by Peter Joyce
* * *
Privatization
One aspect of privatization entailed transferring an industry from the public to the private sector. In the United Kingdom this was referred to as ‘denationalization’. This policy was pursued by a number of new right governments although their motives for embarking on it differed. In the United Kingdom a key concern was to extend a ‘shareholding democracy’ by selling shares in former nationalized industries to ordinary members of the general public. In New Zealand, however, shares were mainly sold to large multinational companies. Here, the aim of privatization was to benefit the taxpayer both by ensuring that shares were purchased for high prices and by increasing economic efficiency, which was presumed to be a consequence of the transfer of a state-owned industry to an existing major company.
* * *
The second basis of new right thinking was termed ‘neo-conservatism’. This emerged in America in the 1960s and was endorsed primarily by liberals who were disillusioned by the inability of government action to solve social problems. It entailed a number of ideas which included social authoritarianism. This asserted that contemporary social problems such as crime, disorder, hooliganism, indiscipline among young people and moral decay were caused by the decline of ‘traditional’ values, which had been replaced by permissive attitudes and disrespect for authority. Many neo-conservatives apportioned the blame for these problems to the lack of commitment by immigrants to a country’s established cultural values. It endorsed a ‘law and order’ response to social problems and demanded a return to traditional forms of authority such as the family.
Neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism are not necessarily compatible since the former emphasizes self-reliance, which might result in selfish behaviour, whereas the latter views individuals as citizens with a range of civic obligations to fulfil.
Question
Undertake your own study of a conservative party. What are the key features of its ideology and policy?
FASCISM
Fascism is a political ideology on the right of the political spectrum which, although lacking a coherent body of beliefs, shares certain important features. These include opposition to communism, Marxism and liberalism (especially individualism, which fascists advocate should occupy a position subordinate to the national community). Fascism also opposes the operations of liberal democracy, which it seeks to replace with a totalitarian political system in which there is only one party and, ideally, the complete identity of this party with the state. One consequence of this is that civil and political liberties are absent in fascist states.
Fascist parties utilize action and violence as key political tactics, especially when seeking to secure power, and they stress the importance of firm leadership to solve a nation’s problems. Prominent leaders of fascist movements, such as Adolf Hitler in Germany, Benito Mussolini in Italy, Francisco Franco in Spain and Antonio de Oliveira Salazar in Portugal, made great use of their personal charisma to secure loyalty from those who followed them. Fascist movements also emphasize the importance of nation and race, the consequences of which included a desire for territorial expansion and the practice of racism and genocide.
Fascist movements appeal to persons of all social classes by using populist rhetoric to secure support. Successful fascist parties attract the lower middle classes when these feel threatened by social and economic changes occurring in a particular country. There was, however, wide variation in the ideas and policies put forward by individual fascist parties, whose leaders cultivated support by opportunistically exploiting popular concerns, fears or prejudices. This meant that the success achieved by fascist parties was significantly influenced by events which were unique to particular countries: in Germany, for example, Hitler’s rise to power was aided by factors which included a widespread feeling that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair, the prior existence of nationalist and anti-Semitic beliefs and the economic problems faced by the country after 1919 which resulted in both unemployment and hyper-inflation. In Italy, fascism was aided by the weaknesses displayed by the pre-fascist ruling class.
POPULISM
Populism is not a coherent political ideology but encompasses a range of right-wing attitudes and opinions.
Populism advocates the pursuance of policies supported by majority public opinion. These concerns and the values which underpin them are not derived from any coherent set of political beliefs but are widely varied, although a common strand is that the concerns which are articulated in populist rhetoric are depicted as resting on ‘common sense’ assumptions. Typically populist politics directs its appeal to the masses over the heads of other established social and political institutions (such as the family, social class, political parties and trade unions) by focusing on a cause which can be depicted as harmful and contrary to the best interests of mass public opinion. This appeal is especially directed at those at the lower end of the social scale although the leaders of such movements tend to be drawn from higher up the social ladder.
Examples of populist movements include the America People’s Party of the 1890s which voiced the concerns of farmers in the western and southern states and demanded the increased coinage of silver. Populism is particularly identified with Juan Péron, the president of Argentina 1946–55 and 1973–74. His power rested on his ability to mobilize the poorer elements in society against the institutions of the state. As with fascism, populism is often identified with the strong leadership of a charismatic figure and a distrust of representative institutions.
In Western liberal democracies, populist politics are often identified with extreme right-wing political parties which suggest that the problems of ‘ordinary’ members of the general public are due to the policies pursued by ‘unrepresentative politicians’, who have ignored the interests of the masses by pursuing policies such as immigration, and by adopting over-liberal attitudes in areas such as law and order and social policy. Support for such views is often cultivated by selecting a target (usually a weak and vulnerable group in society) which can be scapegoated and depicted as both the root cause and embodiment of the crisis allegedly facing society.
The ability to mobilize public opinion has been enhanced by technological developments such as the internet which enable the speedy formation of support for a populist cause. This may exert a significant influence on the conduct of political parties, which feel they must follow the expressed views of the general public in order to secure their support.
* * *
THINGS TO REMEMBER
Political ideologies define the core values of political parties, which will guide their actions when in a position of power.
The term ‘political spectrum’ is used as a means of comparing the differences and similarities of competing political ideologies.
A fundamental difference between political ideologies is whether they adopt an individualist or collectivist stance towards political conduct.
Ideologies located on the left of the political spectrum seek to abolish capitalism and the political and social structures which are based upon it and to create a new society inspirited by alternative ideals. They seek a fundamental redistribution of wealth, power and resources. Such fundamental changes to the existing social order are typically inaugurated by revolution.
Ideologies on the centre and centre-left of the political spectrum seek to reform a society’s political, economic and social structures. Reforms of this nature can be accommodated within the existing structure of society and are typically secured through the ballot box.
Ideologies on the right wing of the political spectrum include conservatism and fascism. They are united in their opposition to fundamental reforms to society and its institutions proposed by left, centre and centre-left political ideologies, although they may endorse moderate reforms in order to prevent more radical ones from being implemented.
* * *
4
Elections and electoral systems
In this chapter you will learn:
> the theory of the mandate
the key features of different electoral systems
the strengths and weaknesses of proportional representation.
The significance of elections
* * *
Insight
The right to vote is a key political entitlement that allows citizens to choose public office-holders and to hold them to account for their actions.
* * *
Those of us who live in liberal democracies will periodically be invited to vote. We may be asked to choose representatives for local, state or national office. Elections are the mechanism whereby citizens are provided with the opportunity to select persons to take political decisions on their behalf. They enable public participation in key activities which include selecting the personnel of government and determining the content of public policy.
Elections further constitute the process whereby public office holders can be made to account for their activities to the general public. It is an essential feature of liberal democracy that sovereignty resides with the people living in each country. Governments must be accountable to the people for their actions. Those that lose the backing of public opinion will be replaced by representatives drawn from another political party at the next round of elections. Elections, therefore, provide an essential link between the government and the governed. They serve as a barometer of public opinion and ensure that the holders of public office, and the policies which they pursue, are broadly in accord with the wishes of the general public.
Non-voting
It is sometimes argued that the extent to which citizens exercise their right to vote is one indicator of the ‘health’ of a system of government. A high level of voter participation (which is sometimes referred to as ‘turnout’) might suggest enthusiasm by members of the public to involve themselves in the affairs of government in their country and, in more general terms, to express support for the political system which operates in that country.
In some liberal democracies voting is compulsory: this is the case in Australia and Belgium, for example. In others, however, it is optional. Where voting is optional, the level of voter participation varies. In 2010 the turnout for the UK general election was 60.9 per cent. In 2008, only 58.3 per cent of Americans who were eligible to vote did so in that year’s presidential election.
Various reasons might explain non-voting. Factors such as social class, education and income may be influential forces in determining whether a person votes or abstains. Generally, low voting rates are found among persons from low socio-economic backgrounds. Voting laws and registration procedures may also influence turnout. In the UK, for example, local authorities actively seek to ensure that voters are registered. In America, the onus of registration is placed on the individual and low levels of voting are sometimes attributed to the complex registration procedures utilized in some states.
* * *
Registration to vote in America
In America citizens are required to register in advance of election contests in order to participate in elections. The criteria governing registration are controlled by the states and are subject to wide variation across America.
Additionally, political parties are required to display a stipulated level of registered supporters by a determined date before they can be entered on ballot papers. This makes it difficult for new national parties to enter the political arena and thus works in favour of the two established national parties. Low levels of voting are sometimes blamed on complex registration procedures. In 2008, for example, 74.4 per cent of Americans who were registered to vote did so: this figure, however, represented only 58.3 per cent of those who were of voting age and thus were theoretically entitled to vote.
* * *
There is debate as to the significance of low levels of voting. It might be argued that low turnouts result in public policy failing to represent the national interest. If public opinion is imperfectly represented, governments may be swayed to act at the bidding of organized minorities. Disinclination by the public to involve themselves in the government of their country may also pave the way for totalitarianism in which the public become frozen out of participation in government. Alternatively, however, it might be argued that low voting levels are not of great importance. Non-voting may indicate a general level of popular satisfaction with the way in which public affairs are conducted.
Question
With reference to a specific national election in a country with which you are familiar, assess why some people vote and others choose not to do so.
* * *
The cost of election campaigns
Election campaigns are extremely costly events. In America, for example, the average expenditure by a successful candidate in elections to the House of Representatives rose from just over $500,000 in 1994 to $1 million in 2004 and the Federal Election Commission estimated that in the month of November 2008, 148 candidates from all parties spent $1.6 billion on primary and general elections. In 2005, the UK’s three main political parties spent around £40 million in that year’s general election.
The spiralling costs of election campaigns have prompted some countries to place limits on the spending of individual candidates and political parties.
In America, public funding for the campaigns of candidates for the office of president (embracing both the primary elections and general election contest) was introduced in 1976. It applies to candidates who received 5 per cent of the popular vote at the previous presidential election and is known as ‘matching funding’. Candidates who receive public money are required to restrict their spending to proscribed limits. In practice, however, this reform has failed to prevent excessive expenditure in presidential election campaigns as there are ways to avoid federal limits (for example, by donors giving money to what are termed ‘soft money’ groups, which then engage in some forms of political activity). Additionally, candidates may opt out of the process and spend whatever money they wish. In 2008, Barack Obama chose not to take public funding in either the primaries or the general election contest.
In the United Kingdom, the 2000 Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act capped the expenditure of political parties in national elections and referendums and the 2009 Political Parties and Elections Act introduced new limits for spending by candidates.
* * *
The mandate
* * *
Insight
Those who win elections claim the right to carry out the policies on which they fought their campaign. It is argued that public endorsement of their views gives them a mandate to carry them out.
* * *
At national election contests the political parties put forward a statement of the principles or policies which will guide their future actions should they succeed in taking control of public affairs. In the United Kingdom this statement is termed an election manifesto and in America it is referred to as a platform. A party which succeeds in gaining control of a public body through the election of its nominees claims to have a mandate to administer it in line with the statements contained in its election manifesto. Its right to do this has been legitimized by the process of popular election.
There are, however, several weaknesses associated with the concept of the mandate. This may lead us to conclude that while it is useful in a liberal democracy that parties should declare their policies to the voters at election time, it is unrealistic to expect that statements contained in election manifestos can give a thorough and complete guide to what a party will do when in control of public affairs. It is also inaccurate for a winning party to assert that the public has demonstrated support for the entire contents of its manifesto. The main problems associated with the mandate are considered in the following sections.
* * *
The influence of the mandate
How important is the concept of the mandate? In some liberal democracies, such as the UK, it is influential. It forces a political party to declare the policies which will determine
its subsequent actions if it gains control of a public authority. But it can also claim the right to carry out such policies on the grounds that the public has endorsed them.
In other countries, this concept may be of less importance. In America, for example, factors including the nature of bicameralism and the separation of powers could reduce the significance of electoral mandates, one consequence of which was that voters tended to look back and cast votes retrospectively rather than seeking to evaluate the merits of proposed future actions by candidates and parties. Nonetheless, candidates for public office usually put forward a statement of future intentions and since the 1990s the mandate has assumed greater importance. In the 1994 presidential election, for example, the Reform Party candidate, Ross Perot, sought a mandate from the voters to initiate changes in America’s system of government.