negotiating agreements,
signing treaties and coordinating policies with other countries and supranational organisations
(e.g. the European Union, Mercosur, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc.). The
management of the policy-making process entails actions at many different stages (see Unit 5
Section 3). For instance, the political executive can initiate legislative actions or persuade the
legislative to do so. Prime ministers and presidents usually have the capacity to enact decrees.
These are laws that do not need to be approved by the assemblies. The political executive also
controls the bureaucracy that is necessary to implement the laws and policies.
Bureaucratic leadership is an important function. The presidents, prime ministers and

secretaries of state constitute the ‘top managers’ of the bureaucracy. They define policy goals
that need to be followed by the civil servants who oversee their work through a hierarchical
organisational system not very different from that of big private corporations. The cabinet,
which is usually composed of senior ministers and chaired by the president or prime minister,
acts in a similar way to a board of directors in a company. In private companies the ‘top
management’ is only accountable to the stakeholders of the company, however, while the
political executive is accountable to all citizens of a country.
The leaders of the political executive also perform a ceremonial or symbolic role. Thus,
presidents, prime ministers or senior ministers often represent the country in diplomatic visits,
international conferences and other public events. These leaders act on behalf of the state
and transmit the idea of unity. They are the visible face of countries which can be very diverse
and complex. This symbolic function also serves to strengthen the political leaders’ image and
visibility vis-à-vis their citizens and the international community.
The political executive provides popular leadership. Its members are in charge of mobilising
and encouraging people to work together for the common good of the country. They are
supposed to lead and care for all the people, both those voted for them and those who did not.
The political executive needs to try to appeal to a wide public. When an executive becomes
widely unpopular its legitimacy decreases and the chances of being re-elected decrease.
Finally, the political executive is in charge of leading the country through crises. Usually the
executive is granted emergency powers to circumvent the normal functioning of a democracy.
When there is a war, an important natural catastrophe, a terrorist threat or even a deep economic
crisis the executive is expected to act quickly to preserve the wellbeing of the citizens. The nature
of the political executive, smaller and hierarchically organised, makes it the best candidate to
lead the country when it’s necessary to act swiftly. The legislative assemblies are usually larger
and their non-hierarchical organisations would slow down decision-making, while the judiciary
lacks the technical expertise to run a country.
Presidentialism versus parliamentarism

In order to understand political systems, it is important to ask a range of different questions. Is the
cabinet subordinated to a president or to a prime minister? Is the president popularly elected?
Is the term of office fixed or can elections be anticipated or delayed? Are presidential powers
merely symbolic or are they real executive powers? Does the president have the power to veto
legislation? The answer to these questions can serve to characterise a system as presidential,
parliamentary or mixed.
Although they differ from country to country, the fundamental features of presidential
governments (or presidentialism) are:
clear separation between the executive and legislative branches
direct popular election of the president who is the head of state and government
fixed term of office (usually four, five or six years).
And those of parliamentary governments (or parliamentarism) are:
overlap between the executive and legislative branches; usually the members of the political
executive are also members of the legislative
the executive is usually voted in by the legislature, which can also dismiss it with a vote of no
confidence
separation of head of state and head of government.
Presidential systems have several virtues. They can increase the democratic legitimacy of
the executive by means of the direct popular election of the president (prime ministers are
usually elected by the assembly). A strong executive with a clear leader can effectively steer a
country through a crisis period. It has been argued that it produces stronger and more effective
government (Sartori, 1994). Presidentialism can also play a critical role in unifying and stabilising
countries going through a process of democratisation (Horowitz, 1990).
Nonetheless there are perils associated with presidentialism (Linz, 1990). The first is the excessive
personalisation of power; although the president is the head of government and state, it
is important to understand that the success and failure of a country cannot be exclusively
attributed to one person. Second is the dual democratic legitimacy that stems from the
separation and balance between the executive and the legislative in presidential systems.
Third, fixed term elections can create rigidity in the system. In presidential regimes, elections
cannot be called outside the electoral timetable, and even very unpopular presidents finish
their mandates. If a president abandons office or is impeached then the vice-president is
automatically designated his or her successor. Fourth, in presidential systems (as well as in
majoritarian parliamentary systems) there is a risk of developing frustration given the fact that
usually the ‘winner-takes-all’. The candidates that lose, even by a short margin, get nothing.
Examples of this frustration were observed after the 2000 US presidential election and the 2006
Mexico presidential elections. Finally, polarisation and weakening of the party system has been
associated with some presidentialism systems. This has been the case in many Latin American
countries (Valenzuela, 1993).
On the other hand, parliamentary governments have been found to help the consolidation
of new democracies, especially in divided societies given the fact that minorities will always exert
political influence through the parliament. They have also been found to be more stable and
less subject to dramatic political changes. The power of the assemblies, in which many different
political views and groups are represented, seems to help limit dramatic u-turns in policy
strategies (Stepan and Skach, 1993).
There are also perils in parliamentary systems. For instance, power can be personalised in the
figure of the prime minister. The prime minister is usually a member of the assembly, the head of
the largest political party, and clearly the most prestigious and influential figure in the executive
branch. This can lead to an extraordinary concentration of power in the hands of one person.
Parliamentary systems with majoritarian electoral systems can therefore produce frustrations
among voters similar to those felt by losing voters in presidential systems. Parliamentary
systems do not automatically produce strong party systems or stable governments. Moreover
polarisation can be also encountered in parliamentarism. A popular example of a parliamentary
system suffering some of these problems is Italy, whose fragmented political landscape makes it
difficult for prime ministers to maintain their ruling coalitions.
In sum, there is no consensus as to which of the two models, presidentialism or parliamentarism,
is the best. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Many countries have opted
for mixed systems (Shugart and Carey, 1992). For instance, in semi-presidential systems, like
in Algeria, France, Kenya and Romania, both the president and the prime minister have real
executive authority. Depending on the country and historical context, presidential, parliamentary
or mixed systems can each either succeed or fail.
The executive in non-democratic regimes

In authoritarian regimes, the head of the executive (usually referred to as a dictator) can be a
president (e.g. Cuba, North Korea, Turkmenistan), or a monarch (e.g. Morocco, Saudi Arabia,
Swaziland). In some cases, the regime is run by a ruling council (e.g. China, Iran), which in military
regimes is usually referred as a ‘junta’. (see Section 2.4) Prior to democratisation, Argentina,
Greece, Portugal, Thailand, Turkey and many African countries have experienced lengthy periods
of rule by military juntas . In authoritarian regimes the executive is normally not elected – power
is inherited or acquired by coercive means such as revolutions, coups d’état or civil wars.
One of the central features of authoritarian regimes when they are led by a dictator is personal
rule and the weakness of political institutions (Jackson and Rosberg, 1982, p.19). The system is
more malleable or flexible than in liberal democracies. The idea is that the will of the head of the
political executive can overrule any other structure in place. The rule of most dictators is based
on networks of personal clientelism rather than formal institutions. Although most political
institutions exist in authoritarian regimes, often they do not perform all the functions they
undertake in democracies. Authoritarian regimes are normally designed to resemble democracy
but many of the institutions have only the form and not the substance of power. Usually the
president or the council can make or bend laws but there is no real separation of power (see
Section 3.3). Thus, in authoritarian regimes the legislative and judiciary are not real checks on the
executive power. The assemblies and judiciary function mainly as an instruments in the service of
the dictator. They contribute to implementing the policies dictated by the executive, with little or
no critique, and provide some sort of legitimacy regarding both their own population and other
countries.
In illiberal democracies (non-fully democratic or fully authoritarian regimes) the executive
tends to hold more power than in liberal democracies. The presidents or prime ministers are
technically limited by constitutional constraints but they often overcome them by claiming to
act in the interests of the people. They also have substantial influence over the other branches
of government and the media which help them to be re-elected or to modify constitutions and
laws in their own interests. Russia, Venezuela and Zimbabwe are examples of countries in which
the political executives have managed to modify the political system and bend many of the
previous legal constraints to concentrate more power in their own hands.
Activity
Divide into small groups and choose a country in the process of political transformation
(For example, Libya, Egypt, Myanmar, Haiti, Afghanistan).
Discuss and propose the implementation of a new political system. Do not forget
to decide whether the country should adopt a presidential, parliamentary or mixed
system. Briefly indicate some of the fundamental features in terms of party system,
electoral system and division of power.
You will present and defend your proposal in class. You also need to constructively
criticise and complement the models presented by the other groups.
Country:
Fundamental features Reasons
Type of executive
Party system
Electoral system
Division of power
Other features
90
Section 3.1
1. Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. Do you think
this applies to representative democracy?
2. ‘Direct democracy is always preferable to representative democracy’. Discuss.
3. To what extent do political parties promote democracy?
4. ‘Political parties are in decline and it would be better if they disappeared altogether’. Discuss.
5. What are the main functions of political parties?
Section 3.2
1. Are elections a sufficient or a necessary condition?
2. List the main advantages and disadvantages of majoritarian and proportional electoral
systems.
3. ‘Proportional electoral systems are always better than majoritarian systems’. Discuss.
4. ‘Social class is the basis of politics, the rest is embellishment and detail’. Discuss.
5. Explain the main theories of voting.
Section 3.3
1. Why is the separation of powers considered so important in liberal democracies?
2. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of bicameralism?
3. Briefly describe the fundamental functions of the executive branch.
Section 3.4
1. Presidential systems are better fitted for new democracies. Discuss providing examples.
2. ‘The most important thing is having a strong parliament to control the head of government’.
Discuss.
3. Compare the power of prime ministers and presidents.
4. Why do countries need a political executive?
5. ‘The political executive needs to centralise as much power as possible to lead the country and
rule effectively’. Discuss using examples.
6. What are the main features of presidentialism and parliamentarism?
91
Concluding comments
Representative democracy has replaced direct democracy. Politicians represent the people
in modern liberal democracies and are in charge of defending their interests and acting on
their behalf.
Politicians are organised into political parties, which are institutions that compete for
political power with the aim of shaping government policies to serve the interests of the
citizens they represent.
Political parties and politicians compete through elections. The elections have to follow
some minimal requirements in order to be considered democratic.
There are several different electoral systems (ranging from proportional to majoritarian),
each of them with advantages and disadvantages.
Voting behaviour varies. It can be associated with many different factors such as class, party
identification, individual economic interests and political ideology.
In democracies power is normally separated into three branches: the legislative, the
executive and the judiciary. The three powers balance and control each other.
The legislative assemblies represent the people, make laws, debate policy and advise the
political executive.
The executive is organised hierarchically and composed of the political executive and the
bureaucracy. The political executive is led by the president or the prime minister. The
fundamental functions of the executive are policy-making, managing the bureaucracy, acting
as ceremonial or symbolic authority, exerting popular leadership and steering the country
during crises.
Governments can be presidential or parliamentary or mixed. Presidentialism and
parliamentarism have different features and implications for countries.
Having some of the formal democratic institutions does not guarantee that a country is fully
democratic.

list and describe the fundamental political institutions that structure modern liberal
democracies (i.e. political parties, electoral systems, assemblies and political executives)
describe how political institutions articulate and represent the interests of the individual
critically assess different political systems according to their electoral systems, the distribution
of power among different government branches, the type of assembly and political executive
illustrate the functioning of different types of governments with real world examples
representative democracy
one-party, two-party and multi-party systems
referendums
Unit 3: Representation and government • Concluding comments 92
majoritarian, proportional and mixed electoral system

party-identification, ideological, sociological and rational-choice voting theories
three branches of power
political executives
parliamentarism and presidentialism.
93
Aim 94
Further reading 95
References cited 96

Unit 4: Economy and society 94

States may have dominated the political map for the better part of the last 200 years, but they
are undergoing major challenges from above and below to the way they respond to new actors
and processes. In this unit we discuss the ways in which society and the economy interact with
the state. Section 4.1 discusses forms of political participation and social engagement aimed at
reforming, opposing, or supporting state policy and actions. The next section discusses three
theoretical traditions and how they position the size and role of the state vis-à-vis markets and
society. This will give you the historical and philosophical contexts for these arguments. The last
two sections thematically explore challenges to the state from below and above in the form of
sub-national politics as well as ‘globalisation’, a supra-state phenomenon. They also explore the
different institutions which underpin sub-national politics as well as the different dimensions
involved in supra-state challenges.
Week Unit Section
13 4: Economy and society 4.1: Political participation and movements
14 4.2: States and markets
15 4.3: Multilevel governance and sub-national
politics
16 4.4: Globalisation
Aim
This unit aims to:
introduce you to different actors and levels of scale in politics beyond the state. The four
sections of this unit examine politics ‘from below’ and ‘from above’, examining the role which
social movements, economic policy and global trends have on national politics.
Learning outcomes
By the end of this unit, and having completed the Essential reading and Activities, you should be
able to:
define the following key traditions and discuss their main differences as well as be able to
apply them to real life cases:
heterodox economics
neoclassical economics
classical economics
recognise and describe different forms of political participation in applied and abstract
contexts and across different kinds of regimes
discuss how other realms such as the market and society interact with the state
explain topics from a number of different perspectives
critically assess arguments regarding more/less state involvement in the economy and
debates around the viability of state power regarding globalisation
distinguish between and apply the following concepts:
decentralisation
centralisation
federalism
unitary government
devolution
globalisation.
Essential reading
Section 4.1
Heywood (2013) p.57, 260–263.
Section 4.2
Heywood (2013) p.67, 71, 128–40.
Section 4.3
Heywood (2013) p.160, 378–85.
Section 4.4
Heywood (2013) pp.141–44, 432–42.
Further reading
Auyero, J. ‘Protest and politics in contemporary Argentina’ in Levitsky, S. and M.V. Murrillo (eds)
Argentine democracy: the politics of institutional weakness. (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania
State University Press, 2006) [ISBN 9780271027166] Chapter 11, pp.250–68.
Barber, B.R. Jihad vs. Mcworld. (New York: Ballantine Books, 1996) [ISBN 9780345383044].
Chang, Ha-Joon Kicking away the ladder: development strategy in historical perspective. (London:
Anthem, 2002) [ISBN 9781843310273].
Chhibber, P. and K. Kollman The formation of national party systems: federalism and party
competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2004) [ISBN 9780691119328] pp.62–80.
Gibson, E. (ed.) Federalism and democracy in Latin America. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2004) [ISBN 9780801874246] pp.1–28.
Gibson, E.L. ‘Boundary control: subnational authoritarianism in democratic countries’, World
Politics 58(1) 2005, pp.101–32.
Keefer, P., A. Narayan and T. Vishwanath ‘Decentralization in Pakistan: are local governments likely
to be more accountable than central government?’ in Bardham, P. and D. Mukherjee (eds.)
Decentralization and local governance in developing countries. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2006) [ISBN 9780262524544] pp.285–304.
Montero, A. ‘Delegative dilemmas and horizontal logics: subnational industrial policy in Spain and
Brazil’, Studies in Comparative International Development 36(3) 2001, pp.58–87.
O’Neil, P.H. Essentials of comparative politics. (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2012) fourth edition
[ISBN 9780393912784] Chapter 10.
Polanyi, K. The great transformation. (New York, Toronto: Farrar & Rinehart, 1944).
Rodrik, D. One economics, many recipes: globalization, institutions, and economic growth. (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2007) [ISBN 9780691141176].
Yang, G. ‘Contention in cyberspace’ in Kevin O’Brien (ed.) Popular protest in China. (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2008) [ISBN 9780674030619] pp.126–43.
References cited
Green, D. (ed.) Constructivism and comparative politics. (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2002)
[ISBN 9780765608611].
Hague, R. and M. Harrop Comparative government and politics: an introduction. (London: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2010) eighth edition [ISBN 9780230231023].
Smith, A. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, 1766. (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, Facsimilie of 1904 edition) [ISBN 9780226763743]
97
Section 4.1: Political participation

and movements
Introduction 98
Varieties of political participation 98
Participation in liberal democracies 98
Political participation in authoritarian regimes 99
Participation through violence 99

Unit 4: Economy and society • Section 4.1: Political participation and movements 98
Introduction
By now you have learned about different forms of rule and the ways in which mass participation
are limited or allowed under authoritarian or democratic regimes (see Sections 2.3 and 2.4). You
will have noticed that modern representative democracies allow for mass political participation
through electoral institutions and voting. There are, however, other ways to participate politically
in society. Political participation refers to any of the many ways in which people can seek to
influence the policies and actions of their government.
If you have ever received an email or visited a website or Facebook page dedicated to particular
political issues, contacted a political representative by phone or letter or even gone door to
door on behalf of a political candidate, you have taken part in political activity. What are the
conventional forms of political participation – and reasons to participate – and how are these
forms changing? This unit sets out to explore modes of political participation under different
kinds of regime.
Varieties of political participation

If you have grown up in a liberal democracy, you may have observed that people can choose
whether or not to get involved in politics, to what extent and in what manner. This may include
writing a letter, making a donation to a political group, joining a protest or doing nothing at
all. This is not the case everywhere. Some authoritarian regimes demand the appearance of
participation in support of the government even when an individual may not be interested in
giving that support of their own free will, while in totalitarian states citizens are even required to
engage in demonstrations or activities in support of the government.
Political participation is activity by individuals intended to influence the decisions taken by
those who govern or to affect the composition of who governs. Conventional participation
takes place within formal politics, while unconventional participation takes place, to a certain
extent, outside or even against traditional or orthodox politics. In this unit we will discuss some
of these different forms of political participation, and the regime conditions in which they tend
to occur. We will discuss political participation in democracies, authoritarian states, in the form
of social movements and parties and unconventional forms of participation such as political
violence. Lastly, we will discuss new forms of political participation such as the role of new and
social media in politics.
Participation in liberal democracies

As you may remember from Section 2.3, the Athenians viewed political participation as beneficial
to both the individual and the wider community. In this sense, participation is one of the
duties and one of the rights of citizenship. A different perspective sees participation as a way
to resolve tensions in a political system. Citizens can be viewed as monitoring political events
and becoming involved only when they want to, creating the appearance of political inactivity
as a norm. What is perceived as inactivity may actually be a form of political exclusion, however,
as people become apathetic and either disengage or are excluded from politics. Political
exclusion involves preventing a particular group of people from taking part in collective
decision-making because they occupy a marginal position in society. People who do not speak
the native language, suffer illnesses or disabilities, are migrant workers or drug addicts for
example, may be politically excluded.
Social movements are groups emerging from society to pursue new goals. Movements usually
involve a challenge to existing elites by outsiders such as the politically excluded mentioned
above. The African American Civil Rights movement in the United States from 1955–68 is a
prime example of a social movement as it involved the use of many unorthodox means by those
who were traditionally politically excluded to gain voting rights and the outlawing of racial
discrimination in the USA. The civil rights movement leaders used organised marches, sit-ins and
many other non-violent actions such as legal challenges and the use of civil disobedience to
achieve their political goals. Civil disobedience is usually associated with the peaceful resistance
led by Mahatma Gandhi during India’s bid for independence from colonial British rule and
involves a deliberate refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of government.
More recent examples of social movements include the Occupy New York and Occupy London
movements, which involved non-violent occupation of public spaces to draw attention to large
economic disparities in both societies. Social movements provide distance from established
channels and draw attention to the potential illegitimacy of certain rules, conditions or decisions
of government. Social movements differ from political parties in that the former seek a moral
high ground on a specific issue or area, such as environmental law, justice for rural peasants
or the protection and rights of women. Social movements are different to spontaneous mass
actions – such as uprisings or rebellions – because they involve a level of intent, planning and
commitment in pursuit of a recognised social goal. They are also distinct from formal politics
insofar as members of social movements can come from a broad range of groups and do not
need to have a formally registered membership.
Political participation in authoritarian regimes

Apathy and withdrawal from formal politics through, for example, failing to vote or not keeping
informed about political matters occur in liberal democracies where citizens have a choice about
whether or not to engage. In totalitarian societies such as North Korea, most citizens have no
choice about political participation. They take part in regimented participation, such as mass
choreographed singing events and assemblies, people’s committees in charge of local matters
or state-sponsored mass organisations such as women’s unions, youth groups and trade unions.
Regimented participation is elite-controlled involvement in politics designed to express
popular support for rulers, but it is not spontaneous or ‘grassroots’ in origin. It is supposed to
mobilise the masses behind the regime, and differs from conventional political participation in
that people do not try to influence policies or who governs by participating. Instead, decision-
making and information on policy creation flows from top to bottom, with the population
‘rubber-stamping’ executive decisions. Regimented participation is high in quantity but low in
quality and can be seen more as a performance than a demonstration of a citizen’s real will.
Participation through violence

Unconventional participation takes place outside or against orthodox politics. Unlike
conventional social protest, unconventional participation happens outside the civil framework
and can lead to political violence. Political violence can involve citizens seeking to change
government action or policy, it can be perpetrated by one group against another or even by
a state on its own people. Political violence encompasses acts of terror, which are acts aimed
at striking fear into a wider population more than the immediate victims. Politically motivated
bombings which kill innocent people are an example of political terror. Other forms of political
violence involving acts of terror can take place at a mass or group level, such as participation in a
massacre or genocide, which is the deliberate and systematic targeting and killing of a specific
people, race or ethnic group. While political terror and genocide involve unexpected danger
to random or specifically targeted civilians, revolution involves the motivation to overturn an
entire governing framework. Revolutionary movements seek to destroy existing orders, but may
or may not have a long-term plan of reconstruction. Significant examples of revolutions are those
that have taken place in France, the USA, Russia, China and Iran. Eminent scholar Theda Skocpol
defines revolution as ‘rapid, basic transformation of a society’s state and class structure; they are
accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below’ (1979, p.4).
Activity
Small group discussion:
Is a free media vital for democratic rule?
Discuss ‘old’ and ‘new’ forms of social protest and rebellion – what are their
characteristics/similarities/differences?
Small group strategy session:
You are the organisers of a social protest.
What are your grievances/demands?
What mechanisms will you use to exercise agency?
In which country or context are you working?
101
Section 4.2: States and markets
Introduction 102
Classic political economy 102
Neoclassical political economy 103
Heterodox political economy 103

Unit 4: Economy and society • Section 4.2: States and markets 102
Introduction
An economic system is a form of organisation through which goods and services are produced,
distributed and exchanged. There are many ways to organise an economy, and much of
it depends on what role and balance is imagined between the state – or institutions of
government – and markets or systems of commercial exchange – between private buyers and
sellers (see Heywood, 2013, p.130). If you have ever been on the eBay website, you’ll have seen a
form of online virtual market where sellers advertise their items and minimum prices and private
buyers respond by bidding or negotiating for the price. The highest bidder wins in the end. But
what happens if people don’t pay? Or if goods aren’t shipped? Here the laws of the state step in
to make sure members of the eBay market community abide by the rules. The area of political
economy examines the policies governments follow in search of economic wealth. The study of
politics, economy and society looks at how different nation states find a balance between three
key actors: state, market and society in the pursuit of prosperity. Those on the right of the political
spectrum often complain about what they perceive as too much government intervention in
what they imagine to be freely running markets, while members of the left of the spectrum tend
to see the dangers of ‘markets going wild’ and the need for more government regulation.
In this unit you will explore the work of three key thinkers and three different approaches to
imagining the economy. The balance which countries strike between state, market and society
make up the distinctive character of their economies. For example, under state socialism, the
state controls and directs all economic life; many communist states developed what is known
as a command economy. Under a command economy, the state formulates clear national
goals and targets and plans the running of the economy and what’s required of the workers in
achieving those goals. A command or centrally planned economy is characterised by the state
setting the number of items a state-owned factory will produce, and then distributing the goods
according to the state plan. In contrast, in market economies private market relationships
between business sellers and buyers are the norm and the state has varying degrees of
involvement in these business relationships, from setting up the legal background to enforce
contracts, to resolving disputes. Competing firms seek to enhance profits while individuals are
assumed to be self-interested or interested in increasing their own material well-being.
Classic political economy

Classical liberal economics is associated with the 18th-century economist Adam Smith, who
developed early theories of political economy during what is known as the age of mercantilism.
Mercantilists believed that rulers should accumulate capital by ensuring lots of trade with
other countries; the more a ruler’s territory produced and sold through trade, the better. Early
mercantilism then, exemplifies a trade based market economy. Through this Adam Smith
developed the image of the invisible hand of the market which efficiently ensures the use of
resources and their allocation through individual producers and consumers. Smith viewed self-
interested economic behaviour positively as, according to him, consumers benefited when ‘the
butcher, the brewer and the baker’ act in their own interests (1766, p.22). The vivid image of the
invisible hand has stood the test of time, and has often been quoted by supporters of market
rule. Smith, however, also saw a role for government, although his vision of government was
quite minimal. He describes the state as a night-watchman, whose main, legitimate role is to
provide infrastructure such as transport and protect individuals from assault, theft and breach of
contract. There are varying degrees of opinion as to what duties a night-watchman state might
perform. For example, how much education should the state provide? Some market proponents
would say education should be entirely left to private companies and consumer ‘choice’, while
others view education as a basic right for every citizen that should be provided by the state.
Neoclassical political economy

The debate over the role of government in everyday affairs was further developed by a group
of thinkers from what is called the Austrian School of economic thought. Ludwig von Mises,
Freidrich von Hayek and later Milton Friedman are prominent thinkers of the Austrian School,
which developed a neoclassical form of economics. In contrast to Smith’s classical political
economy, neoclassical thinkers see little or no role at all for the state in everyday affairs. They
believe free markets to be the most efficient means of generating wealth and state policies
only intervene or distort what is seen as the ‘natural’ flow of market forces. Austrian School
writers developed their ideas in the context of rising fascism in post First and Second World War
Europe, which saw strong, militarised state encroachment into everyday affairs resulting in the
Nazi extermination of Jewish populations during the Holocaust. American economist Milton
Friedman began his rise as a neoclassical guru in the 1970s by proposing a monetarist remedy for
the high inflation which plagued the end of that decade. Inflation is a general rise in the prices of
goods and services, and high inflation is when prices rise quickly. Monetarism is a theory that
inflation is caused by an increase in the supply of money, and so monetarists propose restricting
the growth in the money supply, which can lead to increased unemployment in the short term.
Heterodox political economy

English political economist John Maynard Keynes sought to address the issue of unemployment
in the post-Depression era of the 1930s. At least one in four people was unemployed in some
countries in the 1930s. Neoclassical economics proposes that lowering wages gives an incentive
for employers to hire more people since labour is cheaper, but Keynes recognised that lowering
wages would also reduce demand for goods and services since employees are also consumers
and with lower earnings, they consume less. To break the downward spiral of earnings and
spending, Keynes proposed that governments should increase public spending. Through the
multiplier effect, the injection of resources will circulate through the economy and rebuild
confidence. Unlike the neo-classicists, Keynesian economics then, sees a role for government
in managing demand and providing sufficient resources for individuals to live a good life.
Along different lines, but with the same heterodox economic approach, Hungarian economic
historian Karl Polanyi argues that the efficient self-regulating market or market mechanism,
proposed by Smith and strongly admired by Friedman, is nothing but a utopian idea or belief.
Polanyi sees not the invisible hand of the market, but the invisible hand of the state in providing
all the necessary resources, coordination and institutions required for market capitalism to
function. Because of this, the idea of a minimal state, according to Polanyi, is not compatible with
market expansion as markets need states. The idea of a market that is separate or disembedded
from society and the state is also mistaken, according to Polanyi, because markets and states are
different aspects of the same things: land, money and people.
Activity
Role play and discussion
After reading the materials for this section found on the VLE, choose a financial crisis
from one of the five cases/regions listed.
In groups of four to six, divide further into two subgroups:
Group A are voters/civilians affected by the crisis.
Group B are government officials/regulators.
There is a legislative proposal to give more powers to the state to regulate capital.
What are your views?
What arguments, from the perspective of your sub-group, can you make for or
against?
After brainstorming, compare and contrast responses between the two subgroups.
105
Section 4.3: Multilevel governance and

sub-national politics
Introduction 106
Centralisation versus decentralisation 106
Centre–periphery relations 107
Ethnic and community politics: challenges from below 107

Unit 4: Economy and society • Section 4.3: Multilevel governance and sub-national politics 106
Introduction
Why do services like roads, hospitals and schools work better in some regions of a country than
others? If two people live in different areas of the same country, why might they experience
different kinds of provisioning of state resources? To answer these questions, governments
around the world, both democratic and non-democratic, struggle between centralising
and decentralising power. As you have learned from other units, the scale of modern states
renders different levels of government and institutions necessary to adequately reach and
provide services to households and individuals as well as to address issues of representation
and participation (see Unit 2.3). Multi-level governance refers to the ways in which states
are territorially divided according to the authority of the central or national government, or
peripheral layers of government such as at the provincial, district and local levels. Systems of
representation and responsiveness vary across levels in the same country, and across countries
depending on the constitutional division of power, authority and responsibility laid out
between the centre and periphery. In this unit we will compare and contrast different forms
of governance between centre and periphery, and the kinds of local community and ethnic
politics that can emerge at the sub-national level.
Centralisation versus decentralisation

There is a strong case for both centralised and decentralised government. The many country
experiences described in this unit will demonstrate the importance of context in determining
the proper balance between local and central institutions. A strong central government
is usually seen to be important in mediating between different peripheral governments and
developing areas of mutual cooperation. Because central government is thought to have a
bird’s-eye view, it can facilitate internal trade, transport and communication between different
regions. Central government already takes care of a number of tasks on behalf of the nation such
as external foreign relations, that is to say control over defence, foreign and diplomatic policy.
Central government is thought to promote four key values: equality, prosperity, uniformity and
unity. This can be seen in the role of the central government in a country as territorially vast and
regionally diverse as China, where the central party located in Beijing works to facilitate growth
and distribution at the national level, as well as provide an outlet for citizens to take grievances
beyond their local level representatives. In contrast, Indonesia, which is territorially separated
into over 200 islands, has a decentralised system, given the difficulty of administering central
governance from the centre to the periphery, and the great disparities in size and resources
between islands and regions.
Decentralisation is said to promote four qualities different to those of centralisation:
participation, responsiveness, legitimacy and liberty. From the case of Athenian democracy
in Section 2.3, you will remember that for those who support the values of direct democracy,
all politics and the best governance is self-governance at the local level. The argument for
decentralisation is that it allows regions and communities far removed from the seat of central
government to come together and take collective decisions that reflect and are responsive to
local conditions. In recent years there has been considerable pressure to shift decision-making
power from the centre to the periphery for both political and fiscal reasons. In some cases, local
government either demands, or is expected to take on, more accountability for resources as
well as raising revenue. You will remember from the previous unit that neo-classical economists
see a limited role for government in everyday affairs; central government then is thought to be
less efficient than decentralised government in terms of collecting tax revenue and allocating it
to efficient projects. Decentralisation represents the expansion of local autonomy through the
transfer of powers and responsibilities away from national bodies at the centre.
Centre–periphery relations
Centre-periphery relations can be organised and characterised in three main ways: federal
systems, con-federal systems, or unitary systems. At least one-third of the world’s population is
governed by states that have federal structures, from Switzerland and the USA to Brazil, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Canada and Mexico. Federalism comes from the Latin term foedus, meaning pact,
and usually refers to legal and political structures that distribute power territorially within a state.
Federalism requires the existence of two levels of government, neither of which is subordinate
to the other, as well as a system to mediate disputes between the two levels. Within the United
States of America, for example, the state (or region) of California has its own assembly, congress
and senate, which is mirrored at the national level in the national congress and senate. States
such as California can set their own tax rates, pass legislation regarding the rules around
marriage, as well as regarding a variety of other matters, legislation for which may differ in other
US territories. Internal states in the USA may receive federal assistance and resources, but they are
not subordinate to the central government in terms of decision-making. We can think of national
and local level government as occupying separate spheres of policy power. When these spheres
come into conflict, the Supreme Court in the United States is the legislative institution that holds
the legitimate power to decide between the two levels. Federal systems are considered strong
not only because they guarantee local political participation and a local voice in policy-making,
but also because the pluralism inherent in federalism’s structure provides a network of checks
and balances on power.
Confederation is a more loose political arrangement between local government and central
government. While in a federal system the two levels of government share sovereignty,
confederation grants more autonomy and independence to the institutions at the sub-national
level. Switzerland, a country that is divided into cantons but also has four official languages –
French, German, Italian, and Romansh – as well as the country of Belgium, where Flemish and
French are both spoken, are close approximations of confederal systems in the modern world,
with different sub-national units enjoying different rights and relationshps with the central
government. Unitary systems are the most common method of governing countries. In unitary
states, sovereign power is vested in a single national institution. The archetypal example of a
unitary system is France, which forged a republic where strict administrative control was operated
largely by prefects. Prefects were officials who were appointed by – and were directly accountable
– to the central government. They operated at the local level in France’s 96 departements and
made up part of a powerful system that sought to project power hierarchically from the centre to
the periphery in a chain of command. France’s prefects were eventually replaced by Commissaires
de la Republique when the country began reforming its government in a more decentralised
direction in the 1980s. Commissaires de la Republique are concerned with local economic
planning. A dramatic marker in France’s shift from a centralised to a decentralised system was the
abolition of the need for local governments to seek approval for administrative and spending
decisions from Paris. Such budgetary spending is now only subject to legal and financial control.
Ethnic and community politics: challenges from below

The French example of abolishing central control of local government spending is one example
of devolution. Devolution is the transfer of power from central government to subordinate
regional institutions in a unitary system, or the passing down of powers from a higher authority
to a lower authority. Devolution is different from federalism in that the local bodies receiving the
new powers still have no share in sovereignty. Their responsibilities and powers continue to be
derived from the centre, unlike the shared sovereignty nature of federalism which involves local
democracy.
In many newer and multi-ethnic states, devolution is not just a transfer of official powers from
the centre to the periphery as was the case in France, but involves struggles by sub-national
groups to claim more autonomy and control of resources for self-governance. The politics of
ethnic loyalty and regional identity can sometimes subsume national unity or national identity. In
contrast to Section 2.2, where we saw that the expansion of nationalism brought with it large-
scale nation-building projects, the rise of ethnic nationalism in more recent history threatens
the long-term survival of the nation itself. Since the 1960s and 1970s, commentators have been
surprised by the resurgence of sub-state nationalities as liberal democracy has spread across
countries. You can see this in places such as the province of Quebec in Canada, which has at
times gone beyond calls for a devolution of power to calls for separatism. Separatism is the
drive to secede or separate from a political formation with a view to establishing an independent
state. The country of Eritrea succeeded in seceding from Ethiopia in 1992, while Sri Lanka has
seen a long and violent struggle between the Sinhalese-controlled central government and
its minority Tamil population, which seeks autonomy and secession after decades of exclusion
and discrimination. The causes of this recent rise in ethnic consciousness are hard to pin down.
It has risen as democratically elected governments have become a global norm. This has given
minority populations a means by which to construct voting blocs that give them localised
majorities within the wider population. The spread of global markets and other global relations
has also made it easier to organise collectively along lines of cultural identity than along the
traditional lines traced by non-ethnic, civic national identities.
Activity
Please review the VLE resources for this section. Now select two cases of ethnic or
community-based political conflict.
In what countries are these groups based?
What are their grievances?
What kind of systems govern in these contexts – unitary or federal?
Compare and contrast the two cases.
Can we say anything about the likelihood of ethnic conflict in either federal or uni-
tary systems?
What kind of changes to multi-level governance might you propose to address some
of the concerns made by the relevant ethnic or community groups?
109
Section 4.4: Globalisation
Introduction 110
Globalisation as concept or phenomenon? 110
Dimensions of globalisation 111
Where, then, is the state headed? 112

Unit 4: Economy and society • Section 4.4: Globalisation 110
Introduction
In 1943, the English politician Winston Churchill proclaimed that the empires of the future would
be ‘empires of the mind’. In the age of instant electronic media and communications and the
increased availability of transport, global brands and mobile populations, does it still make sense
to study and compare states as the primary unit of analysis? So far you have looked at state,
sub-state and inter-state politics, examining the institutions of government and the interactions
between state, society and markets. This unit examines a different kind of challenge to the
state from ‘above’ in the form of globalisation. Earlier units in this section have emphasised
challenges to the state ‘from below’ in the form of social movements and sub-national ethnic and
community politics which challenge state power. Globalisation as a subject and concept is much
more abstract than the study of a particular social or ethnic group, as it encompasses a complex
set of processes and can be studied from many perspectives. Globalisation, according to
Heywood, is ‘the emergence of a complex web of interconnectedness that means that our lives
are increasingly shaped by events that occur, and decisions that are made, at a great distance
from us’ (2013, p.142). One of the key features of the idea of globalisation, as a concept rather
than a phenomenon, is that geographical distance is declining in relevance and that territorial
boundaries between nation states are becoming less significant. Kenichi Ohmae (1989) paints
a picture of a ‘borderless world,’ while other writers, pointing to the rise of regional and global
private and public institutions, see the rise of a supra-state era.
In this unit we will explore the concept of globalisation and its relationship to the state. Rather
than an ‘either/or’ proposition, we might start to think of globalisation not as the erasing of
borders, but as the deepening of relations between societies and states. The national and local,
as explained by Heywood, are not subordinate to ‘the global’ realm, but rather political processes
are becoming broader in scope; local, national and global events intertwine. An example of this
may be environmental concern over the drastic reduction in the number of elephants on the
planet, which is linked to trade in ivory and intra- as well as inter-state conflict in central Africa,
with African elephant poachers selling the elephant tusks to Chinese exporters and traders. The
tusks may be transported or smuggled on cargo planes and ships that may be partially owned
by shareholders in Europe, while students and activists in the USA attempt to protest in front of
the UN building in New York over the poaching and killing of elephants. Here, the environmental,
economic and cultural aspects of elephant killing bring together a global chain of actors and
processes.
Globalisation as concept or phenomenon?

Although over 190 countries belong to the United Nations, the reality is that most of these
states are interdependent or even dependent to varying degrees, rather than being distinct,
separate and independent units. Countries copy, influence and compete with one another,
forming what some would call a global system rather than a series of independent states. Green
echoes this point in stating that it is, ‘as if national politics are in fact cells of a larger entity with
a life all its own’ (2002, p.5). What kind of larger entity is Green referring to, and what might it
look like?
The common image of globalisation is a multidimensional, top-down process which leads to
states and societies eventually all becoming the same. As countries become more economically,
socially and politically interconnected, the planet will become more and more, in the words of
geographer Jeanne Gottmann, like a billiard ball – homogenous and standardised on all sides.
from this perspective globalisation takes on the characteristics of an inevitable and natural
force which crushes and destroys local traditions and customs, changes cultural patterns and
leaves in its wake a flattened landscape filled with carbon copy McDonalds, shopping malls and
lifestyles. The cry against homogenisation (Heywood, 2013, p.142) has become a strong rallying
point for organising and mobilising against perceived external invasion – from whomever and
wherever this external force may come. In contemporary Uganda and other parts of Africa, the
language of globalisation has become synonymous locally with liberal Western values against
which local citizens must mobilise by sticking to ‘traditional’ religious values. Conservative
Christianity and Islam is thus on the rise in parts of Africa and in other parts of the world. As
an actual phenomenon, rather than an abstract concept, globalisation has become a force for
indigenisation rather than homogenisation. As local communities perceive an invasion ‘from
above’, local forces ‘from below’ counteract this by strengthening local community identities and
associations in the opposite direction; these dual processes of convergence and differentiation
are different sides of the same phenomenon. An example of this is ALBA, a community of
indigenous groups in the Andean region, who explicitly reject the notion of economic growth
and are developing a more holistic approach to life that focuses on ‘living well’. Groups like ALBA
have turned to cultural identity as a way of responding to forms of economic change.
Dimensions of globalisation
Although globalisation is a complex and imprecise set of processes, we can explore three
particular dimensions: the economic, cultural and political. Economic globalisation (Heywood,
2013, pp.144–45) echoes the views of neoliberals and neoclassicists discussed in previous units
(see Section 2.4 and Section 4.2) in which states recede into the background and the world
becomes a single global market of individual consumers – distinguished by their material
and economic self-interest – rather than cultural, civic or other forms of identity. Consumer
identities go hand in hand with the expansion and dominance of global companies and
brands which deepen global interconnectedness not only by uniformly shaping consumption
patterns across societies, but by binding economies together through production networks
and systems of finance which make the boundaries of one economy nearly indistinguishable
from another. A car might be designed in Japan or Germany, its parts produced in China and
assembled in Thailand. The same holds true for the notorious iPhone which is designed in the
USA and manufactured in China. In the end, the different elements of the production process
become so intertwined that it becomes hard to call any product a truly national one. Economic
globalisation is also said to tie the economic fates of societies together. The economic downturn
in the USA in 2008 is said to have caused a ‘contagion effect’ in Europe and parts of Asia as both
public and private money were linked in the same investment pools and to the same banks that
experienced financial trouble.
As previously discussed, the term cultural globalisation (Heywood, 2013, p.143) is used to
refer to the expansion and deepening of global forms of capitalism marked by synchronised
marketing campaigns across the globe and generating similar consumption patterns. Critics
say this form of commodity-based consumer culture is a newer version of the colonial
expansion processes discussed in Section 2.2. The global ‘North’, which is synonymous with
rich industrialised countries where many global conglomerates such as Coca-Cola, Nestlé and
the world’s luxury fashion houses are based, is seen to be colonising the global ‘South’ who
are lured into consuming products not local to existing cultures. The picture of course is a lot
more complex than that. Many ‘Northern’ companies and brands have Asian, Latin American
and Middle Eastern investors who own a controlling share in these companies, which turns
the question of who is colonising whom in the North/South framework upside down. Cultural
globalisation is also never as homogenous as alarmists claim, as global trends are still customised
and adapted to local social and economic contexts.
Political globalisation is a newer feature of the globalisation debate, as over the last 30 years
there has been a rise in the influence and power of international and regional institutions
such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the European
Community (EC), the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The rise
of regional, political and economic communities is also a new feature of the global landscape,
first with the European Union and single euro currency, MERCOSUR in South America, and the
Association for Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which aims to establish a single common
market by 2015. As countries become more embedded in global communities, they also tend to
build bilateral and regional alliances.
Where, then, is the state headed?

Do the trends in increasing migration, financial and cultural interconnectivity, advances in
technology, and the rise in global and regional institutions then spell the end of the state and
the impending arrival of single world governance? Alarmists say that the state is increasingly
less and less able to influence the stability of currencies or craft national policies that are not
affected by external developments; in a sense, states are losing their autonomy and perhaps
their sovereignty as well. Another way to look at contemporary changes may require shifting
perspectives from a zero-sum view of politics – in which the state is said to win or gain from
economic and political connectedness – to a more cooperative model in which states can
all achieve absolute gains. If countries are becoming disciplined under the ‘laws’ of the global
market, as neoliberals claim, why is there so much economic, political and cultural divergence
across regions and within regions? A counter-example to the free market lore are the
development histories of East Asian economies such as South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, which
followed unorthodox industrial policies in their path to prosperity. These developmental states
(Heywood, 2013, pp.68–69) did not open up entirely or immediately to all global trade or ratify
all free trade agreements in the early stages of development; instead they protected infant
industries with a variety of policies. Some would say the widespread and egalitarian nature of
East Asian developmentalism had distinct cultural and historical dimensions associated with
cultures of sharing and solidarity, while others emphasise that Asian industrial companies simply
entered the global economy at the right time in history. Regardless, they are an example of the
fact that although the international and global landscape may be changing rapidly for states,
they still have long-developed institutional tools and policies to utilise and space for innovation
within a landscape that looks at first glance to be homogenous.
Activity
Divide into groups of (at least) six. Two people take the role of members of parliament,
while the two remaining pairs must argue either for or against the following proposed
legislation:
Law to lift tax on global food and retail companies operating in the Country of Oz.
For those arguing for the legislation:
Why might this legislation be beneficial?
What are the benefits of various dimensions of globalisation?
What might your counter-response be to potential attacks?
For those arguing against the legislation:
Why might this legislation be harmful, and to whom in society?
What are the dangers of various dimensions of globalisation? Is it within the
state’s power to stop it?
Prepare counter-responses to potential critiques.
113
Section 4.1
1. ‘Conventional politics is more likely to produce social change than unconventional politics.’
Discuss.
2. ‘Popular participation always ends in violent revolution’. Discuss.
3. ‘Popular protest cannot succeed without broad collective organisation’. Discuss.
Section 4.2
1. Is there such thing as a ‘free market’?
2. What role do either state or market play in addressing inequality?
3. If ‘transition economies’ demonstrate that state and market socialism can move towards
‘unmanaged’ market economies, what steps would it take for the transition to work the other
way around (in reverse?)
Section 4.3
1. Does centralisation necessarily have to result in inequality between cores and peripheries?
Discuss.
2. Decentralisation and devolution are essentially the same thing. Discuss with references to two
cases.
3. Should sub-national groups organise around non-civic identities?
Section 4.4
1. Is the state in decline, and can it truly disappear?
2. ‘The promises and perils of globalisation are exaggerated’. Discuss.
3. ‘Globalisation breeds its own rivals’. Discuss.
114
Concluding comments
Capitalist societies must establish a balance between the state, the market and society.
How capitalist societies envisage the balance between state, the market and society can be
classified according to three traditions: classical, neoclassical and heterodox positions, each
with their own policy implications and roles for each of the three actors.
Political participation varies across different kinds of regimes and can take on conventional or
unconventional characteristics.
All regimes must balance power between different levels of government; multi-level
government can be characterised by centralised or decentralised power and unitary or
federal institutions respectively. The devolution of power is different from decentralisation.
Inequality between regions in a country may be related to the way power is distributed in the
system.
Globalisation is a concept rather than a natural phenomenon, but how it is perceived has
the potential to mobilise responses above and below the national level. Globalisation has
three key dimensions – economic, cultural, and political. The question seems not whether
globalisation erodes the state, but what form interconnectedness and deepening take.

Having completed this unit, and the Essential reading and Activities, you should be able to:
define the following key traditions and discuss their main differences as well as be able to
apply them to real life cases
heterodox economics
neoclassical economics
classical economics
recognise and describe different forms of political participation in applied and abstract
contexts and across different kinds of regimes
discuss how other realms such as the market and society interact with the state
explain topics from a number of different perspectives
critically assess arguments regarding more/less state involvement in the economy and
debates around the viability of state power regarding globalisation
distinguish between and apply the following concepts:
decentralisation
centralisation
federalism
unitary government
devolution
globalisation.

Unit 5: Public policy and administration 115
Aim 116
Further readings 117
References cited 117


The first module of this unit introduces the bureaucracy: the part of the government
executive in charge of implementing policy. It will explain some classical and new principles
of bureaucratic organisation, as well as some of the main tasks and concerns associated with
public administration. The second section of this unit deals with the topic of public policy,
which describes the output of governments’ actions. It introduces the main actors, instruments
and stages of the public policy process. It also introduces some theories about decision-making.
The unit then covers another central component of public administrations: the armed forces.
The armed forces are needed by countries to protect themselves and their political systems
but they can also pose a threat to governments. The third section of this unit outlines the main
features and functions of the armed forces in modern countries as well as some theories about
military subordination to civilian rule. Finally, this unit concludes by explaining the growing role
of interest groups and how they influence public policy.
Week Unit Section
17 5: Public policy and administration 5.1: Bureaucracy
18 5.2: Public policy
19 5.3: Armed forces
20 5.4: Interest groups
Aim
This unit aims to:
introduce you to the main institutions and organisations intervening in the policy making
process
Learning outcomes
able to:
describe the fundamental functions and concerns associated with the bureaucracy, armed
forces and interest groups in a country
critically discuss different theories and models concerning:
bureaucratic organisation
policy-making
civilian control over the military
interest groups
illustrate with real world examples the organisation of different public administrations and the
main challenges faced in the policy-making process
bureaucracy
new public management
policy
public and private interests
policy process
policy instrument
military junta
interest groups
iron triangles and policy networks.
Essential reading
Section 5.1
Heywood (2013) pp.361–68.
Section 5.2
Heywood (2013) pp.356–61.
Section 5.3
Heywood (2013) pp.400–07.
Section 5.4
Heywood (2013) pp.249–60.
Further readings
Chapman, R. ‘Public administration’ in Bealey, F., R.A. Chapman and M. Sheean (eds) Elements in
political science. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999) [ISBN 9780748611096].
Howlett, M. and M. Ramesh Studying public policy: policy cycles and policy subsystems. (Toronto:
Oxford University Press, 2003) [ISBN 9780195417944] Chapter 1.
Moskos, Charles C. ‘From institution to occupation: trends in military organisation’, Armed Forces &
Society 4(1) 1977, pp.41–50.
Powell, B., R. Dalton and K. Strøm Comparative politics today: a theoretical framework. (London:
Longman, 2012) sixth edition [ISBN 9780205082865] Chapter 4.
Turner, J. ‘The policy process’ in Axford, B., G. Browning, R. Huggins and B. Rosamond (eds) Politics:
an introduction. (London: Routledge, 2002) second edition [ISBN 9780415226424].
References cited
Abrahamsson, B. Military professionalisation and political power. (London: Sage Publications, 1972)
[ISBN 9780803901384].
Adams, G., C. D’Onofrio and N. Sokoloff The iron triangle: the politics of defense contracting. (New
York: Council on Economic Priorities, 1981) [ISBN 0878710124].
Allison, G. Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban missile crisis. (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co,
1971) [ISBN 0316034363].
Axford, B. ‘Parties, interests, opinion’ in Axford, B., G. Browning, R. Huggins and B. Rosamond (eds)
Politics: an introduction. (London: Routledge, 2002) second edition [ISBN 9780415226424].
Berger, S. ‘Globalization and politics’, Annual Review of Political Science 3(1) 2000, pp.43–62.
Chapman, R. ‘Public administration’ in Bealey, F., R.A. Chapman and M. Sheean (eds) Elements in
political science. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999) [ISBN 9780748611096].
Clausewitz, Carl von On War. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966 [1827])
[ISBN 0140444270].
Elmore, R. ‘Organizational models of social program implementation’, Public Policy 26(2) 1978,
pp.185–228.
Feit, E. The armed bureaucrats: military-administrative regimes and political development. (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1973) [ISBN 9780395126349].
Finer, Samuel E. The man on horseback: the role of the military in politics. (New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers, 2002 [1962]) [ISBN 9780765809223].
Forster, A. Armed forces and society in Europe. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006)
[ISBN 9781403903655].
Freeman, J. The political process: executive bureau-legislative committee relations. (New York:
Random House, 1955) [ISBN 9780394308135].
Janowitz, M. The professional soldier: a social and political portrait. (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press,
1960) [ISBN 9780029161807].
Hirst, P. and G. Thompson Globalization in question. (Oxford: Polity Press, 2009) third edition
[ISBN 9780745641522].
Hix, S. The political system of the European Union. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999)
[ISBN 9780312225353].
Hood, C. The tools of government. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1983) [ISBN 9780333343968].
Hood, C. ‘Exploring variations in public management reform in the 1990’s’ in H. Bekke et al. (eds)
Civil service systems in comparative perspective. (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press,
1996) [ISBN 9780253210326].
Huntington, S. The soldier and the state: the theory and politics of civil-military relations. (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1957) [ISBN 9780674817364].
Janowitz, M. The professional soldier: a social and political portrait. (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1960).
Lindblom, C. ‘The science of muddling through’, Public Administration Review 19(2) 1959,
pp.79–88.
Moskos, Charles C. ‘From institution to occupation: trends in military organisation’, Armed Forces &
Society 4(1) 1977, pp.41–50.
Niskanen W. Bureaucracy and representative government. (Chicago: Aldine, Atherton, 1971)
[ISBN 9780202060408].
Nordlinger, E. Soldiers in politics: military coups and governments. (New York: Prentice Hall, 1977)
[ISBN 9780138221638].
Olson, M. The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1965) [ISBN 9780674537514].
Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming
the public sector. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992) [ISBN 9780452269422].
Powell, B, R. Dalton and K. Strøm Comparative politics today: a theoretical framework. (London:
Longman, 2012) sixth edition [ISBN 9780205082865].
Simon, H. ‘The proverbs of administration’, Public Administration Review 6 1946, pp.53–67.
Simon, H., D. Smithburg and V. Thompson Public administration. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950).
Simon, H. Reason in human affairs. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1983)
[ISBN 9780804718486].
Turner, J. ‘The policy process’ in Axford, B., G. Browning, R. Huggins and B. Rosamond (eds) Politics:
an introduction. (London: Routledge, 2002) second edition [ISBN 9780415226424].
Van Rijckeghem, C. and B. Weder ‘Bureaucratic corruption and the rate of temptation: do wages
in the civil service affect corruption, and by how much?’, Journal of Development Economics
6(2) 2001, pp.307–31.
Weber, M. The theory of economic and social organization. (New York: Free Press, 1964)
[ISBN 0684836480].
Section 5.1: Bureaucracy
Introduction 121
Classical organisation of bureaucracy 121
Bureaucratic power and concerns 122
The new public management 123

Unit 5: Public policy and administration • Section 5.1: Bureaucracy 121
Introduction
The concept of bureaucracy derives from bureau (office in French) and kratos (power or rule
in Greek) and could be defined as ‘rule by officials’. The bureaucracy is the body of permanent
salaried officials that implement the policies of the government. They stand below the political
executive in the hierarchical organisation of government. Bureaucracies are organised into
departments or ministries which are usually subdivided into smaller units (e.g. divisions,
agencies, sections, bureaus). In modern democracies the bureaucracy also contains non-
departmental public bodies or semi-independent non-governmental organisations known
as quangos. The quangos carry out executive functions but operate outside the structure of
government ministers, providing an element of flexibility and political independence.
The term bureaucracy is often used in a pejorative way and associated with administrative
rigidity, inefficiency and corruption. However, bureaucracies are necessary, given the size and
complexity of modern societies. The delivery of public services and administration of policies
requires a relatively large body of expert officials. A bureaucracy is composed of many different
types of civil servants with different fields of specialisation. Tax inspectors, health officers, social
service visitors, teachers in state schools, etc. can be all considered part of the bureaucracy.
As mentioned in the previous section, bureaucrats work closely with the political executive and
tend to influence political decisions and shape the outcome of policies. Civil servants advise
ministers and provide continuity to the policy programmes when political leaders are replaced.
The bureaucracy provides expertise and stability to governments. Nonetheless the concentration
of power in the hands of bureaucrats, who are not elected to their positions, can be problematic.
Classical organisation of bureaucracy

The organisation of the public administration in modern societies has been strongly influenced
by the German sociologist Max Weber who referred to bureaucracy as the ideal form of
organisation (Weber, [1922] 1964). Weber’s approach to the organisation of bureaucracy is based
on rules, professionalism and merit. It was a reaction against the traditional organisation of the
public administration that had operated in Europe since the Middle Ages and in which public
services were delivered through clientelistic networks by the local aristocracy or religious elites.
Weber’s conception of bureaucracy was based on several principles:
Activities in the public administration must be carefully defined and divided.
There must be a hierarchical organisation of offices in which the lower offices report to and
are supervised by a higher ranking office. In this organisation officials are accountable for their
actions and those of their subordinates.
Authority must be based on skills and on the formal position occupied (what’s known as
rational-legal authority) and not merely on charisma, wealth or status.
The recruitment and promotion of officials must take place exclusively on the basis of merit
and technical qualifications.
Information must be preserved in files and be openly available (organisational memory).
There must be a separation of personal and official properties and rights. The officials do not
own the public office they occupy.
Operations must be governed by rules so decisions are reached by consistently applying
abstract rules to specific cases. These rules must be written down and relatively stable.
Although modern bureaucracies are inspired by Weber’s principles not all bureaucracies are
identical or internally homogeneous. Three basic types of structures can be distinguished in
bureaucracies: The first is line organisation. A line organisation is a vertical structure composed
of several different levels of authority, with several positions in each of the levels. Officials in
upper levels, known as line managers, give instructions to those in the lower levels who, in
turn, report to them. There is a unity of command, with each official generally reporting to
only one line manager. Second, a line and staff organisation is a mixed structure neither
completely vertical nor horizontal. It is used when line managers require expert technical advice
to perform their duties. This advice is provided by staff specialists. Legal advisers, accountants,
human resources and security experts are examples of staff specialists. In this type of structure
line managers make decisions but they take into account the advice or suggestions of the staff
specialist. Staff specialists do not exercise authority over line managers although they may have
a similar or even higher status in the hierarchy and operate at a similar or higher salary scale.
Specialist staff functions are often grouped into support departments and the specialists given
comparable levels and working conditions to the line officials. Most bureaucracies adopt a line
and staff organisation. Finally, a functional organisation is a horizontal organisation without
unity of command – there is no hierarchical line. Officials cooperate but do not command or
report to each other. The academic departments in universities are typical examples of functional
organisations (Chapman, 1999, pp.236–38).
Administrative efficiency is a fundamental issue for the organisation of a bureaucracy (Simon,
1946; Simon et al.,1950). Classical organisation theory lays out the rules that must be followed
to achieve that efficiency. First, administrative efficiency decreases when the number of officials
reporting to and receiving instructions from one line manager increases. The attention and
capacity of one official to manage people is limited. Second, efficiency increases, the lower
the number the organisational levels in the system. If instructions or actions have to pass
through many levels before being implemented they can be slowed down or distorted. Third,
administrative efficiency is increased if authority is delegated to the lowest levels. So the street
level bureaucrats should be able to make decisions on the ground. Finally, boards or committees
can advise and coordinate but responsibility should be allocated, whenever possible, to
individuals. If decisions are made by individual officials it is clear where responsibility lies and
accountability and transparency are improved.
Bureaucratic power and concerns

Bureaucracies grew during the 20th century. The world wars and the Great Depression increased
governments’ intervention in society. After the Second World War the development of the
welfare state needed a much larger bureaucracy to deliver new services, collect new taxes and
administer pensions (Hague and Harrop, 2010, p.346). Bureaucrats now hold real power on the
basis of their technical expertise, strategic position in the policy process and the influence they
have on the political executive.
The size and power of some bureaucracies, the significance of their role and the power they hold
has become a source of concern in some quarters. One of the fundamental concerns regarding
bureaucracy is the potential lack of neutrality of civil servants. Public interest should drive
the actions of civil servants. They must put the interests of the wider public ahead of those of
particular parties, economic interest groups or their own private interests. Bureaucrats should not
use their knowledge and skills to advance party or private interests. In order to foster neutrality,
civil servants in most countries enjoy life tenure and generous pensions. Countries with very
low wages for civil servants tend to experience higher levels of corruption (Van Rijckeghem and
Weder, 2001).
The system of recruitment is also very important for modern bureaucracies. The recruitment of
civil servants is normally based on a merit system. Civil servants are usually recruited through
some sort of competitive examination or selection process. This ensures some minimum
standards in terms of skills and expert knowledge and favours neutrality. Due to the demanding
selection and training processes in countries like France, Germany and Japan, senior bureaucrats
are considered a prestigious meritocratic elite. If civil servants were to be appointed by politicians
(which is known as a spoils system) they would have an incentive to benefit those politicians.
This was the case in the USA in the 19th century. Each new president almost completely replaced
the country’s civil servants so one of the priorities of those civil servants was always the re-
election of the president.
The recruitment system in some modern democracies includes a policy of positive
discrimination or affirmative action. That means, selection processes give preferential
treatment to minorities or disadvantaged groups in order to increase the numbers of these
groups in the bureaucracy. In the USA, for instance, there is positive discrimination for ethnic
minorities (e.g. Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanics, etc.), women and people with
disabilities. A bureaucracy that represents all social groups is believed to be more neutral than
one in which only some of them are represented. In ethnically or religiously divided countries the
underrepresentation or exclusion of minorities from the bureaucracy can provoke social conflict.
The minorities underrepresented may suffer discrimination in public services.
Finally, bureaucratic inefficiency is another key criticism levelled at public administration.
Weber’s ideal of efficiency is not always achieved. Sometimes officials engage in non-productive
tasks and create work for each other, thereby increasing the need for budgets and staff in
their departments (Parkinson, 1958; Niskanen, 1971). Thus bureaucracy grows and the costs
increase for government. This tendency of the bureaucracy to expand can increase inefficiency.
Inefficiency also results from the political pressures on bureaucrats. The political executive
sometimes forces policies through for electoral reasons without considering their cost-
effectiveness. Finally, inefficiency can be the result of excessive or contradictory regulation. The
excessive regulation, often referred to as ‘red-tape’, introduces rigidity in the bureaucracy, limiting
and slowing down officials’ ability to get things done.
The new public management

A new trend in the organisation of bureaucracies emerged during the 1980s in reaction to some
of the problems mentioned above. This new trend, known as new public management, offers
an alternative to the strict Weberian principles that guided bureaucracies for most of the 20th
century. New public management was stimulated by neo-liberal leaders such as the US President
Ronald Reagan and the UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The basic idea underpinning it was
that the Weberian principles of strong hierarchy and regulation were not conducive to efficiency.
The new public management tried to modernise the public administration and increase its
efficiency by introducing market-oriented principles of organisation from the private sector. The
philosophy of this new style of organisation is that a government should ‘steer, not row’.
The following are the basic components of new public management are (Osborne and Gaebler,
1992; Hood, 1996):
The departments and officials are driven by goals and not merely by regulations.
Market mechanisms are introduced into the public administration.
More services are outsourced (contracted out of the administration). This usually leads to a
reduction of the size of the bureaucracy.
Competition is promoted between the providers of services.
Performance is measure and targets are assigned.

Resources are allocated on the basis of results.
Authority is decentralised and departments are composed of several independent operating
units.
More flexibility is introduced into recruiting.
More flexibility and incentives are introduced into civil servant wages.
The implementation of the new public management reforms has contributed to an increase
in government transparency and efficiency in the provision of some services. It has not,
however, always led to a reduction in the costs of the public administration. The new public
management has served to reduce the size of some departments but it has also produced
many new public agencies and quangos to which many of the functions previously carried out
by the departments have been transferred. The proliferation of these independent agencies
and quangos has added the problem of coordination and made it more difficult to attribute
responsibility when there are problems (Hague and Harrop, 2002; pp.357–59).
As with the different types of political regime, there are advantages and disadvantages associated
with different styles of bureaucratic organisation. The new public management reforms have
been largely developed in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries. In countries like Australia,
New Zealand, Sweden and the UK the reforms have been deep. In many other countries, such
as Germany, Japan or Spain, where there is a different conception of the bureaucracy, the
principles of free market and competition have been incorporated into the public administration
in only a very limited way (Hood, 1996). It is difficult to conclude that one approach is superior
to the other. Most democratic countries tend to some mix elements of the classical Weberian
conception with elements of new public management.
Activity
Working in pairs (or small groups), discuss the fundamental differences between
politicians and bureaucrats, taking into consideration their roles and their interests.
Imagine how these differences may affect the relationships between them and the
public interest. Finally, suggest strategies or solutions for overcoming these problems.
Whenever possible illustrate with real-life examples.
Differences
Problems
Solutions
Section 5.2: Public policy
Introduction 126
Policy actors and institutions 126
Models of policy-making 127
Policy instruments and policy outcomes 128

Unit 5: Public policy and administration • Section 5.2: Public policy 126
Introduction
A policy is a set of decisions or a plan of action adopted in order to pursue a specific objective.
Policy-making is a fundamental part of politics. Policies can be considered the fundamental
output of politics. Public policy refers to the policies adopted by governments. In contrast
to the policies adopted by individuals, groups or companies, public policies are directed
towards the wellbeing of a society at large (the public interest) and not just that of a particular
individual or group (private interest). When studying policy you need to consider the intentions
of the policy, the actors and the institutions involved, how the decisions are made and the
consequences or outcomes of those decisions. There are many different types of policies – those
that aim at extracting resources (e.g. taxation, customs), distributing resources and services (e.g.
the provision of health, education, benefits), collecting information (e.g. census, statistics) and
controlling human behaviour (e.g. prohibitions, the police) among others.
To study public policy we need to look at several different stages in the policy process. The
first stage is policy initiation. Someone needs to identify a problem or a need in society,
‘decide to make a decision’ and make sure that the issue incorporated into the political agenda.
Second is the formulation stage. Specific policy plans and programmes are formulated in order
to tackle the issue. Third, is the implementation stage. This consists of putting into practice the
policy agreed upon by policy-makers. Finally, during an evaluation stage the implementation
process and outcomes of the policy are assessed. These stages form a cycle in which the
evaluation serves to make official, revise, adapt or abandon a policy and provide information to
be taken into consideration in future policies (Heywood, 2013, pp.356–61).
Policy actors and institutions

Many different domestic and international actors and institutions are involved in the policy
process in one way or another. As explained in the previous sections the legislative assemblies
(Section 3.3), political executives (Section 3.4) and bureaucrats (Section 5.1) are central to policy-
making. The policy objectives they pursue, how they try to reach these goals and to what extent
they succeed in these efforts, depend largely on actors outside of these systems (Howlett and
Ramesh 2003, pp.84–85).
The concept of policy universe refers to all international, state and social actors and institutions
that can, directly or indirectly, affect public policy. Within a policy universe several policy
subsystems can be identified (Freeman, 1955). A policy subsystem is a space where policy
issues are discussed. The actors and institutions in a policy subsystem negotiate in order to put
forward the policy that better suits their own interests or what they believe to be the public
interest. The set of relationships between the actors and institutions actively interested in a
specific policy issue or area is called a policy network. These diverse actors and institutions
include government officials, legislative committees, academics, journalists, business lobbyists
and civil-society organisations. Within policy networks the interactions may be institutionalised
or regulated but can also be informal. For instance, the relationships between the legislative
assemblies and the political executive or those within the bureaucracy are regulated. However,
legislators and members of the political executive make policy decisions based on the basis of
other informal relationships and sources of information as well.
When analysing policy-making it is important to consider the autonomy and the legal
capacity of all actors involved to make and implement laws. Autonomy means being able to act
free of pressures from society and other national and international actors. It’s also important that
politicians and bureaucrats have a legal mandate that enables them to launch policies. These
mandates are often limited to specific issues and territorial areas. For instance, an education
board produces policies that apply only to the schools of a particular town or council and will
usually be constrained by the education policies set at the regional, state and even international
level. Similarly a ministry of health can enact binding laws concerning hospitals, but not
concerning schools or police stations.
At the international level there are many actors and institutions that have a considerable
impact on the policies enacted at a national or subnational level. The intensity and scope of
the impact of international institutions and actors has grown in parallel with the globalisation
process (Berger, 2000; Hirst and Thompson, 2009). Countries and societies are increasingly
connected in all sorts of ways. The growth of information, finance, trade, migration and cultural
flows has also generated greater political interdependence. Policy-makers need to take into
consideration the internationalisation of politics and its impact on policies. A very good example
of the influence of international institutions is the European Union. This is a supranational
organisation with the capacity to issue rules and directives that can limit or stimulate the action
of policy-makers. For instance, the European Union establishes quotas and financial aid for
agriculture and fisheries, which restrict the scope of national policy-makers in those areas. The
European Union also sets policy targets and pushes policy-makers at state level to launch policies
in areas such as telecommunications, education and health. Other international organisations
and agreements, such as the World Trade Organisation, North American Free Trade Agreement,
World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Health Organisation and International Labour
Organisation, have an important impact on policy-making at all levels.
At the domestic level two groups of actors are in charge of designing and implementing
policies. On the one hand, there are the politicians (elected officials), members of the legislative
or executive branches of government which define policy goals and strategies. Their autonomy
and capacity in policy-making depends on the political system and on the government level at
which they operate (national, regional or federal). On the other hand, you have the bureaucrats
(appointed officials) in charge of applying the plans of action defined by politicians (see Section
5.1). In addition to these two groups there are other actors and institutions that participate
directly or indirectly in the policy process and that can influence policy through bargaining and
mobilisation power. Among them, the most important are companies and business associations,
trade unions, think-tanks and research organisations, political parties, the mass media, consumer
associations, NGOs and social movements.
Models of policy-making
Policy-making involves deciding between a range of different policy options. There are a range
of explanations as to how policy decisions are made (Turner, 2002, pp.455–63; Heywood, 2013,
pp.352–56).
First, rational-choice models explain decisions by emphasising individual self-interest and
humans’ ability to use our reason to reach conclusions about the best course of action in the
world we inhabit. According to these models, the individual decision-maker has pre-defined
policy goals and a set of possible strategies at their disposal in order to reach these goals. These
goals are usually quantified in terms of utility or value for the individual. This individual will choose
the policy option which maximises that individual utility or value. These models are grounded in
economic theory. One example would be policy decisions made on the basis of a cost-benefit
analysis of alternative policy options. Although these explanations have become very popular
they have several weaknesses. In public policy not all outcomes can be quantified, compared or
ranked. For instance, what is the value of a human life or comfort and happiness? And don’t forget,
policy-making is the result of the interaction between different individuals and groups that can
have different interests or value differently the outcomes of policies. This makes it more difficult to
find the best solution. Finally, the information available might be limited and the rationality of the
decision-maker is bounded by the information they have to hand (Simon, 1983).
Second, the incremental model was developed by Lindblom (1959) as an alternative to the
rational-choice model. It sees policy-making not so much as a forward looking systematic
evaluation and comparison of all policy options available, but mainly as a backward-looking
adjustment of policies that have been launched previously. According to the incremental
model, policy emerges from the negotiations and agreements between the different actors and
institutions involved. Policies are implemented gradually, in small steps. This model serves to
explain many policy decisions (e.g. budgets) but it has been criticised for overemphasising inertia
and not explaining policy innovation and radical political changes.
Third, there are organisational and bureaucratic models that explain decisions based on the
analysis of the internal structure and processes of the public administration (e.g. Allison, 1971;
Elmore, 1978). These approaches analyse the routines, formal and informal rules and corporatist
interests that exist and the interactions and bargaining that goes on among bureaucrats and
politicians. These models capture the internal dynamics of bureaucracy, the multiplicity of actors
and the diverging interests of different departments. As with other theories it has its drawbacks
such as the fact that it underplays the capacity of the political leadership to impose important
reforms and pays little attention to individual interests and ideologies.
Finally, belief systems models emphasise the role of ideology and shared beliefs in decision-
making. Sometimes decisions do not follow strategies that would be universally identified
as ‘rational’. Not all decisions try to maximise utility, as predicted by rational choice theory.
Sometimes, political values prove more powerful than rational choice. For instance, sometimes
the decision to enter a war or to provide help to poor countries abroad is criticised for not
benefiting the country, but political leaders still often make such decisions. The models above
cannot explain all decisions that are taken. Clearly, sometimes government decisions contradict
the ideological principles of the leaders in power.
Policy instruments and policy outcomes

The term policy instruments refers to ‘what’ governments do, particularly the output of the
policy-making process. The policy instruments are the tools that governments have at their
disposal in order to implement policy. There is a large variety of policy instruments. Usually
policy-makers adopt different policy instruments according to the socio-economic and political
context and to the policy goal they are pursuing. Christopher Hood (1983) classifies policy
instruments into four categories according to the type of resources a government has at its
disposal: authority, nodality, organisation and treasure.
Authority instruments rely on the possession of legal or official power. Governments have the
power or right to give orders or make decisions concerning their citizens. Legal prohibitions
or obligations, regulations on markets or human behaviour and licences are some examples
of authority-based instruments. Nodality means that the government sits in the middle of an
information network. Governments take advantage of their access to and control of information.
Public awareness campaigns, formal information requirements, compilation of data about the
economy and society are all examples of nodality instruments. Organisation instruments are
linked to the use of manpower, land, buildings, materials and equipment. Governments can
utilise the structure or machinery of the state as an instrument. For instance, governments
can directly provide some services or goods, can create and modify agencies or departments
of civil servants, use police and armed forces as a control device and administer training and
education. Treasure instruments are those that involve the use of financial resources in attaining
policy goals. Government can increase or reduce salaries and taxes, modify budgets, fund social
movements and organisations, etc. Finally, it is important to stress that in general most public
policies require a combination of several types of policy instruments.
In order to evaluate the adequacy of the instruments employed or the success or failure of
policies it is necessary to analyse policy outcomes. Policy outcomes are the social, economic
and environmental impacts that policies have on society at large. A policy can impact on society
in many ways and not all impacts can be measured quantitatively or be easily compared. This
fact introduces an element of complexity into policy-making which is not present to the same
degree, for instance in private companies, in which outcomes tend to be evaluated in terms
of economic benefit. Some of the outcomes of public policy are collateral or unintended and
others only emerge over a very long period. For instance, deregulating business opening
hours can have a positive impact for consumers (facilitate access to goods and services) and
negative collateral impact on small businesses that cannot afford to open for long hours or
during weekends. Sometimes policies are contradictory: they may subsidise tobacco growers
while launching anti-smoking campaigns and bans. Policy-makers need to consider positive
and negative outcomes before deciding to launch the policy. Often education, health, climate
change and other similar policies have a short-term economic cost and only a long-term (and
sometimes uncertain) positive impact on society. The difference in the nature of these impacts
complicates the cost-benefit analysis, comparisons across different policies and the allocation of
public resources. In brief, policy-makers tend to face situations of very high uncertainty given the
variety of policy outcomes they need to consider.
Activity
Identify the problems that can be encountered in each of the stages of the policy
process and provide examples.
Policy process Problems Examples
Initiation
Formulation
Implementation
Evaluation
130
Section 5.3: Armed forces
Introduction 131
Specific features of the armed forces 131
The functions of the military 132
Theories of civilian control of the military 133

Unit 5: Public policy and administration • Section 5.3: Armed forces 131
Introduction
The armed forces are an interesting subject in the study of politics. The military are an essential
instrument in the creation and maintenance of social communities and for the defence of
nation states and political systems. From this point of view they might be considered ‘armed
bureaucrats’. However, history shows that the military have also used their strength to influence,
blackmail, displace or even supplant governments (Finer, 2002 [1962], p.127). Even in the twenty-
first century, the tensions between the political and military spheres are more than evident in
some countries. The military coups d’état in the Central African Republic (2003), Mauritania
(2005), Fiji (2006), Guinea (2008), Madagascar (2009), Honduras (2009), Niger (2010) and Guinea-
Bissau (2010) are recent examples of the way in which the military can succeed in overturning
the government of a country.
Paradoxically the organisation created to protect the polity is granted enough power to
overthrow it. This has led scholars to consider the military a ‘necessary evil’ for the maintenance of
peace. Historians, sociologists and political scientists have studied the military, their relations with
political power and society at large, as well as the mechanisms or strategies that have been used
to control them. Controlling the armed forces and the threat they may pose to a political system
is a key challenge for democracies. The problem is captured by the classical Latin expression:
‘qui custodiet ipsos custodies?’ (who will guard the guards?). The armed forces in a country
include the military and police forces. The military are in charge of maintaining a country against
external threats and the police are in charge of guarding public order and dealing with domestic
threats. Although some of the features and problems introduced in this section apply to both the
military and the police the analysis here focuses on the military.
Specific features of the armed forces

Modern armed forces share particular features that make them different from most other
governmental organisations. These features make them very effective in their prime function
– the defence of the territory – but also represent risks for the political system. First, the armed
forces hold a monopoly of violence in society, (i.e. they are the only ones allowed by law to
commit violent acts) which makes their power unparallelled. In a democracy, the armed forces
hold the vast majority of society’s coercive power. Although other groups, such as hunting clubs,
may also possess limited means through their access to firearms, the state generally maintains
enough of an advantage to justify its claim to a monopoly on the use of force. In non-democratic
regimes some paramilitary organisations in the service of the regime, such as the Sturmabteilung
(SA) in Nazi Germany and the Camicie Nere in Mussolini’s Italy are also allowed to carry arms.
However, these paramilitary organisations do not have the equipment and expertise to match
the coercive power of the professional armed forces. Only in societies undergoing a civil war, and
usually thanks to foreign military support, is it possible to find paramilitary groups, usually called
guerrillas, with the capacity to challenge government armies. Recent examples can be found in
Colombia, Congo, Libya and Syria. Granting a monopoly of violence to the military gives stability
to a country by limiting the capacity of discontented groups to use violence to impose their will.
It is very important to make political channels the only path towards government. Nonetheless
this situation also carries the risk that if the military decide to impose their will through violence,
the government is not in a position to counter their challenge.
Second, modern armed forces are highly disciplined and hierarchical. The organisation of
armed forces can be seen as an extreme case of Weberian bureaucratic organisation in which
rules are not bent or up for discussion and obedience is the fundamental driving principle. This
strengthens the effectiveness of the armed forces but can also cause problems. Commands
cascade from the top to the bottom of the organisation. The distance between the commanding
officer and the soldier in charge of executing orders can make difficult decisions a little easier. The
person who takes the decision does not always personally experience the, sometimes negative,
repercussions of his orders. Those who execute those orders are not held responsible for the
decisions, they are just following orders, and can therefore always deflect blame. This type of
structure gives great power to a small elite of military leaders. Top military leaders are in a position
to make anti-democratic choices, such as ordering a coup d’état or the execution of political
figures.
Third, the armed forces are usually a highly self-sufficient and cohesive organisation
characterised by a distinctive culture and values that make them more prepared to fight and, if
necessary, die for their country. This is normally referred to as esprit de corps. Discipline, sacrifice,
comradeship, solidarity and honour are typical military values. The military are to some extent
insulated from society. They have their own higher education system, they have their own
technical expertise and conduct scientific research, they oversee the defence industry and are
usually not allowed to work in the private sector or participate in politics. The composition of the
armed forces does not tend to mirror that of the society they defend. The armed forces are male
dominated and ethnic or religious groups may not be proportionally represented. The military
sees itself as a distinct group and its priority is defending the integrity of the state, not being a
representative body. This insulation can contribute to keeping the military out of politics but can
also be dangerous when the values of the military diverge too far from the mainstream values in a
society. The military are sometimes criticised in liberal societies for being excessively conservative
and religious, or for embracing revolutionary ideas and secularism in more traditional societies.
The functions of the military

Given the threat the military can pose to government, why do countries continue to maintain
armed forces? The answer is that the military are called upon to perform several important
functions.
The armed forces are instruments of war that have traditionally been used both offensively
and defensively. As Clausewitz famously claimed ‘war is merely the continuation of politics
by other means’ (Clausewitz, 1966 [1827]). Governments use their armed forces abroad to gain
resources, land and political influence, to defend national interests or punish enemy groups
or countries. The Roman emperors, the Spanish kings, Napoleon’s France, the British Crown,
the Japanese empire and Nazi Germany are examples of expansionary politics relying heavily
on the armed forces. In the current international context, conquest is beyond most political
agendas but there are still examples of pre-emptive strikes on foreign countries, allegedly in the
name of national security. The armed forces of Israel, Colombia and the USA are among those
that have recently engaged in this type of action. Sometimes foreign interventions are used to
impose regime change and introduce new civil liberties (e.g. Libya and Iraq), or to fight against
terrorism (e.g. Afghanistan, Chechnya). The armed forces also continue to play a defensive role
and are in charge of securing the frontiers of a country and its aerial and maritime space. In most
democracies the armed forces are not so much used as an active instrument of war but as an
instrument of deterrence against foreign threats.
Armies also provide domestic assistance. In many countries, due to their equipment and
experience in logistics, the military contribute actively in national crises provoked by natural
disasters such as earthquakes, fires, hurricanes or floods. The armed forces can quickly establish
emergency infrastructures such as bridges, water supply, etc. They can also support governments
and police forces in guaranteeing internal security. For instance, they are in a position to provide
intelligence and physical support in the prevention of terrorism or in the case of attack.
The armed forces are also an instrument of nation building. Armed forces not only defend
the national territory and political system, they can also unite a population by giving it a shared
experience of military service. Taking part in military service has contributed to the socialisation
and indoctrination of the men of some nations. In particular in divided societies the armed forces
have served to enhance the sense of unity.
A peacekeeping role is increasingly important for the armed forces. The military fulfil the
functions of cooperation and assistance in countries experiencing large-scale armed conflicts.
The participation of armed forces in a foreign territory is based on three principles: consent of the
parties in conflict, neutrality and the minimum use of force by the foreign armed forces (Forster,
2006, pp.196–225). Kosovo, Congo, Darfur, Lebanon, East Timor and Sudan are all countries that
have experienced foreign peacekeeping operations. Usually, but not always, these operations are
coordinated by supranational organisations such as the UN, NATO, the European Union and the
African Union.
In times of crisis, the armed forces are an alternative to civilian rule. Sometimes the
intervention of the military in politics is not linked to a will to interfere or a specific political
agenda but to exceptional circumstances. In some cases, when the standard political instruments
fail, the military may be called to rule or supervise government. Violent revolutions, uncontrolled
religious or ethnic clashes, external attacks, continuous failure of civilian governments or the
fall of a regime have all in their time ‘justified’ military intervention in politics. In these cases
sometimes a military junta or council is established until the normal political institutions are
functional again. These military juntas should be set up only temporarily because the military
are prepared and equipped to impose coercion, not to rule. Portugal (1974) and Turkey (1980)
are examples of countries where the military temporarily took over the government in order to
strengthen a (civilian) political system. The problem is that sometimes all political democratic
means are not exhausted before military intervention is called for. Political factions or military
leaders eager to achieve power may exaggerate the gravity of a country’s problems as a pretext
for toppling the legitimate government. The interventions in Chile (1973–1998), Argentina
(1976–1983) and Nigeria (1993–1998) are examples of this.
Theories of civilian control of the military

Academics and politicians have agreed that it is necessary to establish some mechanisms to
keep the military subordinated. However, there is no consensus around what approach to
military control countries should follow. Two theories of military control have been competing
over the last few decades:
The ‘objective’ or ‘liberal’ approach to control was introduced by Huntington (1957). His
theory emphasises military autonomy and self-control as the best way to ensure military
subordination. Huntington argues that military professionalism prevents the armed forces from
interfering in politics. According to this theory the professional military considers itself above
politics. Huntington’s concept of military professionalism (1957, pp.8–10) involves expertise or
professional knowledge, a deep sense of responsibility rooted in ethical rules, and a cohesive
esprit de corps. Huntington’s idea is that civilian control may be reached by ‘militarizing the
military’, that is by helping them to develop professional attitudes (1957, p.83). If the military are
busy with their professional duties and are kept isolated from society and civilian interference
they will remain politically neutral. The development of professional armies in many democracies
is inspired by this principle.
Janowitz (1960) opposes the Huntingtonian idea of military subordination based on insulation
from society. He argues for a civic-republican approach that would actually encourage
exchanges between the civilian and military sectors. This is an idea inspired by the ancient
Roman model of citizen-soldiers. Citizens must embrace the defence of their country while the
military need to endorse the, sometimes changing, values of the society in which they operate.
For Janowitz isolation from society and the generation of a distinct esprit de corps can lead
to a dangerous difference between the values found in the military and those shared by the
society they are supposed to serve. This kind of discrepancy can result in military frustration and
intervention. The obligatory military service that exists in many countries has traditionally served
to increase the exchanges between civilians and the military and to reduce the gap in views and
values.
Both models of military control are influential but both have also received criticism. Janowitz’s
model of interpenetration between the political and social sphere could potentially become a
dangerous practice for democracy. Totalitarian regimes such as the Nazis or the Soviet Union
politicised the military and militarised the political institutions. On the other hand, there are
risks associated with the isolation and self-control proposed by Huntington. For instance, a
professional military can become a corporatist interest group and external mechanisms may
always be necessary to control them (Abrahamsson, 1972; Nordilnger, 1977). Weak political
institutions and political leadership can push a professional military to interfere in politics (Feit,
1973; Finer, 2002 [1962]).
Finally, Moskos (1977) overcomes the dominant Huntington/Janowitz debate by proposing
an ‘institutional/occupational’ model. He suggests that the military are changing from a
traditional, more institutional type of organisation, based on corporatist values and a distinct
esprit de corps, into a more occupational type of organisation with lower levels of corporatism, a
greater emphasis on personal material rewards and greater proximity to civilian professions (e.g.
diplomats, intelligence officers, technology experts). This model shows that the military may be
developing professionalism while getting closer to civilian society.
Activity
Debate
Divide into two groups and devise a model of civilian control of the military. One
group should be inspired by Huntington’s approach to military control and the other
group by Janowitz’s model. You need to come up with real-life examples to support
your model and criticise the rival model (e.g. examples of coups d’état, civil wars and
successful military subordination). Think about the type of mechanisms of control that
the government could implement (e.g. legal restrictions, parliamentary superivision,
budget control, secret services, etc.). You must be ready to argue the risks and
advantages of each of the models and anticipate criticisms from the other group.
Section 5.4: Interest groups
Introduction 136
Resources used by interests groups 136
Tactics and channels of influence 137
From iron triangles to policy networks 138

Unit 5: Public policy and administration • Section 5.4: Interest groups 136
Introduction
Interests groups are non-governmental organisations which exert pressures on governments
in order to influence public policy. Interest groups have become increasingly important in liberal
democracies. They complement the action of political parties by becoming alternative channels
of communication between society and the government. Interest groups contribute to interest
articulation and collective action in a society. The principle behind them is that coordinated
action can have more impact on policy-making than the actions of individuals. Although many
consumers may have experienced a problem with a public service, nevertheless individually they
would struggle to have their voices heard by the government. Consumer associations therefore
emerged as interest groups that collect information about such concerns and coordinate the
action necessary to put pressure on the government to improve public services.
As societies become more complex, interest groups become more relevant. There is a wide
variety of interest groups in modern societies. Some of them aim to promote private interests
and others focus on the defence of public interests. Business interests, farmers, lobbies, trade
unions, consumer associations, groups promoting government transparency, school parents
associations, environmentalist organisations, organisations for the defence of minorities and civil
rights groups are typical examples of interest groups. The large variety of existing interest groups
has also contributed to new ideas (e.g. pluralist, corporatist and public-choice or new right
interpretations) of how these groups are created and how they operate (Heywood 2013, pp.249–
54). The pluralist model defends the idea that political power is fragmented and that interest
groups are the fundamental building blocks of a democratic system. They provide the critical
mass necessary for individuals’ demands to succeed, they monitor governments and compete
for public resources. According to the pluralist model, the government would play a neutral role
in this competition. The corporatist model also sees interest groups as central to political life
but adopts a less optimistic view. It emphasises their asymmetry and the role of government in
protecting and supporting some groups, such as trade unions. Finally, the New Right model
is inspired by what is known as public-choice literature (Olson, 1965) and neo-liberal ideas and
adopts a pessimist view of groups. It questions the capacity of groups to articulate collective
action and effectively defend the interests of the individuals that they represent.
Resources used by interests groups

There are several types of resources available to aid interest groups in competing with rival
interest groups and influencing politicians (Axford et al., 2002, pp.394–95).
The membership of a group can be an important indicator of its political strength. Governments
tend to pay attention to the demands of larger groups. For instance, they tend to negotiate
reforms in the labour market with the largest trade unions. It’s not just the size or number of
members of a group that makes it influential but the level of engagement and activism of those
members. Smaller groups with a more active and committed membership can be very influential.
Internal cohesion and unity of purpose can compensate for lower membership. One example
is Global Witness which, though being a relatively small interest group, managed to achieve an
international regulation against so called ‘blood diamonds’.
Financial resources are very important to establish a permanent organisation and professional
management of the group. Moreover, interest groups organise events, participate in national
and international conferences, produce information and public relations campaigns and recruit
members. Money is necessary for all these activities. Finally, in some countries such as the USA,
interest groups can even contribute financially to political campaigns.
Interest groups use technical expertise to advance their goals. The opinion of experts tends
to be appreciated by policy-makers. Often interest groups either have in their membership
(or collaborate with) experts relevant to their cause such as engineers, lawyers, economists,
sociologists and historians. The technical expertise they offer serves to legitimise claims. For
instance, environmental groups tend to rely on scientific reports that show the degradation of the
environment or the potentially negative socio-economic impacts of not taking action.
Finally, visibility and reputation are also important resources. The impact of interest groups
also depends on how central their cause or concern is to public opinion as well as whether the
perception of the group and its cause is positive or negative. Interest groups work to acquire
popularity through public relations campaigns. They also try to take advantage of particular
contexts or trends. For instance, in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, groups
opposing nuclear energy managed to persuade the German government to abandon the
production of nuclear energy.
These resources are somehow interconnected. Interest groups need to be managed in order
to create growth and establish a positive feedback loop in terms of resources. By increasing
membership, for example, an organisation can increase its financial resources from membership
fees. The money can be invested in research that can serve to support the cause of the group. If
the findings of the research turn out to be highly relevant, the organisation that has produced
the report acquires public visibility and prestige which, in turn, can further help to increase the
membership.
Tactics and channels of influence

It is important to analyse different methods of persuasion and the channels they use in order
to understand interest groups and some of the criticisms they receive (Axford et al., 2002, p.396;
Powell et al., 2012, pp.95–102).
First, interest groups try to influence policy through consultation processes. Government
departments and regulatory bodies contact relevant interest groups before reforming laws or
issuing new ones. These consultations are very common in the European Commission, Denmark,
Sweden, the Netherlands and UK.
Second, interest groups lobby for support of their cause. Lobbying is the act of attempting to
influence political decisions. The word ‘lobby’ is used in reference to the informal conversations
and gatherings that take place in the hallways (or lobbies) of the Houses of Parliament in the
UK before and after parliamentary debates. Interest groups lobby through formal and informal
meetings with members of legislative assemblies, local politicians, ministers, civil servants, etc.
Usually lobbyists make appearances before committees or individual decision-makers and
provide information in support of their causes, stressing potential benefits of particular courses
of action and warning about the negative impact of others. Lobbying is an extremely common
tool in the European Union, the UK and the USA. It has developed to such a degree that interest
groups currently have stable lobby structures in centres of power such as Washington and
Brussels. There are even professional lobbyists who provide services to different interest groups.
Third, interest groups can support political parties or candidates, helping those that seem
to have a greater affinity to their cause. If these politicians reach office they are likely to help
advance the cause of the interest groups that helped them win the elections. For instance, trade
unions in the UK have traditionally funded the Labour party and in the USA major business
interests have traditionally contributed heavily to the political campaigns of both major parties.
Fourth, through the courts interest groups also shape policy. They can appeal against regulations
that they consider damaging to their interests and they can sue those infringing the rights they
defend. Lawyers and constitutional experts tend to advise and collaborate with these groups. The
USA provides the best example of a country were interest groups repeatedly use the courts as an
instrument to advance their cause. An example of this are music industry lobbyists who have often
used the courts to shape regulation concerning music-sharing through the internet.
Fifth, the media are important instruments in the campaigns of the interest groups due to
the powerful impact they have on public opinion. Interest groups participate in TV and radio
debates, publish reports, opinion polls and even produce advertisements. It is not unusual to see
TV campaigns aimed at raising awareness, promoting membership of organisations that fight a
particular disease or defend the environment.
Sixth, personal networks are also used to influence policy-makers. The personal connections
of the members of interest groups are sometimes very important in reaching decision-makers or
opinion leaders. Some alumni networks are extremely influential in politics such as the Oxbridge’
and Eton networks in the UK, the Ivy League university networks in the UAS, the network of the
École Nationale d’Administration in France and that of the University of Tokyo in Japan.
Seventh, direct action and protests can help give visibility to a cause and put pressure on
politicians. For instance, the strikes, demonstrations and other forms of protest and boycott
organised by trade or student unions, anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist, environmentalist or pro-
democratisation movements can have an important impact on policy.
The fundamental problem concerning these tactics and channels is in defining the boundaries
between legitimate and illegitimate pressures. All the tactics and channels described above
can be used while respecting normal democratic principles. Democracies have regulated these
channels and impose, some legal restrictions on the action of interest groups. Nonetheless, there
are still cases in which some interest groups cross these boundaries, for instance, in the lobbying
and support of political candidates which can sometimes lead to bribery and corruption.
There are many examples of illegal donations made to political leaders and senior civil servants
in order to obtain favourable legislation, business licences or public contracts. Sometimes the
information campaigns run by interest groups in the media are based on questionable evidence
or infringe the right of privacy of some stakeholders. Finally, direct action and protests can
sometimes turn into coercive or violent tactics for exerting pressure. Sometimes demonstrations
escalate into riots or acts of vandalism against state institutions or competing interest groups.
Sometimes this happens with intent and sometimes not. The pinnacle of such outcomes is
probably revolutions and coups d’état. The perceived legitimacy of such actions also rests on
whether they are enacted against a legal democratic regime or an authoritarian one.
From iron triangles to policy networks

The way in which interest groups operate also evolves over time. Political scientists have
traditionally described the relationship between interest groups and governments involved
in policy-making processes, in particular in the USA, as iron triangles. The three points of this
triangle would be occupied by legislative committees, the executive officials (politicians and senior
civil servants) and the interest groups themselves. A strong relationship of interdependence can
develop between these three groups, characterised by continuous exchanges and mutual support
on each policy issue. Trust and reciprocity between these groups help to consolidate them.
Stable coalitions of interest develop between interest group leaders, senior bureaucrats and some
legislators. The general concern is that, as a result, small circles of participants can have a decisive
influence on policy outputs. Such triangles can be found at all policy levels, international, state,
regional and local. These coalitions can explain why sometimes public policy does not seem to
follow public interest and why in some cases changes in policy are obstructed.
For instance, the lack of change in the Common Agricultural Policy in the EU can be interpreted
as a result of an iron triangle consisting of agricultural ministers, agricultural officials in the
European Commission, and farming interests at the European level, mainly in France and
Germany (Hix, 1999, pp.251–55). A similar argument can be made about defence policy in the
USA where there are very strong connections between the lobby representing the US defence
industry, the Defense Department and some congressmen and senators (Adams et al., 1981).
These iron triangles are often considered inefficient for society at large and to benefit particular
interest groups at the expense of taxpayers.
Nonetheless, in many liberal democracies these triangles are gradually declining thanks to
transparency and competition laws, media scrutiny and the action of competing interest groups.
In the current state of our information society, the secrecy and opacity in which the iron triangles
tended to operate in the past is becoming difficult to maintain. Citizens are more aware of
decision-making processes and more critical when public funding is wasted. The number of
interest groups relating to specific policy issues is growing in modern societies. Decisions are
less and less often made by small circles of participants. An increasing number of stakeholders
participate in the policy process. In this new context, stable policy networks are replacing
the iron triangles. These networks consist of sets of organisations and individuals with varying
degrees of commitment participating in policy-making at some stage of the policy process.
Government officials, legislative committees, researchers, journalists, consultants, lobbyists and
political activist participate in these networks. These networks enable a wider range of interests
to be represented in policy making (Hague and Harrop, 2010, pp.233–34).
Activity
Role play
Divide into groups and allocate each an interest (e.g. climate change, the organisation
of labour (trade unions), automobile manufacturer, defence of the rights of ethnic
minority, and so on).
Acting as members of the executive board of an interest group, you need to come up
with an action plan in order to influence policy. Define the mission of the interest group,
some policy goals and justify specific actions (including resources, tactics and channels
of influence that you will use).
Type and name of
interest group:
Mission:
Policy goals:
List of actions (including resources, tactics and channel used):

140
Section 5.1
1. Why is it important to have a bureaucracy?
2. ‘Bureaucracies are so dysfunctional that we should get rid of them.’ Discuss
3. What are the fundamental functions of bureaucracy?
4. Can bureaucrats be controlled? How?
5. Explain the fundamental features of the ‘New Public Management’?
6. What are the main principles and types of structure in the organisation of bureaucracies?
Section 5.2
1. The evaluation stage of the policy cycle is the only problematic stage’. Discuss and illustrate
with reference to examples.
2. Briefly describe the main stages of the policy cycle.
3. Are policy decisions only based on rational calculations?
4. There is an optimal policy instrument for every policy problem. Discuss.
Section 5.3
1. ‘Democracy is incompatible with the armed forces’. Discuss.
2. Why are the armed forces studied by political scientists?
3. What is so special about the armed forces?
4. What functions have the armed forces traditionally fulfilled?
5. ‘There is no real way of keeping the military subordinated. So political leaders can do nothing
but trust their self-control’. Discuss.
Section 5.4
1. ‘Interest groups are bad for society because they use coercive means to try to impose
particular interests over the public interest’ Discuss.
2. Briefly describe the three main interpretations of interest groups.
3. Are interest groups becoming increasingly influential in politics?
4. How do interest groups try to shape policy? With whom do they build coalitions?
5. Do you think interest groups are important in democracy?
Concluding comments
The bureaucracy is a fundamental part of the executive branch of government in charge

of implementing policy. It carries out administrative work, offers policy advice, articulates
interests and maintains political stability.
Bureaucracy is also identified with a mode of organisation based on Weber’s classical rational-
administrative principles.
Bureaucrats hold considerable power in the policy process and some concerns have been
raised regarding bureaucratic efficiency. The New Public Management has tried to tackle
some of these.
A policy is a set of decisions or plans of action adopted in order to pursue a specific objective.
Policies follow a policy cycle, the most important stages of which are initiation, formulation,
implementation and evaluation.
There are different theoretical interpretations of policy-making, such as the rational-choice,
incremental, organisational/bureaucratic and beliefs-systems models.
The term policy instruments refers to ‘what’ governments do, the embodiment of
policies and the output of the policy-making process. It is also important to analyse policy
outcomes: the social, economic and environmental impacts of policies in society at large.
The armed forces are an essential instrument in the creation and maintenance of social
communities. They carry out very important tasks in modern society. However, the military
have also used their strength to influence, blackmail, displace or even supplant governments.
Some of the specific features of the armed forces (e.g. cohesion, discipline, hierarchy, coercive
means) make them very efficient in their functions but also more dangerous should they
decide to interfere with politics.
Several theories explain military subordination to civilian rule, the most influential of which
have been Huntington’s ‘objective’ and Janowitz’s ‘civic-republican’ models.
Interests groups are non-governmental organisations which exert pressure on governments
in order to influence public policy. Interest groups have become increasingly important in
liberal democracies.
There is a wide variety of interest groups and they use a growing diversity of resources and
tactics to achieve their goals. The traditional iron triangle interdependence in policy-making
is being gradually replaced by a more open system based on policy networks.

describe the fundamental functions and concerns associated with the bureaucracy, armed
forces and interest groups in a country
critically discuss different theories and models concerning:
bureaucratic organisation
policy-making
Unit 5: Public policy and administration • Concluding comments 142
civilian control over the military

interest groups
illustrate with real world examples the organisation of different public administrations and the
main challenges faced in the policy-making process
bureaucracy
new public management
policy
public and private interests
policy process
policy instrument
military Junta
interest groups
iron triangles and policy networks.
143
Appendix 1: Sample examination paper
Appendix 1: Sample examination paper
Important note: This Sample examination paper reflects the examination and assessment
arrangements for this course in the academic year 2013–2014. The format and structure
of the examination may have changed since the publication of this subject guide. You can
find the most recent examination papers on the VLE where all changes to the format of the
examination are posted.
Time allowed: two hours

Candidates should answer TEN of the following FOURTEEN questions: ALL FIVE from
Section A (25 marks in total), ALL FOUR from Section B (25 marks in total) and ONE (out
of five) from Section C (50 marks each).
Section A
Answer the following five questions [25 marks]
1. What is the relation between power and politics? [5 marks]
2. Outline the differences between direct and representative democracy. [5 marks]
3. Briefly explain Montesquieu’s idea of division of powers. [4 marks]
4. Explain ‘centralisation’ and ‘decentralisation’ in the context of multi-level
governance. [5 marks]
5. What are ‘interest groups’ and how do they operate? [6 marks]
Section B
Answer the following four questions [25 marks]
Type of regime Countries % of countries % of world

population
Full democracies 26 15.6 12.3
Flawed democracies 53 31.7 37.2
Hybrid regimes 33 19.8 14
Authoritarian 55 32.9 36.5
Adapted from Democracy Index 2010

Appendix 1: Sample examination paper 144
Using the table above and information from other sources that you have read, answer the
following questions:
6. A sizeable number of countries in the world remain authoritarian; explain the persistence of
authoritarian regime types with reference to at least two examples. [7 marks]
7. What public policy factors may explain the existence of ‘flawed democracies’? [5 marks]
8. What forms of governance and political participation might we expect to find in a country in
the ‘hybrid regimes’ category in the table above? Discuss with reference to at least one case.
[7 marks]
9. At least half the world’s population lives under democratic systems; discuss, with reference
to at least two cases and two regions, how democratic governance on a mass scale can be
theoretically and practically organised? [6 marks]
Section C
Answer one of the following questions [50 marks]
10. Compare conservative and liberal political ideology in relation to at least two of the following
elements:
the individual
the government
the markets.
11. Outline different varieties of nationalism and discuss whether we live in a world of states or a
world of nations.
12. ‘Democracy is the government of the People, by the People and for the People’. Discuss this
statement with reference to at least two of the following elements:
political parties
elections
political executives.
13. Assess the impact of globalisation on modern states and politics.
14. Explain what public policy is and briefly describe the main stages in the policy process.
145
Appendix 2: Glossary
Appendix 2: Glossary
Introduction
Actor
an individual or group that makes choices and takes action. Groups are sometimes referred
to as ‘collective actors’ to differentiate them from individuals. Only groups with centralised
decision-making capacity and the ability to reproduce themselves over time are generally
recognised as having ‘actor’ status.
Analytical perspective
a way of looking at events, normally based on a set of assumptions or premises about how
the world works. Some analytical perspectives in politics include the liberal, corporatist and
communtarian schools of thought described in Section 1.3. These assumptions can be
based on observation – inductive premises or on logical argument – deductive premises.
Ideology
a set of fundamental beliefs about how the world works and what is important within it.
These ‘frameworks of ideas’ motivate action and analytical perspectives, making them very
important to the study of human behaviour in general and politics in particular.
School of political thought
a collection of people who share similar philosophies, ideologies and assumptions about
how the world works. Members of a school of thought often share a common analytical
perspective.
Institution
a social mechanism or structure that governs the behaviour of its members. In politics, it
normally refers to a formal organisation such as a state, a political party or a lobby group.
Empirical
based on observation and experimentation. Empirical studies of politics focus on the
observation of historical and current phenomena. Empirical investigations can be contrasted
with rationalist studies that gain knowledge of politics through logical deductions based on
reasoned argument rather than through observation.
Subjective
based on one’s own understanding and perception of the world. Subjective studies
accept that an individual’s (or ‘subject’s’) own experience and ideology will affect their
understanding of events. They therefore argue that phenomena will be understood differently
by each individual observing them. This viewpoint – called subjectivity – can be contrasted
with objectivity, which holds that phenomena can be observed and analysed from a neutral
position, free of personal bias prejudice or context.
Legislative assembly
a parliamentary body composed of lawmakers that represents all or part of the legislative
branch of the state. A legislative assembly makes and/or passes laws (legislation) and can take
many forms. The most common are parliaments – generally based on the Westminster model of
government – and congresses – often based on the US Constitution. (see also executive).

Appendix 2: Glossary 146
Executive
i. the branch of government that holds final responsibility for the functioning of the state
and coordinates the actions of its other branches. It is tasked with enacting the law (literally
‘executing’ it), as opposed to legislative and judicial branches of government, which make
the law (legislate) and judge the law (adjudicate). The executive branch normally enshrines
the rights and responsibilities of the state – its sovereignty – in the person of a monarch
or elected president. The individual so empowered becomes ‘head of state’.
ii. (adjective) having to do with a final decision-maker; in the sense of ‘making an executive
decision’.
Liberal democracy
a form of government that combines representative democracy with guarantees of
individual liberty for its citizens. It is therefore characterised by a combination of regular, free
and fair elections to a legislative assembly and government protection of fundamental
political rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.
More recently, liberal democracy has become associated with capitalism and neo-liberal
economic institutions such as free trade and privatisation.
Institutional government
a form of social organisation in which the power to settle disputes and make laws is invested
in a centralised authority – be it a monarchy, oligarchy, democracy or some other form of
political organisation.
Governance
a form of social organisation in which formally independent groups cooperate to address
shared problems without recourse to a centralised decision-making authority.
Sub-national politics
a variety of political interaction that takes place between groups within a national polity. In
federations, these often take the form of relations between provincial or district governments,
although other ‘sub-national’ groups – including secessionists – may be included.
Insurgency
an armed uprising against a constituted authority – such as a government – carried out by
a group that is not recognised as a ‘legitimate’ political actor by the authority it is attacking.
These ‘illegitimate’ groups may include terrorist cells, liberation movements and even criminal
organisations. Insurgencies often take the form of asymmetrical warfare.
Revolt
i. an uprising against a constituted authority that may or may not be violent in form.
ii. to rise up against a constituted authority.
Scalar politics
an area of political research concerned with relationships between actors and processes
operating at different spatial scales. These vary from the most restricted – the local, to
the widest – the global. Other scales include the sub-national, national, regional and
international.
Classical political thought
a school of political thought that includes the longest-lived philosophical traditions in
Western political science: liberalism and conservatism. The former focuses on achieving
human freedom and potential – literally ‘to liberate’ the individual. The latter looks instead to
maintain existing relationships – literally ‘to conserve’ existing social, political and economic
institutions.
Section 1.1
Conservative
a philosophical position that advocates the maintenance (or ‘conservation’) of traditional
political, economic, and social relationships.
Trade union
a collective actor formed by workers in an industry or occupation, such as ‘metalworkers’,
‘autoworkers’ or ‘farmers’, to represent the interests of its members in negotiations with
employers. These negotiations often include issues ranging from wages and working
conditions to collective bargaining rights.
Lobby
i. (noun) a group of political actors that applies different forms of pressure to political
stakeholders and decision-makers in order to affect the legislative process. Lobbies
are often organised according to the types of actor they represent. These can include
industries (e.g. the banking lobby, the union lobby), policy movements (e.g. the human
rights lobby) and a variety of non-governmental organisations (e.g. the indigenous
peoples’ lobby, the gun-owners’ lobby).
ii. (verb) to apply pressure to political stakeholders and decision-makers in order to affect
the legislative process.
Strategic
having to do with broad, long-term goals. The term stands in contrast to tactical, which
describes the immediate steps by which more distant, strategic plans are pursued.
Expert commission
official or unofficial group tasked with studying a specific problem and made up of
recognised specialists in the field. These are often created by governments to produce
reports on contentious issues that require relatively impartial, non-partisan study. These
commissions generally produce recommendations that may be accepted in full, in part, or
not at all by the government of the day.
Non-partisan
not having to do with a specific political party or ideology. Most often used to describe issues
that are neither liberal nor conservative, and which mobilise support across the political
spectrum.
Legitimate
recognised by the public or the law. For example, legitimate orders come from a
recognised figure of authority acting within established legal principles. Liberal democratic
governments establish their legitimacy through free and fair elections and the protection of
individuals’ political rights.
Validate
to confirm as legitimate.
Patriarchical
being dominated or ruled by men. Derived from the root words pater (father) and
archos (ruler). A system ruled by men is called a patriarchy. Such systems tend to glorify
characteristics associated with masculinity while devaluing those linked to femininity.
Section 1.2
Empirical evidence – see ‘empirical’.
Methodology
in academia, a way of gathering and analysing information on the basis of specialised
research techniques and tools, be they quantitative (based on statistical research),
qualitative (based on the development of sound narratives), empirical or theoretical.
Verifiable
capable of being shown to be true, and often used to refer to theories and hypotheses
that can be supported by empirical evidence. The term stands in contrast to falsifiable
hypotheses, which can be shown to be false and are at the heart of the scientific method
used in the natural sciences.
Scientific method
a system of gathering and analysing information that attempts to falsify proposed hypotheses
through experimentation. A hypothesis that is not falsified is generally accepted as being ‘true’
until such time as a repeatable experiment shows it to be false.
Natural sciences
a branch of study having to do with the working of the material world, often divided between
biology, chemistry, and physics.
Model
in academia, a simplified image of a complex phenomenon or system. Models help us
to manage information by prioritising certain kinds of data, and can be empirical or
theoretical depending on the nature of the phenomenon or system being studied.
Civil liberties
political rights belonging to the individual by virtue of their citizenship. These are intended to
ensure that the individual can participate fully in the political life of their polity, and generally
include guarantees to free speech, a free press and freedom to assemble.
Development
in politics, the process by which societies increase their economic and/or human well-
being. Orthodox development theory associates this process almost exclusively with the
achievement of economic growth, normally measured in terms of a state’s gross domestic
product (GDP). Critical development theory puts greater stress on individuals’ ability to fulfil
their potential. This leads to a much more complex set of measurements that include a state’s
gender policies, its levels of socio-economic inequality, citizens’ educational opportunities,
and the protection of civil liberties.
Prototypical
representing the most fundamental characteristics of a type. Originally derived from the
Greek roots proto- (original, first) and –typos (model), a prototypical example embodies the
essential qualities of the person, place or thing being shown.
Correlation
in statistics, a relationship in which changes to one factor lead to changes in another.
Section 1.3
Rationalist
a view that the search for knowledge can be achieved through reason – or the use of intellect
and deduction – over other forms of aquiring knowledge.
Absolutism
a philosophy that supports centralisation of state power in the hands of a single individual,
normally an executive figure such as a monarch or dictator.
Meritocracy
a system of government in which positions are achieved by virtue of ability (merit) rather than
birthright or seniority. Literally means ‘rule by the worthy’.
Negative liberty
freedom from external restraint or interference. Negative liberty describes an individual’s
right to be ‘free from’ something or someone, and is often contrasted with positive liberty –
the ‘right to’ do or have something.
Civil society
a category of social organisation that exists outside the immediate organs of the state. Civil
society groups include but are not limited to volunteer organisations, unions and business
lobbies, and religious and cultural organisations.
Organicism
a philosophy that believes in the existence of a ‘natural’ social order based on tradition.
This order cannot be improved by human effort, which can only disrupt society’s ‘natural’
hierarchy, a belief that is popular with those who dominate the status quo (from Latin,
literally meaning ‘things the way they are’).
Multiculturalism
a philosophy that supports the existence of more than one culture within a single polity. This
often means support for policies that encourage cultural diversity.
Section 1.4
Utopian socialism
a school of thought within the socialist tradition of political thought. Socialism, broadly
defined, is a philosophy that emphasises the importance of group rights and is generally
contrasted with liberalism’s focus on the individual. Socialism’s utopian school predates
the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and is associated with early efforts to set up ideal
communities based on the principles of the French Revolution in the first half of the 19th
century.
Ethical
having to do with ‘right’ or ‘correct’ behaviour as defined by morality. Ethics is a branch of
moral philosophy concerned with identifying ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ human behaviour.
Economic democracy
a philosophy that supports a form of capitalism in which influence is distributed among a
wide variety of stakeholders in society (e.g. workers, suppliers, consumers) rather than being
concentrated in the hands of relatively few corporate shareholders. The goal of economic
democracy is to give a polity a greater voice in how its economic relations are organised,
allowing the system to support the public good rather than relying exclusively on the
market for pricing and production decisions.
Vanguard party
in Marxist-Leninist theory, a political organisation of professional revolutionaries designed
to lead society towards the achievement of a Marxist utopia by forcing the pace of change.
According to Vladimir Lenin, the vanguard party provides the leadership needed to
encourage the proletariat to establish a socialist state. Without the vanguard to lead it, a
proletarian revolution is thought to be unlikely.
Proletariat
in socialist thought, the lower socio-economic class made up of workers. Unlike the
bourgeoisie, the class that controls the means by which goods are produced and distributed
through the economy, the proletariat must sell its labour to industrialists in return for a wage
that does not reflect the full value of their contribution to the production process.
Section 2.2
Polity
a political community. It often refers to a state or to one of a state’s constituent political units
such as a province or a district, in which a government exercises legitimate authority over a
territory and population.
Popular sovereignty
a principle of government that equates a state’s legitimacy with its ability to mobilise the
support of its population.
Primordial
existing at or from the beginning of time. In the study of nationalism, primordialism refers
to the belief that nations are permanent features of political life and part of a ‘natural’ social
order. This order is ‘natural’ insofar as it cannot be improved by human effort, the exercise of
which tends to disrupt society’s ‘natural’ hierarchy – a belief that is popular with those who
dominate the status quo.
Jingoism
an extreme form of patriotism characteristic of the imperial age of European history, in which
there was widespread support for aggressive policies that sought to increase the prestige and
power of the nation state. The term is derived from a British patriotic song written during the
Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78, in which the author advocated military action against Russia in
defence of Constantinople.
Section 2.3
Pluralism
a philosophy that believes in the benefits of having diverse values in a political community.
This often leads to a form of representative democracy in which competition between
interest groups produces beneficial results for the entire polity by putting checks and
balances on the power of any one group within the polity.
Section 2.4
Party-state
a system of government in which political power is concentrated in the hands of one political
party, whose policies and leadership are nearly inseparable from those of the state.
Section 3.1
Oligarchy
a system of government in which decisions are made by a relatively small elite, derived
from the root words oligos (‘a few’) and archos (‘to rule’). Oligarchy is often contrasted with
systems of government ruled by a single individual (monarchy) and by a polity’s entire
population (democracy).
Constituency
a geographical area in which the views of citizens – constituents – are represented by a
member of a government’s legislative assembly.
Section 3.2
d’Hondt method
a system for allocating seats in a legislative assembly in a party list/proportional
representation voting system.
Section 3.3
Plenary
a characteristic of some meetings, conferences and congresses, in which all members of all
groups are invited to attend. Such meetings are often called plenary sessions.
Section 3.4
Clientelism
a system of government in which patrons distribute goods and services in exchange for
clients’ political support.
Stakeholder
an actor who affects or is affected by a political institution or relationship. For example, all
voters and citizens are stakeholders in their government. Governments and individuals alike
are stakeholders in the global system of financial regulation.
Section 4.1
Rubber-stamp
to accept recommendations and decisions without criticism, normally used to describe the
legislative process in authoritarian regimes.
Section 4.2
Mercantilism
an economic philosophy that encourages governments to accumulate wealth by maintaining
a positive balance of trade (e.g. selling more to others than it buys from them). They do
so by means of trade barriers, which make imports more expensive, and subsidies, which
make domestic products cheaper.
Section 4.3
Constitutional
related to the systems and processes according to which an organisation is structured.
Fiscal
having to do with finances. In government, it normally refers to issues surrounding the
budget, particularly taxation and spending.
Section 5.2
Mandate
the authority to act on behalf of a larger group, normally granted to a representative by a
constituency in a system of representative democracy.

Foundation Course Politics PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foundation Course Politics PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Foundation Programme

 J. Olivas-Osuna, The London School of Economics and Political Science

University of London International Programmes

Published by: University of London

Cover image © Ocean/Corbis

Introduction to the course...........................................................................1

Unit 1: Introducing politics and political thought

Unit 2: States, nations and regimes

Unit 3: Representation and government

Unit 4: Economy and society

© University of London 2013

Section 4.4: Globalisation.............................................................................................................109

Unit 5: Public policy and administration

Appendix 1: Sample examination paper..................................................143

Introduction to the course

Route map to the guide 2

Introduction to politics and political thought 2

Aims of the course 5

Learning outcomes for the course 5

Overview of the learning resources 6

© University of London 2013

Route map to the guide

Introduction to politics and political thought

Unit 1: Introducing politics and political thought

Unit 2: States, nations and regimes

Unit 3: Representation and government

Unit 4: Economy and society

Unit 5: Public policy and administration

Week Unit Section

Aims of the course

Learning outcomes for the course

Overview of learning resources

Accessing the Student Portal and virtual learning environment

Glossary of key terms

Overview of the unit 10

© University of London 2013

Overview of the unit

Section 1.1: What is politics?

Politics in people’s everyday lives 14

Politics in people’s everyday lives

Section 1.2: Studying politics

Can politics be considered a science? 19

Studying individuals or institutions 20

Research strategies in politics 21

Can politics be considered a science?

Studying individuals or institutions

Research strategies in politics

Traditions Advantages Limitations

Section 1.3: Political thought 1

Core elements of liberalism 25

Negative and positive liberty 26

New Right and neo-liberalism 27

Core elements of liberalism

Negative and positive liberty

New Right and neo-liberalism

Section 1.4: Political thought 2

Test your knowledge and understanding

A reminder of your learning outcomes

Overview of the unit 37

© University of London 2013

Overview of the unit

Section 2.1: States and regimes

One world, a variety of states 43

J. Olivas-Osuna, The London School of Economics and Political Science

Regime types: military

mix/hybrid (state what mix)