The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (274 page)
Read The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics Online
Authors: Iain McLean
BOOK: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics
4.92Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Thatcherism
The economic and social policies pursued by Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990. There are many different notions of what Thatcherism comprises, but core elements include deregulation and privatization, combined with authoritarian social policy.
The word ‘Thatcherism’, so it is said, was first coined by Professor Stuart Hall in the late 1970s, when the Conservatives were still in opposition. After the Party's election victory in 1979 it became a regular item in the vocabulary of media comment on British politics. It also spawned a cottage industry of academic analyses. A minimalist definition of Thatcherism would push three themes: it was, and still is, the most convenient shorthand description of what Conservative governments did between 1979 and 1990; it suggests that what they did had a heavy ideological or doctrinal base; and it implies that all the Conservative administrations in this period were dominated by their leader, Mrs Thatcher .
Much of the practice of Thatcherism was, and still is, contested and debated. Hence brief, descriptive, neutral, comment is next to impossible. In these circumstances description is best pursued within the parameters of the chief interpretations of the phenomenon. The classic interpretations of Thatcherism are rooted in the period 1979 to 1987: that is, the period which covered Mrs Thatcher's first two administrations. Three emerged, all of which were associated with the predominant élite political cultures of the time, namely, the Thatcherite, ‘middle opinion’ and neo-Marxist. These can be assessed in terms of their approaches towards the origins of Thatcherism, their principal actor focus, and their accounts of Thatcherism's main objectives and outcomes.
For Thatcherites the origins were the Conservative Party's delayed realization that the postwar
consensus
was responsible for Britain's decline in both economic and international status terms. Thatcherites argued that by the end of the 1970s Britain had reached the stage of ‘last chance saloon’: without the radical change of course instituted in 1979 Britain would have sunk to the status of an ungovernable ‘banana republic’. The most important initial objective was to defeat inflation. After that the goals were the creation of a more competitive economy, raising Britain's status in the world, changing the ‘hearts and minds’ of the British people regarding the scope of government, and the defeat of British socialism (that is, the Labour Party). All this, the Thatcherite interpretation argued, had been achieved by 1987. In short, Thatcherism was a success. The principal cause of this success, the principal force behind this renaissance, and hence the principal actor focus of this interpretation, was Mrs Thatcher herself. It was her convictions, drive, and authority, which had ensured that Thatcherism had developed as a coherent doctrine, consistently and comprehensively applied, and one which suffered no serious ‘U turns’.
Middle opinion, which in Britain at the time ranged from the left wing of the Conservative Party (the so-called ‘wets’) through the Liberal/Social Democratic Alliance, to the right and centre of the Labour Party, rejected all this. It did not deny the short-term successes of the Thatcherite project, but it did emphasize the huge cost of those successes to the country and to particular groups in society. The moderate, and modern, social democratic consensus of the postwar period had been replaced by the politics of an ideology rooted in the harsh and outmoded principles of nineteenth-century
laissez-faire
, the contemporary manifestation of which was the economic doctrine espoused by Thatcherism and labelled
monetarism
. Inflation, so middle opinion argued, had been defeated, but only at the cost of mass unemployment and deindustrialization. Public expenditure and the size of the public sector had both been cut, but only at the cost of weakening the welfare state and creating vast profits for privatization speculators. Moreover the traditional and essential intermediate associations of British democracy, the trade unions, the professions, the civil service, and local government, had suffered constant attacks and been fatally weakened. Finally, the foreign policy of Thatcherism was rejected both for its style, ‘megaphonic diplomacy’, and its substance, too close an attachment to Reagan' America and too hostile an approach to the European Community. For middle opinion the principal force behind this awful revolution, and hence its principal actor focus, was Mrs Thatcher, who had hijacked the Conservative Party, rejected its ‘One Nation’ doctrine, and who crudely and cruelly dominated her cabinet colleagues.
The neo-Marxist camp had been the first to spot this awful potential of Thatcherism. Hence in many ways their interpretations reflected the complaints of middle opinion. They, too, accepted that Thatcherism was an exceptional phenomenon in terms of postwar British political development. They, too, accepted the short-term successes of this revolution and its costs, especially to the working class. They, too, objected to the special relationship with the Reagan administration. But they went further than the simple negative hostility of middle opinion. Neo-Marxists were fascinated by, and envious of, the excesses of Thatcherism. Here was a party élite which actually pursued the interests of its class supporters. Here was a party élite which knew what had to be done to bring about a revolution in post- fordist Britain. Because of these concerns the neo-Marxist camp tried to analyse Thatcherism rather than simply praise or attack it. As a result it was far less interested in telling stories about Mrs Thatcher or providing dreary accounts of particular policies. It was far more interested in considering the global and domestic structural context in which Thatcherism operated and the governing techniques it employed to protect or promote its various projects. The neo-Marxists produced, in academic terms, the best accounts of Thatcherism.
After 1987 the provision of ‘big-bang’ interpretations of Thatcherism became a less popular exercise. Nevertheless, it remained a subject of interest and its subsequent treatment can be summarized in the following ways. First, there is general agreement that Mrs Thatcher's third administration made a number of serious mistakes, mistakes which eventually led to Mrs Thatcher' resignation. Examples commonly cited are the
poll tax
, welfare state reforms, the return of inflation, and policies towards the European Union. Secondly, even during the classic period of interpreting Thatcherism there were sceptics who denied its developmental exceptionalism, its ideological coherence, and its operational consistency. By the early 1990s this approach had assumed greater importance. In other words, commentators began to stress increasingly the implementation policy failures of the Thatcher-led governments. Finally, in the light of the problems encountered by John Major's governments, it could be argued that the wonder is that anything was done at all between 1979 and 1990. Privatization, industrial relations reforms, and the 1988 Education Act were successes achieved in a very difficult context. This highlights the fact that there are no agreed criteria for assessing the performance of British governments, apart from electoral victories. Until this is resolved Thatcherism will remain open to dispute and debate.
JBu
The word ‘Thatcherism’, so it is said, was first coined by Professor Stuart Hall in the late 1970s, when the Conservatives were still in opposition. After the Party's election victory in 1979 it became a regular item in the vocabulary of media comment on British politics. It also spawned a cottage industry of academic analyses. A minimalist definition of Thatcherism would push three themes: it was, and still is, the most convenient shorthand description of what Conservative governments did between 1979 and 1990; it suggests that what they did had a heavy ideological or doctrinal base; and it implies that all the Conservative administrations in this period were dominated by their leader, Mrs Thatcher .
Much of the practice of Thatcherism was, and still is, contested and debated. Hence brief, descriptive, neutral, comment is next to impossible. In these circumstances description is best pursued within the parameters of the chief interpretations of the phenomenon. The classic interpretations of Thatcherism are rooted in the period 1979 to 1987: that is, the period which covered Mrs Thatcher's first two administrations. Three emerged, all of which were associated with the predominant élite political cultures of the time, namely, the Thatcherite, ‘middle opinion’ and neo-Marxist. These can be assessed in terms of their approaches towards the origins of Thatcherism, their principal actor focus, and their accounts of Thatcherism's main objectives and outcomes.
For Thatcherites the origins were the Conservative Party's delayed realization that the postwar
consensus
was responsible for Britain's decline in both economic and international status terms. Thatcherites argued that by the end of the 1970s Britain had reached the stage of ‘last chance saloon’: without the radical change of course instituted in 1979 Britain would have sunk to the status of an ungovernable ‘banana republic’. The most important initial objective was to defeat inflation. After that the goals were the creation of a more competitive economy, raising Britain's status in the world, changing the ‘hearts and minds’ of the British people regarding the scope of government, and the defeat of British socialism (that is, the Labour Party). All this, the Thatcherite interpretation argued, had been achieved by 1987. In short, Thatcherism was a success. The principal cause of this success, the principal force behind this renaissance, and hence the principal actor focus of this interpretation, was Mrs Thatcher herself. It was her convictions, drive, and authority, which had ensured that Thatcherism had developed as a coherent doctrine, consistently and comprehensively applied, and one which suffered no serious ‘U turns’.
Middle opinion, which in Britain at the time ranged from the left wing of the Conservative Party (the so-called ‘wets’) through the Liberal/Social Democratic Alliance, to the right and centre of the Labour Party, rejected all this. It did not deny the short-term successes of the Thatcherite project, but it did emphasize the huge cost of those successes to the country and to particular groups in society. The moderate, and modern, social democratic consensus of the postwar period had been replaced by the politics of an ideology rooted in the harsh and outmoded principles of nineteenth-century
laissez-faire
, the contemporary manifestation of which was the economic doctrine espoused by Thatcherism and labelled
monetarism
. Inflation, so middle opinion argued, had been defeated, but only at the cost of mass unemployment and deindustrialization. Public expenditure and the size of the public sector had both been cut, but only at the cost of weakening the welfare state and creating vast profits for privatization speculators. Moreover the traditional and essential intermediate associations of British democracy, the trade unions, the professions, the civil service, and local government, had suffered constant attacks and been fatally weakened. Finally, the foreign policy of Thatcherism was rejected both for its style, ‘megaphonic diplomacy’, and its substance, too close an attachment to Reagan' America and too hostile an approach to the European Community. For middle opinion the principal force behind this awful revolution, and hence its principal actor focus, was Mrs Thatcher, who had hijacked the Conservative Party, rejected its ‘One Nation’ doctrine, and who crudely and cruelly dominated her cabinet colleagues.
The neo-Marxist camp had been the first to spot this awful potential of Thatcherism. Hence in many ways their interpretations reflected the complaints of middle opinion. They, too, accepted that Thatcherism was an exceptional phenomenon in terms of postwar British political development. They, too, accepted the short-term successes of this revolution and its costs, especially to the working class. They, too, objected to the special relationship with the Reagan administration. But they went further than the simple negative hostility of middle opinion. Neo-Marxists were fascinated by, and envious of, the excesses of Thatcherism. Here was a party élite which actually pursued the interests of its class supporters. Here was a party élite which knew what had to be done to bring about a revolution in post- fordist Britain. Because of these concerns the neo-Marxist camp tried to analyse Thatcherism rather than simply praise or attack it. As a result it was far less interested in telling stories about Mrs Thatcher or providing dreary accounts of particular policies. It was far more interested in considering the global and domestic structural context in which Thatcherism operated and the governing techniques it employed to protect or promote its various projects. The neo-Marxists produced, in academic terms, the best accounts of Thatcherism.
After 1987 the provision of ‘big-bang’ interpretations of Thatcherism became a less popular exercise. Nevertheless, it remained a subject of interest and its subsequent treatment can be summarized in the following ways. First, there is general agreement that Mrs Thatcher's third administration made a number of serious mistakes, mistakes which eventually led to Mrs Thatcher' resignation. Examples commonly cited are the
poll tax
, welfare state reforms, the return of inflation, and policies towards the European Union. Secondly, even during the classic period of interpreting Thatcherism there were sceptics who denied its developmental exceptionalism, its ideological coherence, and its operational consistency. By the early 1990s this approach had assumed greater importance. In other words, commentators began to stress increasingly the implementation policy failures of the Thatcher-led governments. Finally, in the light of the problems encountered by John Major's governments, it could be argued that the wonder is that anything was done at all between 1979 and 1990. Privatization, industrial relations reforms, and the 1988 Education Act were successes achieved in a very difficult context. This highlights the fact that there are no agreed criteria for assessing the performance of British governments, apart from electoral victories. Until this is resolved Thatcherism will remain open to dispute and debate.
JBu
theocracy
Theocracy means literally ‘the rule of God’ and the term was invented by Josephus (AD 38–
c.
100) to describe the ancient Hebrew constitution and the role of Mosaic law. However, if you do not literally believe that the law has been handed down by God on tablets of stone, it may be difficult to accept theocracies on their own terms. A more secular version of the meaning of theocracy is that it is priestly rule. Arguably, however, the more important distinction is between regimes that have religiously revealed laws or policies unchallengeable even by a popular majority or by an inherited monarch, and regimes that do not. (It should be noted that even such regimes which claim that their laws are divinely ordained and thus immutable do not make this claim in respect of all laws. For example, the Islamic
Shari'a
recognizes a category of positive law, the
mubah
, covering such matters as driving on the right, which are religiously neutral. See also
Islamic fundamentalism
; Sunnism; Shiism.)
Classic examples of theocracies include the Dalai Lama's Tibet, the Papal States, and Calvin's Geneva. But aspects of theocracy are present in a number of contemporary regimes, especially in the Islamic world: Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Iran all claim to observe the
Shari'a
, but Iran seems more like a genuine theocracy in which religious experts on the holy law have real policy influence. The Ayatollah Khomeini , who led the Islamic Revolution in 1979, prescribed a secular government constrained by a ‘theocratic guardianship’ to prevent policy falling out of line with holy law. There were hints of a Christian version of modern theocracy in the rule of Zhviad Gamsakhordia in Georgia from 1990 to 1992. Before he was ousted from power, Gamsakhordia had expressed himself in favour of a second parliamentary chamber consisting of priests.
LA
c.
100) to describe the ancient Hebrew constitution and the role of Mosaic law. However, if you do not literally believe that the law has been handed down by God on tablets of stone, it may be difficult to accept theocracies on their own terms. A more secular version of the meaning of theocracy is that it is priestly rule. Arguably, however, the more important distinction is between regimes that have religiously revealed laws or policies unchallengeable even by a popular majority or by an inherited monarch, and regimes that do not. (It should be noted that even such regimes which claim that their laws are divinely ordained and thus immutable do not make this claim in respect of all laws. For example, the Islamic
Shari'a
recognizes a category of positive law, the
mubah
, covering such matters as driving on the right, which are religiously neutral. See also
Islamic fundamentalism
; Sunnism; Shiism.)
Classic examples of theocracies include the Dalai Lama's Tibet, the Papal States, and Calvin's Geneva. But aspects of theocracy are present in a number of contemporary regimes, especially in the Islamic world: Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Iran all claim to observe the
Shari'a
, but Iran seems more like a genuine theocracy in which religious experts on the holy law have real policy influence. The Ayatollah Khomeini , who led the Islamic Revolution in 1979, prescribed a secular government constrained by a ‘theocratic guardianship’ to prevent policy falling out of line with holy law. There were hints of a Christian version of modern theocracy in the rule of Zhviad Gamsakhordia in Georgia from 1990 to 1992. Before he was ousted from power, Gamsakhordia had expressed himself in favour of a second parliamentary chamber consisting of priests.
LA
Other books
Torn by Stefan Petrucha
Rage by Jonathan Kellerman
The Heart of a Girl (2) by Kaitlyn Oruska
The Sinner by Amanda Stevens
Complete Sherlock Holmes, Volume II (Barnes & Noble Classics Series) by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Cianuro espumoso by Agatha Christie
Ascend (Wolf in Exile Part 3): Werewolf Shifter/Vampire Paranormal Romance by Amber Ella Monroe, Ambrielle Kirk
The Exhibitionist (The Submissive #6) by Tara Sue Me
Bay Hideaway by Beth Loughner