The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (51 page)
Read The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics Online
Authors: Iain McLean
BOOK: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics
7.74Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
community politics
Term invented by candidates of the Liberal Party in Britain in the 1970s to denote the tactic of fighting elections on issues of importance to small, local communities. As a process, community politics both draws on the identity of a local community and its shared interests, particularly those which it has in preserving and enhancing the local environment, and helps build the community by making people more aware of those interests and by raising their estimation of the relative importance of local issues. The process and the tactic are, therefore, relevant to a much wider context than Britain. Opponents of community politics have often been contemptuous of the pettiness of the issues it brings to the fore, an attitude to which one Liberal candidate, Bill Pitt , replied by saying, ‘You cannot reach for the stars when you always have to look at your feet to make sure you are not treading in dog dirt’.
LA
LA
community power
The question of who makes decisions within a community was a debate prominent in American political science in the 1950s and 1960s, and reflected in discussions in other countries including Britain. In 1953, Floyd Hunter's
Community Power Structure
suggested that power in the community he studied (not named in the book, but Atlanta, Georgia) was dominated by business élites to the exclusion of ordinary people, and the total exclusion of black people. In 1961, Robert Dahl's riposte,
Who Governs?
, suggested that in New Haven, Connecticut, no one group did: that power was dispersed among interest communities. Of course, both writers could have been right about their particular place and time. In themselves, the books permitted no generalization except that those who look for élites will probably find them, whereas
pluralist
writers will expect to find, and probably will find, that there is no controlling élite. The community power debate therefore became rather sterile. In response to Dahl, it was claimed that issues could be kept off the agenda by powerful groups, a process labelled ‘mobilization of bias’. The best such study is Matthew Crenson's
The Unpolitics of Air Pollution
(1971), which was published when air pollution in the United States had just become extremely political.
The community power debate thus inspired some useful local studies but was of limited value beyond that.
Community Power Structure
suggested that power in the community he studied (not named in the book, but Atlanta, Georgia) was dominated by business élites to the exclusion of ordinary people, and the total exclusion of black people. In 1961, Robert Dahl's riposte,
Who Governs?
, suggested that in New Haven, Connecticut, no one group did: that power was dispersed among interest communities. Of course, both writers could have been right about their particular place and time. In themselves, the books permitted no generalization except that those who look for élites will probably find them, whereas
pluralist
writers will expect to find, and probably will find, that there is no controlling élite. The community power debate therefore became rather sterile. In response to Dahl, it was claimed that issues could be kept off the agenda by powerful groups, a process labelled ‘mobilization of bias’. The best such study is Matthew Crenson's
The Unpolitics of Air Pollution
(1971), which was published when air pollution in the United States had just become extremely political.
The community power debate thus inspired some useful local studies but was of limited value beyond that.
comparative government
The systematic study of the government of more than one country. One of the main subdivisions of the study of politics. Until recently, however, it was usually very unsystematic. Much of what passed for comparative government was simply the study of the government of a small number of large countries. A typical course or textbook would cover two or three parliamentary democracies and one or two communist regimes. While it is certainly useful for any student of politics to know something about the institutions of three or more countries, that is not comparative politics until it involves some comparisons.
What comparisons are useful? The oldest form of comparative government is the study of constitutions. The first known such work is
Aristotle's
compilation of the constitutions and practice of 158 Greek city-states, of which only the
Constitution of Athens
(attributed to Aristotle , but probably written, in modern parlance, by one of his graduate students) survives. Undoubtedly, however, comparisons between different city-states underpin some of the generalizations in Aristotle's
Politics
, just as comparisons between different living organisms underpin his biological writing.
Biology has made great strides since Aristotle; the comparative study of constitutions has not. This is partly because it is difficult to get the right level of generality. Some studies compare all the countries in the world. Some useful statistical generalizations can be made about them. But there is no scholarly agreement on such basic questions as the relationship between the economic development of a country and its level of democracy. Another approach is to look at all cases of a common phenomenon—such as revolutions, totalitarian states, or transitions to democracy. In some cases these are dogged by difficulties of definition. For instance, what is to count as a revolution?
The commonest form of comparative government remains the detailed study of some policy area in two or more countries. Sensitive researchers are always aware of the problem of ‘too few cases, too many variables’. Consider a popular research programme in the 1980s and 1990s: the impact of
corporatism
on gross national product. It is clearly not straight-forward. Some corporatist and some anticorporatist countries have had fast economic growth; some corporatist and some anticorporatist countries have had slow economic growth. There can be many reasons why a country becomes corporatist, and many reasons why an economy grows fast (or not). No researcher, or even collaborative team, can hope to know enough about more than perhaps five countries to talk about each of their institutions in a well-informed way. So they can never be sure whether the factors they identify as the causes of growth really are the true causes.
These difficulties have always surrounded comparative government. Nevertheless, it remains one of the most important ways of studying politics. Researchers are far more sensitive to the difficulties of generalization than they once were, and accordingly more tentative in their conclusions.
What comparisons are useful? The oldest form of comparative government is the study of constitutions. The first known such work is
Aristotle's
compilation of the constitutions and practice of 158 Greek city-states, of which only the
Constitution of Athens
(attributed to Aristotle , but probably written, in modern parlance, by one of his graduate students) survives. Undoubtedly, however, comparisons between different city-states underpin some of the generalizations in Aristotle's
Politics
, just as comparisons between different living organisms underpin his biological writing.
Biology has made great strides since Aristotle; the comparative study of constitutions has not. This is partly because it is difficult to get the right level of generality. Some studies compare all the countries in the world. Some useful statistical generalizations can be made about them. But there is no scholarly agreement on such basic questions as the relationship between the economic development of a country and its level of democracy. Another approach is to look at all cases of a common phenomenon—such as revolutions, totalitarian states, or transitions to democracy. In some cases these are dogged by difficulties of definition. For instance, what is to count as a revolution?
The commonest form of comparative government remains the detailed study of some policy area in two or more countries. Sensitive researchers are always aware of the problem of ‘too few cases, too many variables’. Consider a popular research programme in the 1980s and 1990s: the impact of
corporatism
on gross national product. It is clearly not straight-forward. Some corporatist and some anticorporatist countries have had fast economic growth; some corporatist and some anticorporatist countries have had slow economic growth. There can be many reasons why a country becomes corporatist, and many reasons why an economy grows fast (or not). No researcher, or even collaborative team, can hope to know enough about more than perhaps five countries to talk about each of their institutions in a well-informed way. So they can never be sure whether the factors they identify as the causes of growth really are the true causes.
These difficulties have always surrounded comparative government. Nevertheless, it remains one of the most important ways of studying politics. Researchers are far more sensitive to the difficulties of generalization than they once were, and accordingly more tentative in their conclusions.
competitive party system
Political system in which more than one political party has a reasonable expectation of winning an election, or of being in a winning coalition.
First-past-the-post
electoral systems are associated with party systems which superficially do not appear to be competitive. For instance, presidential elections in the United States have shown long periods of one-party dominance: Democratic from 1828 to 1856, Republican from 1896 to 1928, and Democratic from 1932 to 1968, for example. Likewise, the Conservatives have been dominant in the British party system since 1979 (on one view, since 1922), and the Liberals and Whigs were equally dominant between 1846 and 1874. However, even in these systems ruling parties know that the exaggerated majorities which keep them in may one day throw them out; if they forget, they need only note the reduction of the Canadian Progressive Conservatives from 170 seats to 2 in the 1993 election there.
On this view, every party system in a democracy is competitive. Others would insist that there is a useful distinction between systems such as those mentioned above and systems in which shifting coalitions guarantee that the composition of the government is constantly changing. Finally, it is worth noting that some
centre parties
such as the German Free Democrats and, until 1992, the Italian Republicans were in almost every government, even though the party system could be labelled as competitive.
First-past-the-post
electoral systems are associated with party systems which superficially do not appear to be competitive. For instance, presidential elections in the United States have shown long periods of one-party dominance: Democratic from 1828 to 1856, Republican from 1896 to 1928, and Democratic from 1932 to 1968, for example. Likewise, the Conservatives have been dominant in the British party system since 1979 (on one view, since 1922), and the Liberals and Whigs were equally dominant between 1846 and 1874. However, even in these systems ruling parties know that the exaggerated majorities which keep them in may one day throw them out; if they forget, they need only note the reduction of the Canadian Progressive Conservatives from 170 seats to 2 in the 1993 election there.
On this view, every party system in a democracy is competitive. Others would insist that there is a useful distinction between systems such as those mentioned above and systems in which shifting coalitions guarantee that the composition of the government is constantly changing. Finally, it is worth noting that some
centre parties
such as the German Free Democrats and, until 1992, the Italian Republicans were in almost every government, even though the party system could be labelled as competitive.
Other books
The Deliverance of Dilan (The Syndicate #4) by Kathy Coopmans
Kill Shot by Vince Flynn
The High Queen's Vow [The Mystic Women of The Realm Series Book IV] by Robbie Collins
Each Step Like Knives by Megan Hart
Giant's Bread by Christie, writing as Mary Westmacott, Agatha
Naamah's Curse by Jacqueline Carey
Mulled Murder (Pennyfoot Holiday Mysteries) by Kingsbury, Kate
Love's Peril (Lord Trent Series) by Holt, Cheryl
Dear Life: Stories by Alice Munro
Doctor On The Brain by Richard Gordon