9.1.07

Diapositive non piu' disponibili

Come vi avevo preannunciato, per motivi di spazio ho dovuto togliere le diapositive dal sito che le ospitava. Se a qualcuno servissero ancora, confido nella disponibilita' di colleghi che le hanno scaricate in tempo.

Etichette:

12.12.06

Approfondimenti su Elezioni e sistema elettorale

Per ora, mi limito a indicarvi il sito gia' citato a lezione:
- ACE Electoral Knowledge Network.
- The ACE Encyclopaedia.
- Electoral Systems Topic Area.

Etichette:

25.11.06

Approfondimenti sulla democrazia

Questa volta non ho materiale abbastanza interessante (per chi e' interessato, ovviamente) da proporvi per gli approfondimenti, ma eccovi qualche piccolo consiglio per orientarvi nel grande mare di internet. Infatti, se si prova a fare una ricerca nel web sul tema democrazia, si rischia facilmente di perdersi. Ho cercato di evitare, per quanto possibile, il materiale in inglese, ma anche in questo caso ci sono riuscito solo in parte (prima o poi dovrete impararlo). Ecco dunque i miei 6 consigli:
1) Innanzitutto, andate a leggervi la voce (breve, ma davvero ben fatta) proposta da Wikipedia in italiano: Democrazia. Una conferma del fatto che, malgrado tutti i legittimi dubbi, si tratta di uno strumento davvero efficace. A proposito, sapete cos'e'? Se non lo sapete ancora, leggete qui. Anzi, a questo punto perche' non vi cimentate anche voi, e ad esempio provate a migliorare proprio la voce sulla democrazia?
2) Andate al sito di Hyperpolitics (e' tra i links fissi del mio blog, ma nessuno l'avra' notato), dove tra l'altro potrete consultare le voci sulla democrazia dei principali dizionari politologici.
3) A proposito, per chi fosse interessato ad approfondire il concetto di democrazia dal punto di vista teorico-filosofico, consiglio vivamente di seguire I Venerdi' della politica, dedicati al tema Che cos'e' la democrazia (e organizzati dalla Societa' di studi politici). E' un'occasione da non perdere, visto che si tengono a Napoli (alla Feltrinelli).
4) Ecco due begli interventi del liberale Gustavo Zagrebelsky:
- Insegnare la democrazia.
- La democrazia di Barabba.
5) Sul tema della democrazia schumpeteriana, ci sono due ottime lezioni del corso online di G.E. Rusconi (emerito professore di scienza politica torinese) al seguente indirizzo:
Schumpeter: un'altra dottrina della democrazia.
6) Infine, e' obbligato un rinvio anche ai due piu' autorevoli istituti di ricerca che svolgono regolarmente rilevazioni e valutazioni sulle democrazie reali:
- International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).
- Freedom House.

Etichette:

22.11.06

Domani niente lezione

Giovedi' 23 novembre non si terra' la lezione di Scienza politica e Politica comparata. Ci vediamo martedi' prossimo.

Etichette:

10.11.06

Approfondimento: Imperialismo

dal "Dizionario della lingua italiana" di De Mauro:

imperialismo, s.m.
1a CO TS polit., tendenza di uno stato a espandere i propri domini e a esercitare la propria egemonia su altre nazioni
1b CO fig., tendenza a imporre i propri modelli culturali, politici, economici e sim.: i. occidentale, americano
2 TS econ., fase del capitalismo caratterizzata dal prevalere del capitale finanziario e dagli investimenti all'estero

Per un inquadramento generale, vedi: Imperialismo (Wikipedia).

Segnalo inoltre che e' stata appena messa (integralmente) on line, beninteso in inglese, la classica opera dell'economista liberale J.A. Hobson: Imperialism: A Study (1902).

Etichette:

Approfondimento: Totalitarianism

Totalitarianism is a form of government in which all societal resources are monopolized by the state in an effort to penetrate and control all aspects of public and private life. This control is facilitated by propaganda and by advances in technology.

Both in theory and practice, totalitarianism is of relatively recent origin. First used to describe the organizational principles of the National Socialist (Nazi) party in Germany, the term gained currency in political analysis after World War II. Older concepts, such as DICTATORSHIP and DESPOTISM, were deemed inadequate by Western social scientists to describe this modern phenomenon.

Principal Features

Totalitarian regimes are characterized by distinctive types of ideology and organization. Totalitarian ideologies reject existing society as corrupt, immoral, and beyond reform, project an alternative society in which these wrongs are to be redressed, and provide plans and programs for realizing the alternative order. These ideologies, supported by propaganda campaigns, demand total conformity on the part of the people.

Totalitarian forms of organization enforce this demand for conformity. Totalitarian societies are rigid hierarchies dominated by one political party and usually by a single leader. The party penetrates the entire country through regional, provincial, local, and "primary" (party-cell) organization. Youth, professional, cultural, and sports groups supplement the party's political control. A paramilitary secret police ensures compliance. Information and ideas are effectively organized through the control of television, radio, the press, and education at all levels.

In short, totalitarian regimes seek to dominate all aspects of national life. In this respect totalitarianism differs from older concepts of dictatorship or tyranny, which seek limited--typically political--control. In addition, totalitarian regimes mobilize and make use of mass political participation, whereas dictatorships seek only pacified and submissive populations. Finally, totalitarian regimes seek the complete reconstruction of the individual and society; dictatorships attempt simply to rule over the individual and society.

Types of Totalitarianism

Two types of totalitarianism may be distinguished: NAZISM and FASCISM on the right and COMMUNISM on the left. While sharing the ideological and organizational features discussed above, the two differ in important respects. Right totalitarian movements, such as the Nazi party in Germany and the Fascists in Italy, have drawn their popular support mainly from middle classes seeking to maintain the status quo and advance their own social position. Left totalitarianism, such as that of the former USSR, relies instead on a lower or working class seeking to eliminate, not preserve, class distinctions. Right totalitarianism has been outspokenly racist and elitist, whereas, in theory, left totalitarianism has not. Right totalitarianism, unlike its leftist counterpart, rests on a cult of the hero, although in practice the cults of Joseph STALIN and MAO ZEDONG (MAO TSE-TUNG) were as pronounced as those of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Moreover, right totalitarianism has supported and enforced the private ownership of industrial wealth. A distinguishing feature of Soviet communism, by contrast, was the collective ownership of such capital.

A final difference lies in the role of terror and violence in the two types of totalitarian societies. Left totalitarianism has arisen in relatively undeveloped countries through the unleashing of massive revolutionary violence and terror and the elimination of all opponents--political, social, military, economic--in short order. Terror and violence tended to level off or decline after these regimes consolidated their power. By contrast, right totalitarian regimes (particularly the Nazis), arising in relatively advanced societies, have relied on the support of traditional elites to attain power. The old elites, coexisting in a subordinate role with the new, have continued to pose a challenge and threat. Escalating levels of terror and violence resulting from such struggles contributed to the eventual collapse of the two major right totalitarian regimes, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The Communist governments in Eastern Europe and the former USSR, by contrast, endured periodic reforms leading to democratic transformation.

Mostafa Rejai

Bibliography: Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism, rev. ed. (1966; repr. 1983); Aron, Raymond, intro. by Roy Pierce, Democracy and Totalitarianism (1990); Bracher, Karl Dietrich, The German Dictatorship: The Origin, Structure and Effects of National Socialism, trans. by Jean Steinberg (1970); Friedrich, Carl J., and Brzezinski, Zbigniew, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy, 2d ed. (1965); Germino, D. L., The Italian Fascist Party in Power: A Study of Totalitarian Rule (1959; repr. 1971); Gregor, J. A., The Ideology of Fascism (1969); Hayek, Friedrich, The Road to Serfdom (1944); Radel, Lucien, Roots of Totalitarianism (1975); Soper, Steven P., Totalitarianism: A Conceptual Approach (1985); Talmon, J. A., The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, rev. ed. (1960; repr. 1985).


(da: Grolier Electronic Publishing)

Etichette:

Approfondimento: Dictatorship

A dictatorship is a form of government in which authority is centered in a single person whose power is not circumscribed by law nor by the acts of other official bodies. In ancient Rome the dictator was a special magistrate appointed to rule in times of emergency. Many modern dictators have also come to power in times of emergency, sometimes by coup d'etat and sometimes by legal means. They either seize or are granted extraconstitutional powers, claiming as justification the need for strong executive leadership in unstable times.

The dictator's power usually stems from control over key institutional bases of power, such as a political party, the police, or the army. Frequently, they strengthen themselves by creating and perpetuating myths around their personalities and their missions. In the case of a dictator like Adolf HITLER, Joseph STALIN, MAO TSE-TUNG, KIM IL SUNG, or Saddam HUSSEIN, the adulation may imply that the leader is omniscient and infallible.

By its nature, dictatorship is an unstable form of government. No provision can be made for a successor to the dictator, and the consequence may be a series of dictators who seize power by coups, a prolonged struggle between rivals, or a bloody civil war. Undue reliance on the police and the military is also likely to take its toll in the financial and social costs of maintaining large internal security forces.

Bibliography: Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1973, repr. 1983); Hallgarten, George W., Devils or Saviours: A History of Dictatorship Since 600 B.C. (1960).

(da: Grolier Electronic Publishing)

Etichette:

Approfondimento: Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism, the favoring of blind submission to authority, is characteristic of certain individuals, of common belief systems shared by such individuals, and, by extension, of elitist, antidemocratic governments based on such shared beliefs. As an individual trait, authoritarianism was first systematically explored in research presented by Theodor ADORNO and others in The Authoritarian Personality (1950). The study began as an investigation of ANTI-SEMITISM in the United States but led to discovery of numerous correlations between anti-Semitism and other attitudes associated with stereotyped behavior. While authoritarian governments have sometimes been distinguished from totalitarian ones (see TOTALITARIANISM)--for example, in defense of U.S. ties with antidemocratic governments of Latin America during the the 1980s--totalitarianism is in fact an extreme instance of authoritarianism.

(da: Grolier Electronic Publishing)

Etichette:

Approfondimento: Government

Government comprises the set of legal and political institutions that regulate the relationships among members of a society and between the society and outsiders. These institutions have the authority to make decisions for the society on policies affecting the maintenance of order and the achievement of certain societal goals. This article provides an overview of the types of government, the ways authority can be distributed, the divisions of government, and the functions of government. Separate articles deal with the origins and development of the concept of the STATE, the theoretical and practical development of REPRESENTATION, LAW, and the study of government (see POLITICAL SCIENCE).

The power of a government over its own citizens varies, depending on the degree to which it is free of limitations and restraints. The power of a government abroad also varies, depending on the human and material resources with which it can support its FOREIGN POLICY. Governments range in size and scope from clans, tribes, and the shires of early times to the superpowers and international governments of today. Until recent times some governments were strong enough to establish EMPIRES that ruled not only their own people but other peoples and states across national, ethnic, and language boundaries. The present-day counterpart of the empire is the superpower that is able to lead or dominate other countries through its superior military and economic strength. Within the modern nation-state, government operates at many different levels, ranging from villages to cities, counties, provinces, and states.

TYPES OF GOVERNMENT

ARISTOTLE, a Greek political philosopher of the 4th century BC, distinguished three principal kinds of government: MONARCHY, ARISTOCRACY, and polity (a kind of enlightened DEMOCRACY). The differences among them chiefly concerned whether power was held by one, by a few, or by many. Aristotle thought that the selfish abuse of power caused each type to become perverted, respectively, into tyranny, OLIGARCHY, and a lower form of democracy characterized by mob rule. Monarchy tended to become tyrannical because it vested authority in a single ruler. Aristocracy, a government based on birth and privilege, in which the rulers governed for the good of the whole society, tended to become oligarchy as a consequence of restricting political power to a special social and economic class; only a few members of the class would have enough drive and ability to acquire the power to govern. The polity, likewise, would deteriorate into ochlocracy, or mob rule, if the citizens pursued only their selfish interests.

Aristotle's classifications suited the societies of ancient times, but they do not correspond to the power structure of later societies. Modern writers have developed a variety of schemes for classifying governments, based on the nature of the ruling class, the economic system, the government's political institutions, the principles of authority, the acquisition and exercise of power, and other factors. Some influential writers on government include Thomas HOBBES, Baron de MONTESQUIEU, Jean Jacques ROUSSEAU, Karl MARX, Gaetano MOSCA, Vilfredo PARETO, and the sociologist Max WEBER.

Monarchy

The most common form of government from ancient times to the early part of the 20th century was monarchy, or rule by a hereditary king or queen. Monarchy passed through three basic stages, varying according to the nation and the political and economic climate. The first stage was that of the absolute monarch. In the Christian part of the world during the Middle Ages, a conflict developed between the pope and the kings who recognized his spiritual authority. The pope wanted to expand the power of the church beyond spiritual matters to include the temporal realm. But some kings proclaimed that God had given them the right to rule, and by proclaiming this DIVINE RIGHT they were able to give legitimacy to their reigns and limit the pope's power. (See CHURCH AND STATE; INVESTITURE CONTROVERSY.)

Limited monarchy was the second stage. Kings depended on the support of the most powerful members of the nobility to retain their thrones. In England and some other Western European countries, the nobility placed limits on the power of the ruler to govern. This was done in England, for example, through the MAGNA CARTA. Threatened with the loss of political and financial support, even the strongest kings and emperors had to accept a system of laws that protected the rights and privileges of powerful social and economic classes.

The third stage in the evolution of monarchy was the constitutional monarchy. Present-day monarchs are nearly all symbolic rather than actual rulers of their countries. (A few exceptions can be found in Africa and Asia.) In such monarchies as Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain, governing power is now in the hands of the national parliaments.

Constitutional Government

Today most governments derive their legitimacy from national CONSTITUTIONS that provide a legal framework for their rule and specify how power is to be exercised and controlled. Even one-party states, such as the traditional Communist countries and other nations in Africa, Asia, and South America, have found it necessary to establish formal constitutions. In democratic countries the constitution can be amended or replaced by popular vote, either directly or through a system of elected representatives. In authoritarian one-party systems, however, all political power, including that of revising the constitution, resides with the leaders of the party. The constitution may thus be only a paper facade, and in order to understand how the country is governed one must examine the actual political process.

Democracy

Representative government in the modern world is based not only on a constitution that provides for it but on the actual rule of law--the assurance that provisions of the constitution will be enforced. It requires that citizens be free to organize competing POLITICAL PARTIES, engage in political CAMPAIGNS, and hold ELECTIONS according to agreed-upon rules. Democratic governments vary in structure. Two common forms are the parliamentary and the presidential. In the parliamentary form of government, as in Australia, Britain, Canada, or India, all political power is concentrated in the parliament or LEGISLATURE. The prime minister or premier and the officers of the cabinet are members of the parliament. They continue in office only as long as parliament supports--or has "confidence" in--their policies. In the presidential form of government, as in France and the United States, the voters elect a powerful chief executive who is independent of the legislature but whose actions are delimited by constitutional and other legal restraints.

Dictatorship

As a form of government, DICTATORSHIP is principally a 20th-century phenomenon. The dictator, often a military leader, concentrates political power in himself and his clique. There is no effective rule of law. The regime may or may not have a distinctive political IDEOLOGY and may or may not allow token opposition. The main function of a dictatorship is to maintain control of all governmental operations. There have been some cases--Indira GANDHI in India and several military dictatorships in Latin America--in which authoritarian rulers have relaxed their control and have even allowed open elections. In certain Soviet-bloc countries of Eastern Europe dictators were forced from power in bloodless coups or voluntarily relinquished their authority to popularly elected officials as Soviet power declined.

The totalitarian dictatorship, as in Nazi Germany, Communist China, and the formerUSSR, is much more thoroughgoing. It seeks to control all aspects of national life, including the beliefs and attitudes of its people. It has a set of ideas that everyone is expected to embrace, such as revolutionary MARXISM or counterrevolutionary FASCISM. At its most extreme, as during the leadership of Joseph STALIN in the USSR, the power of the dictator may become more absolute than in any of the earlier forms of tyranny. Such gross power in the hands of one person results inevitably in the development of what has been called a cult of personality. The leader is credited with almost infallible wisdom, because to admit that he or she may be wrong would deprive the regime of its authority. In some Communist countries the cult of personality appears to have given way to the dominance of a group of party leaders--a ruling oligarchy. The administrative complexities of managing a modern industrial state are too great to be monopolized by an individual leader such as Stalin or MAO ZEDONG (Mao Tse-tung). The successor regime in China, for example, continues to claim infallibility for its policies and doctrines but not for the leaders. Examples of 20th-century dictators in addition to those already mentioned include Idi AMIN DADA (Uganda), Kemal ATATURK (Turkey), Fulgencio BATISTA and Fidel CASTRO (Cuba), Francisco FRANCO (Spain), Saddam HUSSEIN (Iraq), Ferdinand MARCOS (Philippines), Benito MUSSOLINI (Italy), Juan PERON (Argentina), and Antonio SALAZAR (Portugal).

DISTRIBUTION OF AUTHORITY

Effective government in any form requires a workable method for distributing authority within the country. The larger and more diverse the jurisdiction of the government the stronger the tendency toward a federal system in which authority is "layered" or distributed among different levels. In countries with a relatively homogeneous population and with a common tradition, language, and sense of national history, the central governments may not be federal but unitary--that is, they may retain most of the administrative power at the center. Loosely allied autonomous states sometimes join together to create a type of central government known as a confederation, in which the central government exists only at the pleasure of the sovereign members.

Federal Systems

The United States and India with their state governments and Canada and China with their provincial governments are examples of workable federal systems in large nations with very diverse populations. Other federal states include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, and Germany. The national governments of these countries are clearly more powerful than those of their subdivisions, even though the constitutions delegate many powers and responsibilities to the subnational units. In certain prescribed policy areas a state government may have a high degree of autonomy. In the United States, for example, state legislatures pass laws having to do with state affairs; state administrators carry them out; and state judiciaries interpret them.

Federal systems also include autonomous local governments such as county governments and MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS--in cities, boroughs, townships, and villages local governments may stand in a relationship to their state governments that corresponds to that of state governments with the national government. The citizens in each jurisdiction elect many of the public officials. In addition, certain special districts exist with a single function, such as education or sanitation, and have their own elected officials.

The layers of government in a federal system may not be clearly defined in practice. Often the different levels compete for control of functions and programs. In the United States and other countries the tendency over the years has been for the national government to become much more involved in areas that once were the exclusive domain of state or regional governments. In addition, the distribution of authority has become even more complex and varied with the rise of large metropolitan areas--the MEGALOPOLIS--and the corresponding new local governmental organizations such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Unitary States

In unitary states the national government performs all the governmental functions. Subnational national units administer matters within their jurisdiction, but their powers are set and delegated by the national authority. The national government retains the police power--the inherent power to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. TAXATION and major lawmaking powers also rest almost entirely with the national government.

Most nations are unitary states, but their institutions and processes may differ markedly. Great Britain, for example, is considered a unitary system, yet a certain degree of regional autonomy exists in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and local county governments perform certain fairly autonomous functions. In France, however, strict control over the administrative territorial subdivisions is exercised by the national government. In other unitary states there exists only token territorial decentralization.

Confederations

Confederation produces the weakest central government. Member states in a confederation retain their sovereignty, delegating to the central government only those powers that are essential for its maintenance. The individual states jealously guard their power to tax and to make their own laws. The central government serves as a coordinating instrument to protect the interests of all its members. It also represents the confederation in dealings with outside governments, but its actions are subject to the review and approval of the confederated states.

The weakness of the confederate form of government led the United States to abandon that system in 1789 after only eight years. Confederations, however, have also served other nations--Germany and Switzerland, for example--as a preliminary step toward a more unified government. No modern nation-state is organized along confederate lines, yet some international organizations, such as the British COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS, the EUROPEAN UNION (formerly the European Community), and the NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION, have some aspects of a confederation.

DIVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT

Various political thinkers have distinguished types of government activity. Montesquieu was the first, however, to urge the creation of three separate institutions or divisions of government--the executive, legislative, and judicial--a distinction that became common in almost all modern constitutions. Some governmental structures, notably that of the United States, are based on the principle of SEPARATION OF POWERS at nearly every level. Executive, legislative, and judicial powers are divided into three branches of government, creating a system of checks and balances among them and helping to protect citizens from arbitrary and capricious actions on the part of any of the three branches. Such protection is crucial in the area of CIVIL RIGHTS--those constitutionally guaranteed rights that shield the citizen from tyrannical actions by government. Often, in times of grave national emergency, when the central government needs more power, the public is willing to grant it. The executive branch usually predominates at such time (see PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES).

Proponents of the separation of powers bring an additional argument in its favor: they point out that the system diminishes the influence of SPECIAL-INTEREST GROUPS over any one branch of government or over the government as a whole. It is difficult for even the strongest faction to dominate a government in which the executive is elected by the entire population, members of the legislature represent different geographical constituencies, and the judges are appointed by the executive with the approval of the legislature.

Not all states, of course, have such clear divisions of government, nor do divisions necessarily guarantee personal liberties. Parliamentary democratic systems, for example, tend to merge legislative and executive functions yet control the exercise of power by constitutional methods of sharing it. Authoritarian states may, however, be constitutionally bound to have separate organs of government yet actually concentrate power in the executive.

FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT

Maintenance of Authority

One of the principal functions of government is to remain in power. Governments do not relinquish their authority unless compelled to do so. Many of the actions of politicians and civil servants can be explained by the need to maintain and enhance their power.

Every government strives to increase its legitimacy in the eyes of the people. It may identify itself with ancient traditions, with hope for the future, or with fear of a common enemy. Some governments employ repression, never relaxing their vigils against real or imagined opponents. Even democracies, when threatened, are likely to engage in a search for subversives and "enemies of the people." When a regime draws its main support from a privileged class or group that decreases in numbers and strength, when a government becomes ineffective in handling domestic affairs or countering external threats, or when a society's consensus on the principles and goals of government evaporates, a government tends to lose authority. The French monarchy in the 18th century and the Russian monarchy in the 20th century were based on aristocracies that had lost much of their legitimacy in the eyes of the people. Eventually these regimes were unable to enforce their laws, and REVOLUTIONS swept them from power.

Governments tend, therefore, to foster widespread ideological commitment to the nation through patriotic ceremonies, propaganda, and civic education; they employ armed forces and intelligence-gathering organizations for national defense; they maintain police and prison systems to ensure domestic order; and they undertake the administration of supervisory and regulatory functions to carry out national goals by establishing various bureaucracies to handle each complex function.

Administration

All governments recognize the principle that the public must be protected and served. The citizen, in effect, surrenders a degree of individual sovereignty to the government in return for protection of life and property and the delivery of essential services. Governments supervise the resolution of conflicting interests, the workings of the political process, the enforcement of laws and rights, and the monitoring of national income (see INCOME, NATIONAL) and INTERNATIONAL TRADE; they regulate economic and social relationships among individuals and private organizations; and they carry out enterprises such as production of military goods, provision of postal services, and ownership of power utilities and public works. Among the most basic services provided by government are the printing and coining of MONEY, the provision of roads, sewers, water, education, and SOCIAL AND WELFARE SERVICES.

With the growth of the WELFARE STATE, governments began to provide services such as SOCIAL SECURITY and health insurance. But the scope of GOVERNMENT REGULATION is now much broader. In the United States the government sets minimum wages, limits the rates charged by public utilities, buys farm commodities to keep prices up, forbids the sale of harmful foods and drugs, sets standards for gasoline consumption by automobiles, requires manufacturers to install antipollution devices, and monitors the safety of factories. Federal, state, and local governments in the United States also engage directly in economic activity. They impose taxes, produce and consume goods, sell electric power, lend money to farmers, and insure bank deposits.

In other countries governments intrude even further into the workings of the economy. In Western Europe governments own and operate telephone, radio, and television services, railroads, coal mines, and aircraft companies. In some countries, such as Sweden and Great Britain, the entire health system is also run by the state. In countries with Communist governments, such as the former USSR , North Korea, China, and Cuba, the state has attempted to control the entire economic life of the nation. All economic planning is centralized in the government and its bureaucracies. When the system fails to produce the goods and services expected by the people, the government is forced to increase the level of repression of its citizens in order to remain in power.

INTERNAL CONFLICTS

The end of the cold war and the loss of control by the superpowers over international events have led to a different type of stress on many governments. The threats to their sovereignty are no longer external. Many nations, especially those artificially carved out of old empires that expired during both World Wars, are finding that the arbitrary power that maintained the central governments is no longer sufficient for the task. The communication revolution, through radio and the satellite transmission of television, has truly created a "global village." Citizens no longer live in isolation. They demand the rights and privileges enjoyed by others.

Another kind of demand governments must try to meet comes from ethnic and religious groups that in some cases seek autonomy from the government. Some of these conflicts result in attempts at GENOCIDE, and the rest of the world appears powerless to intervene. These problems are not limited to Third World countries. NATO has revised its original purpose of preventing an invasion of western Europe to a strategy of maintaining smaller mobile forces to prevent the internal breakup of nations. But these internal conflicts continue to have the potential to produce anarchy and chaos, threatening entire regions.

INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT

In modern times national governments have become increasingly involved with one another in supranational systems. The LEAGUE OF NATIONS, established in 1919, grew to include more than 90 members. It collapsed in World War II but was succeeded by the UNITED NATIONS (UN). The UN, like the League, is a voluntary association generally without power to act unless the five permanent members of the Security Council agree. It has, however, served as a forum for international debate and a convenient meeting ground for negotiations. The UN has also committed military forces of member nations in an attempt to limit the scope of conflicts that cannot be solved by national governments. UN forces have suffered casualties in some of these conflicts. The United Nations is now an international government in both theory and reality, and the organization will continue to face many serious challenges in many parts of the world.

Associated with the UN are a number of specialized organizations that perform important governmental functions. They include the FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION, the INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, the INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION, the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (World Court), the INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION, the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, and the International Telecommunication Union.

The specialized agencies have enabled national governments to cooperate in many practical matters such as setting standards, extending technical and financial assistance to developing countries, eliminating or controlling epidemic diseases, and establishing an international monetary system.

Regional associations of nations have usually existed in a loose confederation for national security purposes or for vaguely defined geographical and political purposes. The European Union of 16 member nations has taken the concept of regional association to a much higher level. It has moved to create a political union among sovereign states, and its Common Market competes with the major economies of the world.

Thomas B. Hartmann

Bibliography: Almond, Gabriel A., et al., Comparative Politics: A Theoretical Framework (1992); Beer, Samuel H., et al., Patterns of Government, 3d ed. (1972), and To Make a Nation (1993); Budge, Ian, Parties and Democracy (1990, repr. 1993); Calvert, Peter, Politics, Power and Revolution (1983); Curtis, Michael, et al., eds., Introduction to Comparative Government, 3d ed. (1992); Diamond, Larry, and Plattner, Marc F., eds., Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy Revisted (1993); Finer, S. E., Comparative Government (1974); Taylor, P. J., World Government (1993); Zeigler, Harmon, The Political Community (1990).

(da: Grolier Electronic Publishing)

Etichette:

3.11.06

Approfondimento: Pluralism

Pluralism is a theory or system of thought that recognizes more than one (MONISM) and generally more than two (DUALISM) ultimate principles. The elements in metaphysical pluralisms are quite varied: from the earth, air, fire, and water of EMPEDOCLES, and the mercury, sulfur, and salt of PARACELSUS; the Chinese water, fire, wood, metal, soil, and Yin and Yang; to the mind, matter, and God of William JAMES. Epistemological pluralism, presented in William James's PRAGMATISM, maintains that there is no single meaning or truth; meaning varies as the consequences vary for the individual, and truth is the expedient way of thinking. Attributive monisms, such as Gottfried Wilhelm von LEIBNIZ's monodology, have also been considered pluralisms because they talk of many elements of the same type.

In political theory pluralism is a concept that describes the heterogeneity of groups that share power in public policymaking. The theory of democratic pluralism asserts that the public interest emerges from the democratic competition of diverse and changing elite groups, none of which are able to become dominant.

Donald Gotterbarn

(da: Grolier Electronic Publishing)

Etichette:

1.11.06

Approfondimento: Elite e classe politica

1. Origine e interpretazioni: Mosca, Pareto, Michels - 2. La modernita' del concetto - 3. Le teorie liberali dell'elite - 4. Classe politica
1. elite deriva da eligere "scegliere". Due sono le caratteristiche fondamentali che vengono usualmente associate a questo concetto. Innanzitutto quella del numero: il termine elite identifica sempre un gruppo minoritario all'interno di un piu' vasto aggregato. In secondo luogo l'esistenza di un criterio, o di un insieme di criteri di distinzione in base ai quali questo gruppo minoritario viene identificato rispetto alla maggioranza.
Se e' agevole constatare che delle elite, individuate in base a queste caratteristiche, sono esistite in tutti i sistemi politici, va d'altro canto sottolineato che il concetto acquista rilievo all'interno della scienza della politica tra Otto e Novecento, periodo nel quale compaiono gli studi di quelli che piu' tardi verranno definiti - accomunandoli in una formula non priva di eccessiva semplificazione - gli e'litisti: Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto e Roberto Michels, solo per indicare i nomi che piu' comunemente vengono ricompresi in questo filone di teoria.
e' importante sgombrare subito il campo da possibili equivoci. Il concetto elite nasce vago, nel senso che spesso in suo luogo vengono impiegati termini diversi, quali, soprattutto, classe dominante e classe politica, o, piu' raramente, oligarchia.
Mosca, che con Pareto puo' essere considerato non solo uno dei piu' accorti studiosi del fenomeno, ma - anche e soprattutto - uno dei massimi teorici e "ideologi" dell'elitismo, preferisce utilizzare, in polemica con Pareto, il termine "classe politica" piuttosto che quello di elite, in quanto "le espressioni elite o aristocrazia implicano un elogio alle classi medesime che veramente esse in molti casi sono ben lungi dal meritare". Mosca, il quale ritiene che a rendere certe classi atte a far parte della classe politica sia il possesso di fatto di "quella forza politica che si trova a essere, in un dato periodo storico, la piu' necessaria", arricchisce il concetto di una caratteristica rilevante: quella della coscienza di appartenenza alla classe politica da parte dei suoi membri. Da qui deriverebbe una coesione interna in grado di rendere il gruppo minoritario meglio attrezzato per la conquista e l'esercizio del potere. In tal modo per Mosca l'intera storia dell'umanita' potrebbe essere vista come un susseguirsi di diverse minoranze organizzate.
Pareto invece fonda la sua teoria sulla cosiddetta "legge della scarsita'": il principale problema con il quale la civilta' ha dovuto confrontarsi nel corso del suo sviluppo e' stato quello dell'ottimizzazione dello sfruttamento e della distribuzione delle risorse scarse. E proprio il governo dei migliori e' quello che ha assicurato, alla prova dei fatti, la piu' efficiente utilizzazione di queste scarse risorse. Secondo questo autore, a un E. che governa si contrappone un'E. che non governa, dove la prima e' distinta dalla seconda in base a due variabili fondamentali: la superiorita' dovuta all'uso della forza e il consenso nei suoi confronti da parte dei governati. Fondamentale e' per Pareto il problema della circolazione delle E., intendendo con questo non solo la questione del ricambio tra le diverse E., ma anche il passaggio di personale tra un'E. e un'altra, e tra la massa e le E.
Michels introduce nell'analisi la variabile organizzativa, ovvero la necessaria tendenza all'organizzazione di qualsiasi aggregato umano, tendenza la quale produce inevitabilmente tanto un processo di gerarchizzazione, quanto un fenomeno di formazione di minoranze all'interno del gruppo, le quali tendono a monopolizzare il potere e a perpetuare il dominio. Michels sembra richiamarsi fondamentalmente al pensiero di Machiavelli e Max Weber, laddove afferma che la massa manifesta la necessita' psicologica di una Leadership forte e stabile, la quale necessita' e' a sua volta all'origine della convinzione che i leaders siano forniti di eccezionali qualita' personali.
2. E' naturale che tutti questi approcci vanno inquadrati all'interno di fenomeni storico-culturali di piu' vasta portata. Il periodo trattato - i cinquant'anni a cavallo del secolo - e' quello nel quale si sta verificando forse la piu' grave crisi di crescenza del sistema politico ed economico figlio della rivoluzione industriale e della Rivoluzione francese. Crisi che portera' allo scatenamento della prima fase (1914-1918) della grande guerra civile europea, e che solo ora sembra avviata a conclusione con il crollo dell'impero esterno sovietico.
E' il periodo nel quale 'lo Stato liberale si trova alle prese con il problema dell'ingresso, il piu' indolore possibile, delle masse all'interno del processo politico.
Di fronte alle enormi difficolta', e agli altrettanto giganteschi errori, con cui questo processo viene condotto, si stagliano sostanzialmente tre tipi di reazioni. Quella di chi tenta una difesa dei "corpi" della societa', rendendosi conto che la democratizzazione comporta non solo un maggior livellamento delle posizioni sociali, ma anche l'azzeramento di tutte le istanze particolaristiche o intermedie (azzeramento inteso come negazione della legittimita' per tali istanze di esercitare direttamente qualsiasi forma di pressione, rappresentanza o potere). e' questa l'area in cui si collocano le diverse dottrine di ispirazione cattolica. C'e' viceversa chi tende ad accelerare il processo in corso, nel tentativo di creare un assetto sociale nel quale individuo e massa siano portatori di un medesimo (piu' che complementare) interesse. e' questo cio' che accomuna le posizioni di Marx, Comte e buona parte dei socialisti utopisti. Ci sono infine coloro che, pur apparendo assumere posizioni di mediazione, tentano in realta' una piu' ardita sintesi tra le categorie e i valori che sono stati posti a fondamento dell'idea di democrazia e di politica dell'Occidente (gia' a partire dal secolo IV a.C.), e il nuovo assetto sociale richiesto dalla sfida posta dall'ingresso delle masse nello Stato liberale. Ed e' in questo senso che sono da interpretare origini e sviluppo delle teorie e'litiste. Come pure e' in tal senso che oggi queste teorie mantengono, ma per piu' di un aspetto riacquistano, un forte valore di attualita'.
Rispetto alla valutazione dell'E., ci troviamo, in questo terzo tipo di risposta, in una posizione non dissimile da quella in cui siamo quando ci chiediamo se Majakovskij fosse - non per la tecnica poetica, ma per la sua concezione del mondo - un rivoluzionario o un reazionario. Proprio perche' il tentativo e' quello di una nuova sintesi tra antico e moderno, le concezioni di E. appaiono molteplici e, a volte, contraddittorie dal punto di vista delle concrete applicazioni delle diverse dottrine e'litiste. Accanto alle posizioni di un Gustave Le Bon o di un Jose' Ortega y Gasset, che contrappongono "l'uomo-massa" "all'uomo-E.", se ne trovano altre piu' sfumate, meno immediatamente politiche e di assai difficile collocazione in un continuum i cui estremi siano considerati il reazionarismo e il progressismo: si pensi alle tesi espresse dal tedesco Ernst Junger, che delinea una figura tipologica - l'anarca, il ribelle - in cui elementi di forte accettazione della modernita' convivono con una ricerca delle radici, psicologiche e valoriali, della cultura europea.
Nell'Europa continentale comunque le teorie dell'E. vengono piegate strumentalmente e utilizzate dalle diverse forme fascisteggianti o piu' semplicemente autoritario-conservatrici che si diffondono un po' ovunque fino agli anni Trenta.
3. Libere da quest'abbraccio soffocante, teorie e concetto sono tenute in vita fino ai nostri giorni soprattutto nelle democrazie anglosassoni. Il che legittima due considerazioni. La prima: le democrazie che piu' si dimostrano capaci di resistere alla bufera totalitaristica e autoritaria che sconvolge il Vecchio Continente sono proprio quelle che presentano delle E. stabili e facilmente individuabili. Questa considerazione e' importante perche' sembra avallare storicamente l'interpretazione che tra stabilita' dei regimi democratici e presenza di forti E. esista un legame necessario. La seconda: e' proprio in queste realta' politico-istituzionali che si intensificano gli studi di gran parte dei "nuovi e'litisti" per dimostrare la non opposizione tra E. e democrazia. In tal senso si muovono le analisi di Robert Dahl e dei "pluralisti".
Dahl formula un concetto di E. basato su una visione particolare della distribuzione delle risorse politiche, che definisce delle "ineguaglianze differenziate". Secondo Dahl le classi dirigenti presenti nelle moderne democrazie sono estremamente pluralistiche e frammentate, e, per di piu', rileva empiricamente che differenti gruppi di E. esercitano la loro influenza nei diversi processi decisionali, in relazione al tipo di issue di volta in volta sul tappeto. Questo fa si' che la netta distinzione tra E. e non-E. venga annullata. La visione dell'autore americano e' assai influenzata da quanto gia' sosteneva Joseph Schumpeter, ovvero che le moderne democrazie siano sostanzialmente sistemi, nei quali viene regolata la competizione fra minoranze organizzate politicamente attive, impegnate in una lotta pacifica per l'ottenimento dei consensi elettorali da parte della maggioranza non organizzata dei politicamente non attivi. Una visione, questa, che richiama per piu' di un aspetto quella di un mercato economico oligopolistico: una visione, soprattutto, che pone la maggioranza come arbitro della competizione tra le diverse minoranze. Ed e' per tale via che si giunge a una rappresentazione della democrazia che incorpora il concetto di E., democrazia intesa cioe' come sistema per il quale il potere di scegliere l'E. che governa e' nelle mani del De'mos.
Su una posizione molto piu' vicina a quella degli e'litisti "classici" si trova invece Charles Wright Mills, lo studioso alla cui teoria si rivolgono piu' immediatamente le critiche di Dahl. Secondo Wright Mills esiste una vera e propria E. del potere, ovvero il gruppo al vertice delle tre istituzioni dominanti nella societa': quella militare, quella politica e quella economico-finanziaria. Questa teoria sembra pero' eccessivamente rigida, e forse un po' vicina alla tautologia per cui "chi ha il potere e' colui che comanda". In effetti e' proprio quando lo si impiega in modo riduzionistico, che il concetto di E. mostra in maniera piu' netta i propri limiti in termini di vaghezza e ambiguita'. Del resto la mera constatazione che nelle moderne democrazie (come in tutti i regimi politici) esistano delle classi dominanti, o comunque delle minoranze che detengono un potere maggiore del resto dei membri della comunita', appare un argomento insufficiente per mettere in dubbio la reale democraticita' delle attuali democrazie liberali. Semmai rafforza le opinioni di de Madariaga e di Lindsay; secondo i quali Leadership e forme democratiche di governo, autorita', competenza e democrazia di massa sono strettamente connesse.

4. Sebbene anche nella nota distinzione weberiana tra il vivere per la politica e della politica sia possibile rinvenire elementi per una definizione di C. politica, e' in realta' solo all'interno dell'elitismo italiano che al concetto e' stata attribuita una precisa e autonoma valenza analitica. Infatti, nonostante le significative differenze tra i loro reciproci contributi teorici, Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto e Roberto Michels hanno identificato all'interno della struttura sociale uno specifico gruppo organizzato, il cui elemento distintivo e' costituito dall'esercizio delle funzioni politiche attraverso l'impiego autonomo di risorse che gli vengono affidate o di cui esso stesso riesce ad appropriarsi. Secondo la definizione formulata da Gaetano Mosca, che introdusse il termine nelle scienze politico-sociali, C. politica e' infatti "una classe speciale, i cui elementi di formazione, secondo il secolo e il paese, possono variare, e' vero, moltissimo, ma che, in qualunque modo sia composta, sempre forma davanti alla massa dei governati, ai quali s'impone, una sparuta minoranza". A questa classe speciale e' attribuito "tutto cio' che nel governo e' parte dispositiva, esercizio d'autorita', ed implica comando e responsabilita'".
E' tuttavia necessario sottolineare come il termine classe sia utilizzato in una accezione impropria: la classe politica solo in rari casi puo' venire ricondotta a una classe economico-sociale, giacche', risulta invece ricostituita generalmente da una coalizione di classi, o di loro segmenti, oppure di gruppi dalla diversa coesione.

(da: Politica, vocabolario a cura di Lorenzo Ornaghi, Milano, ed. Jaca Book, 1996)

Etichette:

Approfondimento: Elite and Elitism

Elite is a term applied to those individuals or groups in any society who exercise power, possess superior wealth, or enjoy elevated status and prestige. In everyday use, elite contrasts with the masses and is sometimes used synonymously with upper-class. Elite as a concept, however, is more specific and designates a particular group or individual that enjoys high status, is wealthy, or controls major institutions in contemporary societies.

The modern sociological theory of elites is associated with the writings of the late-19th-century social thinkers Vilfredo PARETO and Gaetano MOSCA. They, in turn, were reflecting the treatment of the social role of elites in the works of such earlier writers as Plato, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and, especially, Machiavelli. The work of Pareto and Mosca was an attempt to explain by a systematic and abstract theory the great historic changes then occurring in European societies, namely the rise of the modern bureaucratic state, the spread of market economies, and the process of industrialization. Pareto and Mosca located the source of change in the activity of elite ruling groups, who directed the operations of government and economy. Pareto and Mosca were interested in how the various kinds of elites--military, religious, political, and intellectual--were internally organized and related; how they perpetuated their power, wealth, and status; and how they replaced each other over time. The last aspect was expressed as the circulation of elites in the classic formulation of Pareto, who suggested that innovative and conservative elites tend to alternate over different historical periods.

In the wake of the European fascist movements, which transformed democratic states through elitist doctrines, American and British political sociologists became interested after World War II in the study of both the formal exercise of power and the informal subcultures among groups of ruling elites in the democratic societies of Europe and the United States. Also, social scientists focused attention on the new and old elites of the nation-states in Asia, Africa, and Latin America as they emerged from the period of Western colonialism. The ideas of Pareto and Mosca provided the framework for research projects in these two areas.

The central debate that dominated research on elites, especially in the United States, through the 1950s, 1960s, and mid-1970s, was between those, such as C. Wright MILLS, who asserted that there was a power elite--a close-knit, integrated organization of elites at the highest levels of political, economic, and cultural institutions--and those, such as Robert Dahl, who asserted that the organization of elites in American society was pluralistic. According to the latter view, elites were not one single coordinated organization dominating society, but were many groups of diverse origin competing for positions of power and prestige. The so-called pluralists asserted the fulfillment of democratic ideals in practice. Since the mid-1970s, theories on elites again have been concerned with the historic role of the state in guiding modern societies and the participation of various kinds of elite groups in the process of government. Rather than emphasizing the forms and social composition of elite groups and their impact on society, however, current research has focused on the culture, ideologies, life styles, and outlooks of elites. It thus points to more subtle, indirect ways in which elites affect society through their involvements with routine affairs of state and the making of policy. While retaining some of the ideas of Pareto and Mosca, current studies have been influenced more by theories derived from the work of Karl MARX.

George Marcus

Bibliography: Clarke, H.D., and Czudnowski, M.M., eds., Political Elites in Anglo-American Democracies (1987); Marger, M.N., Elites and Masses, 2d ed. (1987); Mills, C. Wright, The Power Elite (1956); Marcus, G. E., Elites: Ethnographic Issues (1983); Standworth, P., and Giddens, A., eds., Elites and Power in British Society (1974).


(da: Grolier Electronic Publishing)

Etichette:

27.10.06

Approfondimento: Socialism

The term socialism is commonly used to refer both to an ideology--a comprehensive set of beliefs or ideas about the nature of human society and its future desirable state--and to a state of society based on that ideology. Socialists have always claimed to stand above all for the values of equality, social justice, cooperation, progress, and individual freedom and happiness, and they have generally sought to realize these values by the abolition of the private-enterprise economy (see CAPITALISM) and its replacement by "public ownership," a system of social or state control over production and distribution. Methods of transformation advocated by socialists range from constitutional change to violent revolution.

ORIGINS OF SOCIALISM

Some scholars believe that the basic principles of socialism were derived from the philosophy of Plato, the teachings of the Hebrew prophets, and some parts of the New Testament (the Sermon on the Mount, for example). Modern socialist ideology, however, is essentially a joint product of the 1789 French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution in England--the word socialist first occurred in an English journal in 1827. These two great historical events, establishing democratic government in France and the conditions for vast future economic expansion in England, also engendered a state of incipient conflict between the property owners (the bourgeoisie) and the growing class of industrial workers; socialists have since been striving to eliminate or at least mitigate this conflict. The first socialist movement emerged in France after the Revolution and was led by Francois BABEUF, Filippo Buonarrotti (1761-1837), and Louis Auguste BLANQUI; Babeuf's revolt of 1796 was a failure. Other early socialist thinkers, such as the comte de SAINT-SIMON, Charles FOURIER, and Etienne CABET in France and Robert OWEN and William Thompson (c.1785-1833) in England, believed in the possibility of peaceful and gradual transformation to a socialist society by the founding of small experimental communities; hence, later socialist writers dubbed them with the label utopian.

THE EMERGENCE OF MARXISM

In the mid-19th century, more-elaborate socialist theories were developed, and eventually relatively small but potent socialist movements spread. The German thinkers Karl MARX and Friedrich ENGELS produced at that time what has since been generally regarded as the most sophisticated and influential doctrine of socialism. Marx, who was influenced in his youth by German idealist philosophy and the humanism of Ludwig Andreas FEUERBACH, believed that human beings, and particularly workers, were "alienated" in modern capitalist society; he argued in his early writings that the institution of private property would have to be completely abolished before the individual could be reconciled with both society and nature. His mature doctrine, however, worked out in collaboration with Engels and based on the teachings of classical English political economy, struck a harder note, and Marx claimed for it "scientific" status.

The first important document of mature MARXISM, the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO (1848), written with Engels, asserted that all known human history is essentially the history of social classes locked in conflict. There has in the past always been a ruling and an oppressed class. The modern, or bourgeois, epoch, characterized by the capitalist mode of production with manufacturing industry and a free market, would lead according to Marx and Engels to the growing intensity of the struggle between capitalists and workers (the proletariat), the latter being progressively impoverished and as a result assuming an increasingly revolutionary attitude.

Marx further asserted, in his most famous work, Das KAPITAL, that the capitalist employer of labor had, in order to make a profit, to extract "surplus value" from his employees, thereby exploiting them and reducing them to "wage-slavery." The modern state, with its government and law-enforcing agencies, was solely the executive organ of the capitalist class. Religion, philosophy, and most other forms of culture likewise simply fulfilled the "ideological" function of making the working class contented with their subordinate position. Capitalism, however, as Marx claimed, would soon and necessarily grind to a halt: economic factors, such as the diminishing rate of profit, as well as the political factor of increasing proletarian "class consciousness" would result in the forcible overthrow of the existing system and its immediate replacement by the "dictatorship of the proletariat." This dictatorship would soon be superseded by the system of socialism, in which private ownership is abolished and all people are remunerated according to their work, and socialism would lead eventually to COMMUNISM, a society of abundance characterized by the complete disappearance of the state, social classes, law, politics, and all forms of compulsion. Under this ideal condition goods would be distributed according to need, and the unity of all humankind would be assured because of elimination of greed.

VARIETIES OF EUROPEAN SOCIALISM

Marxist ideas made a great impact on European socialist movements. By the second half of the 19th century socialists in Europe were organizing into viable political parties with considerable and growing electoral support; they also forged close links in most countries with trade unions and other working-class associations. Their short-term programs were mainly concerned with increasing the franchise, introducing state welfare benefits for the needy, gaining the right to strike, and improving working conditions, especially shortening the work day.

Moderate Socialism

Ideas other than those of Marx were at this time also becoming influential. Such ideas included moderate socialist doctrines, for example, those of the FABIAN SOCIETY in England, founded by Sidney WEBB and including among its adherents the writers H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw; those of Ferdinand LASSALLE in Germany; and of Louis BLANC in France. These moderates sought to achieve socialism by parliamentary means and by appealing deliberately to the middle class. Fabianism had as one of its intellectual forebears the utilitarian individualism of Jeremy BENTHAM and John Stuart MILL, and it became a doctrine that sought to reconcile the values of liberty, democracy, economic progress, and social justice. The Fabians believed that the cause of socialism would also be aided by the advancement of the social sciences, especially economics and sociology. These doctrines, collectively known as social democracy, did not, like Marxism, look toward the complete abolition of private property and the disappearance of the state but instead envisaged socialism more as a form of society in which full democratic control would be exercised over wealth, and production would be controlled by a group of responsible experts working in the interests of the whole community. The achievement of socialism was seen by social democrats as a long-term goal, the result of an evolutionary process involving the growth of economic efficiency (advanced technology, large-scale organization, planning), education in moral responsibility, and the voluntary acceptance of equal shares in benefits and burdens; socialism would be the triumph of common sense, the inevitable outcome of LIBERALISM, the extension of democracy from politics to industry.

CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM spread from its beginnings in England to France and Germany. Charles KINGSLEY, John Malcolm Forbes Ludlow (1821-1911), and Frederick Denison MAURICE were among its founders. They in the main supported moderate social democracy, emphasizing what they understood as the central message of the church in social ethics, notably the values of cooperation, brotherhood, simplicity of tastes, and the spirit of self-sacrifice. Their ideas proved fertile in both the short and the long runs, although in actual political terms Christian socialism never succeeded in altering the predominantly secular orientation of most socialist movements.

Radical Socialism

On the other hand, many doctrines and movements were decidedly more militant than Marxism. Anarchists (see ANARCHISM), influenced mainly by the ideas of the Frenchman Pierre Joseph PROUDHON and later of the Russian emigres Mikhail Aleksandrovich BAKUNIN and Pyotr Alekseyevich KROPOTKIN, were intent on immediately overthrowing the capitalist state and replacing it with small independent communities. Unlike the Marxists, whom they bitterly criticized, anarchists were against the formation of socialist parties, and they repudiated parliamentary politics as well as the idea of revolutionary dictatorship. Their followers, never very numerous, were and are found mainly in the Latin countries of Europe and America. SYNDICALISM, an offshoot of anarchism, was a movement of militant working-class trade unionists who endeavored to achieve socialism through industrial action only, notably by using the weapon of the general strike. Their doctrine was similar to Marxism in that they also believed that socialism was to be achieved only by and for the working class, but unlike the Marxists they rejected the notion of a future centralized socialist state. Their most eminent theorist was Georges SOREL. Syndicalist ideas also had intermittent success in the British and American trade union movements, for example, the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD, an American-based syndicalist union active around the turn of the century. Guild socialism in England, dominated by George Douglas Howard Cole (1889-1959), the academic economist and historian, represented a modified and milder form of syndicalism.

In Russia, where it was impossible to organize openly a popular socialist movement under the tsarist regime, socialism became mainly the ideology of young militant intellectuals whose favored means of furthering the cause were secret conspiracies and acts of individual terrorism. Debate raged between those who believed in the native socialist ethos of the Russian village community and those who wanted to adopt Western ideas of modernization. The latter party, which eventually emerged victorious, soon came under Marxist influence. Among its adherents was V. I. LENIN, who emerged as the leader of a small but dedicated group of "professional revolutionaries," the Bolshevik (see BOLSHEVIKS AND MENSHEVIKS) wing of the illegal Russian Social Democratic Workers' party. Lenin was also the theorist who irrevocably gave a markedly elitist and authoritarian twist to Marxism: he worked out the theory of the proletarian vanguard--that is, the Communist party--which was destined to lead the masses toward socialism, irrespective of the masses' inclinations.

SCHISM AND CONTROVERSY

Throughout the 19th century the socialist movement was beset by a number of ever-deepening conflicts and doctrinal controversies.

The Internationals

The International Workingmen's Association (First International; see INTERNATIONAL, SOCIALIST), founded in 1864, was expected to achieve unity among various socialist and militant trade union organizations, but its efforts were greatly hindered by, among other things, the conflict between the followers of Bakunin and those of Marx. It came to an end soon after the suppression of the COMMUNE OF PARIS (1871).

The Second International (1889-1914) assumed for a time at least an outward appearance of unity, in that it represented the high watermark of classical Marxist influence in West European socialism. It was dominated by the largest socialist parties then in existence, the French--led by Jean JAURES, Jules Guesde (1845-1922), and Paul Lafargue (1842-1911)--and the German--led by August BEBEL, Karl Johann KAUTSKY, and Wilhelm Liebknecht (see LIEBKNECHT family)--who agreed at least in their broad understanding of the aims and methods of socialism. Their spokesmen emphasized the need to foster international solidarity among the mass of the working class and thus to avert the threat of a major war in Europe. This effort proved singularly unsuccessful: NATIONALISM in 1914 and later proved a much stronger mass emotion than socialism. Apart from a few exceptions, such as Lenin and his Bolshevik group, socialist movements supported the war effort of their respective governments. As a result of the general conflagration in 1914 the Second International disintegrated and therewith also the hopes of socialist unity.

Revisionism

Another important controversy broke out in the 1890s within Marxism, involving the German Social Democratic party. This party was divided then between a militant revolutionary left wing, an orthodox center that held to the classical Marxist doctrine of economic determinism, and a right wing moving rapidly toward a position of open reformism. The right wing had as its most renowned spokesman Eduard BERNSTEIN, a personal friend of Marx and Engels, who was, however, also influenced by English Fabian ideas.

Bernstein repudiated the notion of violent revolution and argued that conditions in civilized countries such as Germany made possible a peaceful, gradual transformation to socialism. He sought to reinterpret Marxist doctrine in the light of fresh advances made in economic science, such as those also embraced in Fabian doctrine, and argued that socialism was compatible with individual economic responsibility. He rejected, furthermore, the idea of "class morality," which judged all actions according to their revolutionary import. Instead he advocated a code of individual morality, derived from Kant's moral philosophy. Consequently, Bernstein asserted the need for socialists to concentrate on immediate tasks instead of ultimate and remote objectives; the movement, he wrote, was everything; the goal, nothing.

This doctrine, henceforward called revisionism, immediately became the subject of bitter attacks by the revolutionary left wing, represented above all by Rosa LUXEMBURG, which on this issue was supported by the orthodox center and its principal theorist, Karl Kautsky. The terms of the debate on revisionism centered on the facts, noted by Bernstein, of considerable improvement in the living standards of the working class, its resultant political integration in the constitutional (republican or monarchical) state, the purely reformist stance of trade unions, and the virtual absence of any desire for a radical change on the part of the great majority of workers.

The opponents of revisionism, while acknowledging these tendencies, argued that material improvements were insufficient and ephemeral. They felt that if the working class and its organizations accepted the constitutional state they were merely postponing indefinitely the change to socialism. According to them, the principal tasks of the socialist leader are to arouse dissatisfaction with existing conditions and to reemphasize constantly the worth of the ultimate goal. The arguments on both sides continue with only slight changes in the debate between reformist and revolutionary socialists everywhere. In Marxist jargon the term revisionism became synonymous with treason. Ironically--but in a way that pointed toward the subsequent fate of Marxist doctrine--the orthodox center in the German party was soon to be denounced by left-wingers as revisionist. Lenin, too, came to condemn sharply the German social democrats and the "renegade" Kautsky. The latter, in turn, vehemently denounced Lenin and the Bolsheviks for their adoption of terrorist methods in the consolidation of their revolutionary gains in Russia. Marxist unity, like the Second International, thus also fell victim to World War I and its aftermath: from then on Marxists have tended to be either Marxist-Leninists--that is, communists embracing the elitist doctrine of the vanguard party--or moderate revisionists moving ever closer to reformist social democracy.

MODERN MARXIST SOCIALISM

Modern socialism owes its shape and fortune at least as much to secular events as to the continuing attraction of its various doctrines. The major upheavals caused by two world wars greatly contributed to the success of the Russian (1917) and Chinese (1949) revolutions, and the governments of these two powerful countries thereafter endeavored by diverse means to spread the Marxist revolutionary doctrine further afield, resorting to military methods (as in Eastern Europe), economic pressures, and military and economic aid, as well as subversion and propaganda. Indigenous Marxist movements also succeeded in gaining and maintaining power in Cuba (1959) and Nicaragua (1979). During most of the 20th century, Marxist socialism meant the dictatorial rule of the Communist party, intensive industrialization, central state direction of the economy, and the collectivization of agriculture. These were accompanied, particularly during the dictatorship of Joseph STALIN in the USSR, by a reign of terror and the general absence of individual freedom. The Stalinist system, though shorn of some of its worst brutalities, essentially remained in place until the rise to power of Mikhail GORBACHEV in 1985. In a few short years, Gorbachev's policies of GLASNOST (openness) and PERESTROIKA (restructuring) created irresistible demands for liberalization in both the USSR and Eastern Europe. As the Soviet regime loosened its grip, the countries of Eastern Europe threw off the Communist governments that had been imposed on them after World War II. In the USSR itself long-cherished doctrines of Leninism were jettisoned with bewildering speed, and, following an abortive coup by party hard-liners in 1991, the Soviet regime collapsed.

EUROPEAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

In Western Europe, despite the presence of large Marxist parties (as in Italy and France) and the Marxist influence among intellectuals, socialism was, and still is, principally represented by widely based social democratic and labor movements, which generally enjoy the active support of trade unions. This predominance of reformist trends over revolutionary aspirations undoubtedly was occasioned by economic stability and the deterrent example of Marxist rule in the East. The social democratic parties of Sweden, Britain, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany (the former West Germany and present reunified state), in particular, governed their respective countries for lengthy periods during the postwar era through constitutional means, fully accepting the principles of parliamentary liberal democracy. The spirit of these Western European parties has tended to be pragmatic and tolerant, seeking accommodation rather than confrontation. Their programs repudiate the doctrines of the class war, revolution, and communism. Instead, they have relied on the expedients of progressive taxation, deficit financing, selective nationalization, the mixed economy, and vast welfare programs in order to bring about socialism; their political success has depended on considerable middle-class support. Although most of these parties have recently accommodated themselves to free-market reforms, they remain committed to the social democratic vision of a "middle way" between the extremes of communism and unfettered capitalism.

Social democratic foreign policy has generally been pacific and until recently was mainly concerned with defusing the cold war and accelerating the processes of decolonization and the banning of nuclear weapons. In domestic politics, European social democrats generally refused to cooperate with communist parties and other extremist socialist groups. The Social Democratic party (SPD) in Germany, although at one time the citadel of orthodox Marxism, has since 1959 been a purely reformist party, abandoning its original goals. The British LABOUR PARTY, socialist in its aims (its constitution since 1919 has had reference to "public ownership"), has never had any serious doctrinal or organizational links with Marxism, although its powerful left wing consistently advocates radical policies. A dispute with the leftists prompted a group of Labour moderates to secede (1981) and found the Social Democratic party, which later merged (1988) with the Liberal party to form the Social and Liberal Democrats (later, Liberal Democrats). The French Socialist party, which had long since abandoned its orthodox Marxism, allied itself with the Communists during the 1960s, but under the leadership of Francois MITTERRAND, it won the presidency on its own and gained a majority in the National Assembly in 1981. In the same year, the Greek Socialists came to power under Andreas PAPANDREOU, and in 1982, Felipe GONZALEZ MARQUEZ formed Spain's first Socialist government since the Spanish Civil War. Bettino CRAXI became Italy's first Socialist premier, heading a coalition government from 1983 to 1987. Although Scandinavia's social democrats suffered electoral defeats in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the political parties of Europe's moderate left retained broad popular support.

The French Communist party was long known for its subservience to the USSR and its rigid Stalinism. The Italian Communist party, on the other hand, relied on an indigenous Marxist tradition associated mainly with the teaching of Antonio GRAMSCI, one of the party's founders, who is widely regarded as one of the most significant of European Marxist thinkers. The Italian party, at one time the largest in Western Europe, frequently obtained the highest percentage of the popular vote in Italy's parliamentary elections and continuously governed a number of Italian municipalities (Bologna is a prime example).

During the 1970s the Italian Communists under Enrico BERLINGUER, the French Communists under Georges Marchais, and the Spanish Communists under Santiago Carillo embraced a doctrine known as Eurocommunism. The Eurocommunists, breaking not only with Stalinism but with some aspects of the Leninist tradition, began moving toward full acceptance of parliamentary democracy and the multiparty system, in many ways prefiguring the glasnost-perestroika reforms that dramatically changed the Communist world in the Gorbachev era. To the left of the Communists were a number of new groups of militant revolutionaries, such as West Germany's Red Army (Baader-Meinhof) Faction and Italy's Red Brigades, which carried out campaigns of abduction, subversion, and terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s.

SOCIALISM IN THE UNITED STATES

In North America, Marxist influence never spread very far. In the United States no socialist movement ever held a very large following, and although the country has produced renowned socialist authors and popular leaders, they have not been distinguished for their originality or for their impact on the worldwide development of socialism. Socialism has not taken a firmer root in the United States for several reasons, of which the country's cultural traditions and its wealth in natural resources are the most important. Whereas in Europe the distribution of wealth was a pressing problem, facilitating the rise of socialist movements, in the United States the moving "frontier" meant the constant creation of new land and wealth and its accessibility for those endowed with initiative and a spirit of individual enterprise. Thus in the United States even radical thinkers tended to be "individualists" and "anarchists," rather than socialists. In this development the country's tradition of republican self-government and its ethos of egalitarianism and democracy also played a decisive role: unlike Europe, the United States had no entrenched aristocratic privileges or monarchical absolutism and consequently no need for democratic aspirations to be combined with the socialist demand for economic equality and security. LABOR UNIONS also, for the most part, concentrated on the achievement of higher earnings and were not greatly interested in economic and social organization.

Numerous, although small, utopian socialist communities did flourish, however, in the United States, mostly during the early 19th century. Also, a celebrated economist, Henry GEORGE, and writers of repute, such as Edward BELLAMY, advocated socialism, and socialist political leaders, such as Victor L. BERGER, Eugene V. DEBS, Daniel DE LEON, and Norman THOMAS, had at one time considerable popular appeal. The U.S. SOCIALIST PARTY, founded in 1901, reached its greatest strength in the 1912 and 1920 presidential elections, when its candidate, Debs, received more than 900,000 votes. In 1932, Norman Thomas, running on the Socialist ticket, polled more than 800,000 votes. Thereafter the party's strength ebbed. The New Deal in the 1930s, although not socialist in inspiration, also tended to draw votes away from the party. The New Deal's policies of economic redistribution seemed to meet demands of those who previously supported the Socialists.

In the economic boom following World War II and especially in the cold-war era of the 1950s and 1960s, U.S. socialism was at a low ebb. Later, however, socialist ideas made considerable, although indirect, impacts on various radical (see RADICALISM) and liberal movements. In the United States many people no longer discuss socialism in its conventional political and economic sense, but rather as a remote ethical and social ideal.

SOCIALISM IN THE THIRD WORLD

Socialism has assumed a number of distinct forms in the Third World. But only in Israel has moderate social democracy proved successful for long periods, mainly as a result of the European socialist tradition brought in by immigrants. There the Labor party in various forms has had a large following and has governed the country longer than any other party. Israel has other socialist parties as well, including a militant Marxist party. At least of equal significance, however, are the cooperative agricultural communes (kibbutzim), which have flourished since 1948. Commentators have argued that kibbutzim more than anything else show the viability of socialist principles in practice; however, the peculiarities of Israeli conditions (for example, religious tradition and constant war readiness necessitated by the hostility of Israel's Arab neighbors) could not easily be duplicated.

Elsewhere in the Third World, Marxism and various indigenous traditions have been predominant in socialist movements. In developing countries socialism as an ideology generally has been fused with various doctrines of nationalism, also a European cultural import but enriched by diverse motifs drawn from local traditions and cast in the idiom of indigenous cultures. In India, for example, the largest socialist movement has partially adapted the pacifist teaching of Mahatma Gandhi, and distinct native brands of socialism exist in Japan, Burma (Myanmar), and Indonesia. Similarly, in black Africa native traditions were used in the adaptation of socialist, mainly Marxist, doctrines and political systems based on them. Noteworthy instances were the socialist system of Tanzania (decentralized under an internationally supported economic reform program of the early 1990s) and the socialist theories of intellectual leaders such as Kwame NKRUMAH of Ghana, Julius K. NYERERE of Tanzania, Leopold Sedar SENGHOR of Senegal, and Sekou TOURE of Guinea. Socialism in these theories is usually understood as a combination of Marxism, anticolonialism, and the updated tradition of communal landownership and tribal customs of decision making. Most of sub-Saharan Africa's socialist countries adopted free-market reforms in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Arab socialism likewise represents an effort to combine modern European socialist ideology with some Islamic principles. The BAATH PARTY in Iraq and Syria and the Destour party in Tunisia have held power for considerable periods; Algeria also has had a socialist system since its independence. In the Third World, however, socialism has often been simply an ideology of anticolonialism and modernization. Overtly Marxist movements, aided by the USSR, China, or Cuba, nevertheless seized power in such African countries as Angola, Ethiopia, and Mozambique. South Africa's AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (ANC) was also strongly influenced by Marxist ideas.

THE NEW LEFT

In the West in the 1960s a radical socialist movement, known as the New Left, arose principally out of the disaffection of young people with the way of life of advanced industrial society, and not least with its prosperity and conformism. The movement, which was apolitical in nature, sought to expose the growing "alienation" of the individual in advanced industrial conditions, castigating the values of the "consumer society" and attacking many prevailing social institutions. The beliefs of this movement, particularly strong in France, West Germany, and the United States, sprang from many diverse sources. Most important among these were the ideas found in Marx's early writings; the idea of "alienation," as interpreted by such contemporary socialist philosophers as Gyorgy LUKACS and Herbert MARCUSE; EXISTENTIALISM; romantic and utopian ideas adapted from earlier socialist writers (for example, Fourier); sexual radicalism derived from the teaching of Sigmund Freud; and some aspects of Eastern religious traditions, such as ZEN BUDDHISM. Despite its initial appeal and successes, however, the New Left did not prove to be a significant or lasting influence on socialism in its worldwide context or even within advanced industrial societies where conventional varieties still dominated.

It could well be argued that socialism as an alternative system of society and government failed to live up to its promises; by and large it is today no more than a dream or at best a set of ideal criteria whereby to judge the shortcomings of existing institutions. Socialist ideology, however, remains a popular and widely held political belief, and it has deeply penetrated other ideologies, as can be seen, for example, in the acceptance by many conservatives of the WELFARE STATE and limited planning. The worldwide spread of socialist ideas has also been accompanied by a process of dilution of original principles, as in Western social democracy, and by the degeneration and falsification of its values, as in Marxist states.

R. N. Berki

Bibliography: Berki, R. N., Socialism (1975); Brzezinski, Zbigniew, The Grand Failure (1990); Cole, G. D. H., A History of Socialist Thought, 5 vols. (1953-60); Crossman, R. H. S., The Politics of Socialism (1965); Harrington, Michael, Socialism: Past and Future (1989); Howe, Irving, ed., Essential Works of Socialism (1970); Lerner, Warren, History of Socialism and Communism in Modern Times, 2d ed. (1993); Lichtheim, George, A Short History of Socialism (1970); Lindeman, Albert S., A History of European Socialism (1983); Naarden, Bruno, Socialist Europe and Revolutionary Russia (1992); Sternberg, Fritz, Capitalism and Socialism on Trial, trans. by Edward Fitzgerald (1968); Uttig, Peter, Economic Reform and Third World Socialism (1992); Vetterli, Richard, and Fort, William E., The Socialist Base of Modern Totalitarianism (1968); Wilde, Lawrence, Modern European Socialism (1994).

(da: Grolier Electronic Publishing)

Etichette:

Approfondimento: Liberalism

Liberalism, a political philosophy that emphasizes individual freedom, arose in Europe in the period between the Reformation and the French Revolution. During the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries the medieval feudal order gradually gave way as Protestantism, the nation-state, commerce, science, cities, and a middle class of traders and industrialists developed. The new liberal order--drawing on Enlightenment thought--began to place human beings rather than God at the center of things. Humans, with their rational minds, could comprehend all things and could improve themselves and society through systematic and rational action.

Liberal thinking was hostile to the prerogatives of kings, aristocrats, and the church; it favored freedom--a natural right--from traditional restraints. These notions did much to precipitate the American and French revolutions and were important factors in various uprisings in the 19th century. Liberalism sought to expand civil liberties and to limit political authority in favor of constitutional representative government and promoted the rights to property and religious toleration. In the economic sphere, classical liberalism was opposed to direction by the state, arguing with Adam SMITH and David RICARDO that the forces of the marketplace were the best guide for the economy (see LAISSEZ-FAIRE).

One of the first thinkers to formulate a comprehensive liberal philosophy was the Englishman John LOCKE. As a political philosopher, Locke was widely influential. Thomas Jefferson drew upon his ideas in framing the Declaration of Independence, and the French Enlightenment philosophers VOLTAIRE and MONTESQUIEU were indebted to him. Leading liberal voices in the 19th century included Jeremy BENTHAM, John Stuart MILL, Alexis de TOCQUEVILLE, and Thomas Hill Green.

In its full flower in the 19th century, liberalism stood for limited government with a separation of powers among different branches such as the legislative, executive, and judicial and for economic free enterprise. Because of the reaction against the excesses of the French Revolution, however, liberalism shed some of its reliance on rationalism and began to base itself on utilitarianism. A link was thus forged between early revolutionary individualism and a new idealistic concern for the interests of society. In England the Liberal party, which espoused liberal doctrines, came into being (1846) under the leadership of Lord John Russell (later Earl Russell) and William E. GLADSTONE. In France, liberalism developed in opposition to the policies of the restored Bourbon kings and became a major force in the Third Republic; leading French liberals were Leon GAMBETTA and Georges CLEMENCEAU. In the United States the most characteristic representative of liberalism was Woodrow WILSON.

By the 20th century, political and economic thinking among liberals had begun to shift in response to an expanding and complex economy. Liberals began to support the idea that the government can best promote individual dignity and freedom through intervention in the economy and by establishing a state concerned about the welfare of its people. With the rise of the WELFARE STATE, the new liberals also looked to government to correct some of the ills believed to be caused by unregulated capitalism. They favored TAXATION, MINIMUM WAGE legislation, SOCIAL SECURITY, ANTITRUST LAWS, public education, safety and health laws, and other measures to protect consumers and preserve the environment (see GOVERNMENT REGULATION). Some liberals became socialists, although opposing doctrinaire Marxism and communism. The more traditional free-market liberals found themselves classed as conservatives.

Lennart Frantzell

Bibliography: De Ruggiero, Guido, The History of European Liberalism, trans. by R. C. Collingwood (1927; repr. 1977); Eccleshall, Robert, British Liberalism (1986); Gerber, William, American Liberalism, rev. ed. (1987); Gray, John, Liberalism (1986); Hamby, Alonzo, Liberalism and Its Challengers (1985); Macedo, Stephen, Liberal Virtues (1990; repr. 1991).


(da: Grolier Electronic Publishing)

Etichette:

Approfondimento: Il sistema politico

1. La scienza della politica e il paradigma del S. politico - 2. Definizioni - 3. L'analisi sistemica della politica - 4. Critiche e sviluppi.

1.Per l'approccio sistemico allo studio della politica e' stato scritto ormai ben piu' di un epitaffio, ora dolente, ora compiaciuto. Quell'insieme eterogeneo di teorie, caratterizzate dalla centralita' del concetto di S. politico, che politologi per lo piu' americani elaborarono nel corso degli anni Cinquanta e Sessanta sull'onda lunga' della rivoluzione comportamentista, non sembra trovare alcun riscontro nei contributi maggiori della scienza della politica dell'ultimo decennio. Eppure, i lavori di Almond, Deutsch e Easton, o di Mitchell, e di Caplan e Rosenau per quanto concerne gli studi di politica internazionale, rappresentarono, complessivamente considerati, uno dei piu' importanti tentativi di fornire alla scienza della politica un linguaggio comune e originale, che fosse in grado di fondarne la distintivita' rispetto alle discipline a essa contigue. Tale linguaggio fu in gran parte mutuato dalla teoria generale dei sistemi, ma non mancano nozioni e concetti derivati da teorie che negli anni Sessanta si stavano affermando in vari altri campi, come la cibernetica, che in ambito politologico fu coniugata con la teoria dei sistemi da Deutsch, o il funzionalismo, sviluppato nei lavori di Almond. Nella seconda meta' degli anni Sessanta, dopo la pubblicazione dei lavori di Easton, la scienza della politica fini' per essere identificata con la teoria sistemica della politica, che rappresento' inoltre il principale veicolo di diffusione del comportamentismo negli studi politici e segno' il momento di massima affermazione della scienza politica statunitense. Al declino della teoria sistemica corrisposero, parallelamente, la definitiva eclisse del behaviorism e un recupero di identita' della scienza politica europea. Ma la decade of disillusionment che ha dato origine negli Stati Uniti allo svuotamento analitico dell'armamentario teorico comportamentista, ha anche segnato l'inizio di quella "tragedia della scienza politica" dovuta all'assenza di paradigmi in grado di vantare un almeno equivalente potenziale euristico.
Intorno alla meta' degli anni Sessanta il S. politico si presenta dunque come il paradigma dominante nella disciplina. L'adozione di tale paradigma risponde da un lato all'esigenza di formulare una teoria generale della politica, dall'altro, e preliminarmente, all'individuazione dell'unita' di analisi in grado di costituire il nucleo della teoria stessa. In questa prospettiva, la nozione di S. politico viene assunta quale nozione centrale della scienza della politica per la sua capacita' di conferire autonomia analitica alla politica, e quindi alla scienza politica; per il suo presupporre sia una distinzione tra l'oggetto di studio e il suo ambiente esterno, che consente di studiare le interazioni tra il S. politico e i sistemi sociali con esso confinanti, sia l'esistenza di un'articolazione interna al sistema, che consente lo studio delle relazioni tra i sottosistemi dello stesso S. politico; infine, perche' ritenuta in grado di guidare la ricerca empirica. Il S. politico assurge dunque a unita' di analisi fondante la disciplina, a elemento in grado di fissare l'identita' della scienza politica: in quanto elemento centrale della definizione di politica lo diviene, indirettamente, anche della scienza della politica stessa.
2. Il S. politico viene definito genericamente, attingendo al quadro teorico della General Systems Theory; e in modo particolare alla definizione di sistema elaborata da Rapoport, come insieme di "parti" collegate reciprocamente da "interrelazioni". Al di la' della convergenza di fondo su tale definizione, gli autori si differenziano pero' molto nella concreta delimitazione dei "confini" del sistema, e dunque nella sua definizione operativa. Per Easton, influenzato dal Lasswell degli studi sul potere, il S. politico e' costituito da un insieme di interazioni, astratte dalla totalita' del comportamento sociale, attraverso il quale i valori vengono allocati autoritativamente a favore di una societa'. Per Almond e Powell si tratta invece, molto weberianamente, dell'insieme di tutte le interazioni che riguardano l'uso o la minaccia dell'uso della forza legittima. Per Dahl e' S. politico ogni insieme rilevante di relazioni umane che implicano, in misura non irrilevante, potere, comando o autorita'; Urbani lo definisce l'insieme analiticamente rilevante dei processi osservabili come interdipendenti, mediante i quali una qualsiasi comunita' sociale prende decisioni politiche. Tale eterogeneita' e' giustificabile all'interno di un quadro teorico come quello sistemico, che fornisce nozioni e ipotesi generali e astratte, di cui si pretende l'applicabilita' a qualsiasi tipo di interrelazione. La definizione di cio' che costituisce un sistema di interrelazioni e' dunque del tutto arbitraria e puramente nominale. Costruire un sistema consiste, tautologicamente, nel definirne i confini. La scelta di tali confini, e dunque degli elementi che fanno parte del sistema, e' soggetta soltanto a considerazioni di utilita' operazionale.
Costruzione arbitraria per eccellenza, un sistema non ha significato, se non in rapporto alla totalita' dalla quale lo si e' estrapolato. Una volta fissati i confini del S. politico, l'analisi sistemica si concentra sulle transazioni tra il Sistema e il suo ambiente. In cio' risiede, secondo Easton, la portata innovatrice dell'approccio, rispetto alla tradizionale analisi istituzionalista, che si era fino ad allora concentrata sullo studio delle strutture e dei meccanismi decisionali interni al S. politico.
In A Systems Analysis of political life, pubblicato nel 1965, Easton propone, rifacendosi alla cibernetica wieneriana, di considerare il S. politico come una black box, una scatola nera della quale e' possibile analizzare unicamente le interazioni con l'esterno, ed e' su tali interazioni che deve concentrarsi l'analisi sistemica della politica. e' invece l'aderenza al paradigma comportamentista che consente di spiegare l'emergere, quale tema centrale di tale analisi, la persistenza e l'adattamento del sistema, in seguito a stimoli provenienti dall'ambiente esterno. Qual e' la natura degli stimoli ambientali, e quali sono i processi attraverso cui tali stimoli vengono comunicati al sistema? Da dove deriva la capacita' del sistema di mantenersi in equilibrio, nonostante le pressioni ambientali? Come dar conto della persistenza dei S. politici in un mondo caratterizzato dal mutamento? Queste le domande principali per le quali i teorici del S. politico si preoccupano di formulare risposte soddisfacenti.
3. Chi si e' occupato di analisi sistemica della politica si e' quasi sempre concentrato sui lavori di Easton, in quanto unico, tra i diversi autori che assumono il S. politico quale paradigma teorico comune, disposto a sviluppare una teoria generale della politica basandosi esclusivamente su nozioni elaborate in un quadro sistemico coerente. Della sua proposta teorica ripercorreremo qui in sintesi i tratti principali. L'autore descrive le relazioni tra il S. politico e il suo ambiente come un circuito cibernetico chiuso: tutte le transazioni possibili tra sistema e ambiente sono incluse nel circuito, che si trova in uno stato di moto incessante. Di tale movimento non e' dato peraltro cogliere il momento iniziale: un'esigenza una decisione o una retroazione sono sempre infatti il frutto di movimenti o stimoli anteriori. La concezione del circuito cibernetico e' stata acclamata da alcuni autori, causa il suo rompere con l'analisi statica tradizionale, come una conquista teorica di dirompente portata innovatrice.
L'ambiente del S. politico comprende due categorie: l'ambiente infra-societario, composto dall'insieme dei sistemi sociali inclusi nella societa' della quale il S. politico e' un aspetto, e l'ambiente extra-societario, che comprende i sistemi sociali e politici esterni a tale societa'. Dall'ambiente, cosi' delineato, confluiscono al S. politico apporti di diversa natura (inputs), differenziabili secondo le categorie della domanda e del sostegno. Le domande (demands), basate su bisogni (aspettative, ideologie, interessi, motivazioni, opinione pubblica), premono sul sistema, dal quale pretendono che una qualche allocazione autoritativa di valori sia posta in essere. L'accumulazione di domande, spesso contraddittorie, che insistono sui confini sistemici in attesa di soddisfazione, puo' causare un sovraccarico (stress) tale al S. politico, da limitarne o, in una situazione limite, impedirne l'attivita' di allocazione dei valori alla societa'. Tuttavia, ciascun S. politico sviluppa una (maggiore o minore) "capacita'",da un lato di sopportare, dall'altro di contrastare lo stress da sovraccarico di domande: se infatti attraverso vari meccanismi di filtraggio/riduzione/regolazione (operati dai gatekeepers -"guardiani" di kafkiana memoria - e dalle norme culturali) o di soddisfazione delle esigenze (ma le risorse del sistema non sono illimitate) il sistema riesce parzialmente a ridurre, contrastandola, la tensione sui propri confini, attraverso lo sviluppo del sostegno crea invece le condizioni per sopportare quella parte di sovraccarico non altrimenti regolabile.
Il sostegno (support) costituisce la seconda categoria di immissione (input) nel S. politico. Al contrario della domanda, che lo indebolisce, il sostegno rafforza il sistema, ed e' indispensabile per la trasformazione delle domande in emissioni (outputs). Oggetto del sostegno sono tre componenti del S. politico: la comunita' politica, il regime e le autorita'. Ma la principale distinzione del sostegno e' quella tra "sostegno diffuso", derivante sia dal senso di identificazione nella comunita' politica, sia dalla convinzione della legittimita' del regime, e "sostegno specifico", indirizzato alle decisioni, alle azioni e alle manifestazioni delle concrete autorita' politiche.
Le emissioni del sistema consistono in azioni e decisioni delle autorita' in risposta agli inputs provenienti dall'ambiente. Esse retroagiscono sull'ambiente, con effetti che originano nuovi stimoli, sotto forma di nuove domande e nuovo sostegno, che a loro volta origineranno azioni e decisioni da parte del S. politico. Si chiude cosi' il circuito cibernetico di feet-back che, in quanto processo che mette in grado il sistema di controllare e regolare i disturbi portati al sistema stesso, se si dimostra in grado di spiegarne la persistenza, rivela pero' anche la propria inadeguatezza teorica a rendere conto del mutamento del S. politico.
4. L'obiettivo dell'analisi sistemica di spiegare "la persistenza attraverso il mutamento" non sembra dunque essere stato centrato. La stessa categoria di persistenza, uno dei fondamenti dell'epistemologia sistemica, e' stata attaccata a piu' riprese dai suoi critici. L'attribuizione alle scienze sociali del compito di dare conto della persistenza dei sistemi, subordinando a tale compito l'interpretazione della realta' sociale, e' stata ricondotta alla tradizione organicista della sociologia ottocentesca, e quindi sottoposta alle stesse critiche, sotto i cui colpi quella tradizione si era rivelata in tutta la sua portata mistificatrice.
Un altro limite dell'analisi sistemica e' stato individuato nell'eccesso di astrazione concettuale, e nel conseguente difetto di applicabilita' e di traducibilita' empirica. Sebbene l'effetto prodotto dal ricorso alla nozione di S. politico abbia contribuito in misura consistente a modificare gran parte dei fondamenti interpretativi degli ordinamenti politici, sostituendo al tradizionale bagaglio giuridico-istituzionale una concettualizzazione largamente autonoma, e incoraggiando tensione dell'ambito e della tipologia dei fenomeni presi in esame dalla ricerca empirica, fino a includervi aspetti sociali, culturali ed economici precedentemente trascurati, secondo alcuni critici avrebbe fallito l'obiettivo di arricchire gli strumenti osservativi della realta' politica. L'eterogeneita' dei lavori prodotti in tale orizzonte teorico ha inoltre reso difficile la cumulabilita' complessiva dei contributi.
In definitiva, se e' vero che negli anni Settanta la nozione di S. politico e' l'approccio sistemico, con le sue conseguenze in termini di linguaggio e priorita' di ricerca, si sono diffusi nelle scienze sociali (si vedano in Italia i lavori di Sartori e Farneti), e' anche vero che nessun autore ha seguito Easton nello sviluppo di uno schema concettuale sistemico "ortodosso". Le numerose teorie a medio raggio sviluppate a partire dalla categoria di S. politico, come le teorie sulla crisi (Pasquino), o sul rendimento dei sistemi politici occidentali Eckstein, pur utilizzando una terminologia sistemica, prescindono largamente dalle ipotesi postulate da quell'approccio.
Nel decennio successivo, la continuita' di una percezione sistemica si coniuga dunque all'esaurirsi delle sue premesse epistemologiche. Piu' successo sembrano aver sortito invece i tentativi di combinare nozioni sistemiche con nozioni di derivazione funzionalista, come nella produzione di Almond e di Luhmann o, nel caso di Offe, con la teoria marxista.
Secondo Urbani "lo sviluppo di teorie fondate sul paradigma del S. politico e stato molto spesso frenato, oltre che da un insufficiente approfondimento/sfruttamento del sostantivo (il sistema), [...] anche da una insufficiente definizione dell'aggettivo (politico)". Ma se la definizione corretta dei confini del sistema, cosi' come dell'influenza degli outputs sull'ambiente circostante, e' decisiva al fine di ostruire una teoria sistemica della politica, allora, a fronte degli esiti emersi dal recente dibattito sulla complessita' dei S. sociali delle societa' industriali avanzate, il paradigma del sistema politico non puo' che rivelarsi inservibile per cogliere gli aspetti caratterizzanti del mondo contemporaneo.

(da: Politica, vocabolario a cura di Lorenzo Ornaghi, Milano, ed. Jaca Book, 1996)

Etichette: