DEMOCRACY
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state,
typically through elected representatives. Bir devletin tüm nüfusu veya tüm uygun üyeleri
tarafından, tipik olarak seçilmiş temsilciler aracılığıyla bir hükümet sistemi.
LEGITIMACY
In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing
law or a regime. Siyaset biliminde meşruiyet, genellikle yöneten bir yasa veya bir rejim olmak
üzere bir otoritenin hakkı ve kabulüdür..
TRADITION
A tradition is a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic
meaning or special significance with origins in the past. Gelenek, kökenleri geçmişte olan,
sembolik anlamı veya özel önemi olan bir grup veya toplum içinde aktarılan bir inanç veya
davranıştır.
Fiscal crisis of the welfare state:The crisis in state finances
that occurs when expanding social expenditure coincides with recession and declining tax
revenues. Devlet maliyesinde sosyal harcamaların artmasıyla ortaya çıkan kriz, durgunluk ve
azalan vergi gelirleri ile örtüşmektedir.
Revolution: A popular uprising, involving extra-legal mass action, which brings
about fundamental change (a change in the political system itself) as opposed to merely a
change of policy or governing elite. Yalnızca bir politika veya yönetici elit değişikliğine karşıt
olarak, temel bir değişiklik (politik sistemin kendisinde bir değişiklik) getiren, hukuk dışı kitle
eylemini içeren bir halk ayaklanması.
Reform: Change brought about within a system, usually by peaceful and incremental
measures; reform implies improvement. Bir sistem içinde, genellikle barışçıl ve artan
önlemlerle meydana getirilen değişiklik; reform, iyileştirme anlamına gelir.
Consent: Assent or permission; in politics, usually an agreement to be governed or
ruled. Onay: Onay veya izin; siyasette, genellikle yönetilecek veya yönetilecek bir anlaşma.
UNDERSTANDING DEMOCRACY
a system of rule by the poor and disadvantaged yoksullar ve dezavantajlılar tarafından
yönetilen bir sistem
a form of government in which the people rule themselves directly and continuously, without
the need for professional politicians or public officials halkın profesyonel politikacılara veya
kamu görevlilerine ihtiyaç duymadan doğrudan ve sürekli olarak kendilerini yönettiği bir
hükümet biçimi
a society based on equal opportunity and individual merit, rather than hierarchy and
privilege hiyerarşi ve ayrıcalık yerine fırsat eşitliğine ve bireysel liyakate dayalı bir toplum
a system of welfare and redistribution aimed at narrowing social inequalities sosyal
eşitsizlikleri daraltmayı amaçlayan bir refah ve yeniden dağıtım sistemi
a system of decision-making based on the principle of majority rule çoğunluk kuralı ilkesine
dayalı bir karar alma sistemi
a system of rule that secures the rights and interests of minorities by placing checks upon the
power of the majority çoğunluğun gücünü kontrol ederek azınlıkların hak ve çıkarlarını
güvence altına alan bir kural sistemi
a means of filling public offices through a competitive struggle for the popular vote halk oyu
için rekabetçi bir mücadele yoluyla kamu ofislerini doldurmanın bir yolu
a system of government that serves the interests of the people regardless of their
participation in political life. Siyasal hayata katılımlarına bakılmaksızın halkın çıkarlarına
hizmet eden bir hükümet sistemi.
Political equality Political equality means, broadly, an equal distribution of
political power and influence. Siyasi eşitlik, genel olarak, siyasi güç ve etkinin eşit dağılımı
anlamına gelir.
Majority rule: The rule that the will of the majority, or numerically strongest,
overrides the will of the minority, implying that the latter should accept the views of the
former. Çoğunluğun veya sayısal olarak en güçlünün iradesinin, azınlığın iradesine üstün
geldiği ve ikincisinin birincinin görüşlerini kabul etmesi gerektiğini ima eden kural.
Cosmopolitan democracy: A form of democracy that operates at
supranational levels of governance and is based on the idea of transnational or global
citizenship. Uluslar üstü yönetişim düzeylerinde işleyen ve ulusötesi veya küresel vatandaşlık
fikrine dayanan bir demokrasi biçimi.
Totalitarian democracy: An absolute dictatorship that masquerades
as a democracy, typically based on the leader’s claim to a monopoly of ideological wisdom.
Tipik olarak liderin ideolojik bilgelik tekeli iddiasına dayanan, demokrasi gibi görünen mutlak
bir diktatörlük.
Direct democracy or representative democracy?
Direct democracy (sometimes ‘classical’, ‘participatory’, or ‘radical’ democracy) is based on
the direct, unmedi- ated and continuous participation of citizens in the tasks of government.
Direct democracy thus obliterates the distinction between government and the governed,
and between the state and civil society; it is a system of popular self-government. It was
achieved in ancient Athens through a form of government by mass meeting; its most
common modern manifestation is the use of the referendum (see p. 201). The merits of direct
democracy include the following: Doğrudan demokrasi (bazen “klasik”, “katılımcı” veya
“radikal” demokrasi) vatandaşların hükümet görevlerine doğrudan, dolayımsız ve sürekli
katılımına dayanır. Böylece doğrudan demokrasi, yöneten ile yönetilen arasındaki ve devlet
ile sivil toplum arasındaki ayrımı ortadan kaldırır; popüler bir özyönetim sistemidir. Bu, antik
Atina'da kitlesel toplantılar yoluyla bir hükümet biçimi aracılığıyla elde edildi; en yaygın
modern tezahürü, referandumun kullanılmasıdır (bkz. s. 201). Doğrudan demokrasinin
esasları şunları içerir:
•
•
•
•
It heightens the control that citizens can exercise over their own destinies, as it is the
only pure form of democracy. Demokrasinin tek saf biçimi olduğu için vatandaşların
kendi kaderleri üzerinde uygulayabilecekleri kontrolü artırır.
It creates a better-informed and more politically sophisticated citizenry, and thus it
has educational benefits. Daha bilgili ve politik olarak daha sofistike bir vatandaşlık
yaratır ve bu nedenle eğitimsel faydaları vardır.
It enables the public to express their own views and interests without having to rely
on self-serving politicians. Kendi kendine hizmet eden politikacılara güvenmek
zorunda kalmadan halkın kendi görüş ve çıkarlarını ifade etmesini sağlar.
It ensures that rule is legitimate, in the sense that people are more likely to accept
decisions that they have made themselves. İnsanların kendi verdikleri kararları kabul
etme olasılıklarının daha yüksek olması anlamında, kuralın meşru olmasını sağlar.
Representative democracy is a limited and indirect form of democracy. It is limited in that
popular partici- pation in government is infrequent and brief, being restricted to the act of
voting every few years. It is indi- rect in that the public do not exercise power them- selves;
they merely select those who will rule on their behalf. This form of rule is democratic only
insofar as representation (see p. 197) establishes a reliable and effective link between the
government and the governed. This is sometimes expressed in the notion of an electoral
mandate (see p. 200). The strengths of representative democracy include the following:
Temsili demokrasi, sınırlı ve dolaylı bir demokrasi biçimidir. Hükümete halkın katılımının
seyrek ve kısa olması, birkaç yılda bir oy verme eylemiyle sınırlı olmasıyla sınırlıdır. Halkın
iktidarı bizzat kullanmaması dolaylıdır; onlar sadece kendi adlarına hükmedecek olanları
seçerler. Bu yönetim biçimi, ancak temsil (bkz. s. 197) yöneten ve yönetilen arasında güvenilir
ve etkili bir bağ kurduğu ölçüde demokratiktir. Bu bazen bir seçim yetkisi kavramıyla ifade
edilir (bkz. s. 200). Temsili demokrasinin güçlü yönleri şunları içerir:
•
•
•
•
It offers a practicable form of democracy (direct popular participation is achievable
only in small communities). Uygulanabilir bir demokrasi biçimi sunar (doğrudan halk
katılımına yalnızca küçük topluluklarda ulaşılabilir).
It relieves ordinary citizens of the burden of decision-making, thus making possible a
division of labour in politics. Sıradan vatandaşları karar verme yükünden kurtararak
siyasette bir işbölümünü mümkün kılar.
It allows government to be placed in the hands of those with better education, expert
knowledge and greater experience. Devletin daha iyi eğitim, uzmanlık bilgisi ve daha
fazla deneyime sahip kişilerin eline geçmesine olanak tanır.
It maintains stability by distancing ordinary citizens from politics, thereby
encouraging them to accept compromise. Sıradan vatandaşları siyasetten
uzaklaştırarak ve böylece onları uzlaşmayı kabul etmeye teşvik ederek istikrarı sağlar.
Radical democracy: A form of democracy that favours decentralization
and participation, the widest possible dispersal of political power. Siyasi gücün mümkün olan
en geniş dağılımı olan ademi merkeziyetçiliği ve katılımı destekleyen bir demokrasi biçimi.
Economic democracy: A broad term that covers attempts to apply
democratic principles to the workplace, ranging from profit-sharing and the use of workers’
councils to full workers’ self-management. Kar paylaşımı ve işçi konseylerinin kullanımından
tam işçi öz yönetimine kadar demokratik ilkeleri işyerine uygulama girişimlerini kapsayan
geniş bir terim.
Plebiscitary democracy Plebiscitary democracy is a form of democratic
rule that operates through an unmediated link between the rulers and the ruled, established
by plebiscites (or referendums). Plebisiter demokrasi, yönetenler ve yönetilenler arasında
plebisitler (veya referandumlar) tarafından kurulan aracısız bir bağlantı aracılığıyla işleyen bir
demokratik yönetim biçimidir.
Models of democracy
•
•
•
•
classical democracy
protective democracy
developmental democracy
people’s democracy.
Athenian democracy Athenian democracy is characterized by the high
level of citizen involvement in the affairs of the city-state
Natural rights: God-given rights that are fundamental to human beings and are
therefore inalienable (they cannot be taken away).
General will: The genuine interests of a collective body, equivalent to the
common good; the will of all, provided each person acts selflessly.
Parliamentary democracy Parliamentary democracy is a form of
democratic rule that operates through a popularly elected deliberative assembly, which
mediates between government and the people. Parlamenter demokrasi, hükümet ve halk
arasında arabuluculuk yapan, halk tarafından seçilmiş bir müzakere meclisi aracılığıyla işleyen
bir demokratik yönetim biçimidir.
Deliberative democracy: A form of democracy that emphasizes the
need for discourse and debate to help to define the public interest.
Leninist democracy: A form of democracy in which the communist party,
organized on the basis of ‘democratic centralism’, articulates the interest of the proletariat.
"Demokratik merkeziyetçilik" temelinde örgütlenen komünist partinin proletaryanın
çıkarlarını dile getirdiği bir demokrasi biçimi.
Democracy in practice: rival views
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Liberal democracy is an indirect and representative form of democracy, in that political office
is gained through success in regular elections that are conducted on the basis of formal
political equality. Liberal demokrasi, demokrasinin dolaylı ve temsili bir biçimidir; siyasi
makam, resmi siyasi eşitlik temelinde yapılan düzenli seçimlerdeki başarı yoluyla kazanılır.
It is based on competition and electoral choice. These are achieved through political pluralism,
tolerance of a wide range of contending beliefs, and the existence of conflicting social
philosophies and rival political movements and parties. Rekabete ve seçime dayalıdır. Bunlar,
siyasi çoğulculuk, çok çeşitli çatışan inançlara hoşgörü ve çatışan sosyal felsefelerin ve rakip
siyasi hareketlerin ve partilerin varlığıyla elde edilir.
It is characterized by a clear distinction between the state and civil society. This is maintained
through the existence of autonomous groups and interests, and the market or capitalist
organization of economic life. Devlet ve sivil toplum arasında net bir ayrım ile karakterize
edilir. Bu, özerk grupların ve çıkarların varlığı ve ekonomik yaşamın piyasa veya kapitalist
örgütlenmesi aracılığıyla sağlanır.
It provides protection for minorites and individuals, particularly through the allocation of
basic rights that safeguard them from the will of the majority. Azınlıklara ve bireylere,
özellikle onları çoğunluğun iradesinden koruyan temel hakların tahsisi yoluyla koruma sağlar.
elitism
corporatism
The New Right
Marxism.
Pluralism
Madisonian democracy: A form of democracy that incorporates
constitutional protections for minorities that enable them to resist majority rule. azınlıklar
için anayasal korumalar içeren bir demokrasi biçimidir çoğunluk yönetimine direnmelerini
sağlar.
Neocorporatism: A tendency found in western polyarchies for organized
interests to be granted privileged and institutionalized access to policy formulation. Batılı
poliarşilerde, organize çıkarların politika formülasyonuna ayrıcalıklı ve kurumsallaştırılmış
erişim verilmesi yönünde bulunan bir eğilim.
Peak association: A group recognized by government as representing the
general or collective interests of businesses or workers. Hükümet tarafından işletmelerin
veya işçilerin genel veya toplu çıkarlarını temsil ettiği tanınan bir grup.
Ruling class: A Marxist term, denoting a class that dominates other classes and
society at large by virtue of its ownership of productive wealth. Üretken servete sahip olması
nedeniyle genel olarak diğer sınıflara ve topluma hükmeden bir sınıfı ifade eden Marksist bir
terim.
Eurocommunism: A form of deradicalized communism that attempted to
blend Marxism with liberal-democratic principles. Marksizmi liberal-demokratik ilkelerle
harmanlamaya çalışan radikallikten arındırılmış bir komünizm biçimi.
GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY: Global civil society" refers to the vast
assemblage of groups operating across borders and beyond the reach of governments.
Whether such organizations constitute a new, increasingly autonomous realm or are merely
artifacts of Western liberal society is widely debated. Küresel sivil toplum", sınırların ötesinde
ve hükümetlerin erişiminin ötesinde faaliyet gösteren geniş gruplar topluluğu anlamına gelir.
Bu tür örgütlerin yeni, giderek özerk bir alan mı oluşturup oluşturmadığı yoksa yalnızca Batı
liberal toplumunun eserleri mi olduğu geniş çapta tartışılmaktadır.
NATIONALISM
Cultural nationalism Cultural nationalism is a form of nationalism that
places primary emphasis on the regeneration of the nation as a distinctive civilization, rather
than as a discrete political community. Kültürel milliyetçilik, ulusun ayrı bir siyasi topluluktan
ziyade farklı bir uygarlık olarak yenilenmesine birincil vurgu yapan bir milliyetçilik biçimidir.
VARIETIES OF NATIONALISM
•
•
•
•
liberal nationalism
conservative nationalism
expansionist nationalism
anticolonial nationalism.
Internationalism Internationalism is the theory or practice of politics based
on transnational or global cooperation. It is rooted in universalist assumptions about human
nature that put it at odds with political nationalism. Enternasyonalizm, ulusötesi veya küresel
işbirliğine dayalı siyaset teorisi veya pratiğidir. İnsan doğasıyla ilgili, onu siyasi milliyetçilikle
çelişen evrenselci varsayımlarda kök salmıştır.
Pan-nationalism: A style of nationalism dedicated to unifying a disparate
people through either expansionism or political solidarity (‘pan’ means all or every).
yayılmacılık ya da siyasi dayanışma yoluyla farklı insanları birleştirmeye adanmış bir
milliyetçilik tarzı ("pan", hepsi ya da her biri anlamına gelir).
Nation-stateThe nation-state is a form of political organization and a political
ideal. Ulus-devlet, bir siyasi örgütlenme biçimi ve siyasi bir idealdir.
STATE
The state The state is a political association that establishes sovereign jurisdiction
within defined territorial borders, and exercises authority through a set of permanent
institutions. Devlet, tanımlanmış toprak sınırları içinde egemen yargı yetkisi kuran ve bir dizi
kalıcı kurum aracılığıyla yetki kullanan siyasi bir birliktir.
Civil society: A private sphere of autonomous groups and associations,
independent from state or public authority Devletten veya kamu otoritesinden bağımsız,
özerk grup ve derneklerden oluşan özel bir alan
•
•
•
•
•
The state is sovereign. Devlet egemendir
State institutions are recognizably ‘public’, in contrast to the ‘private’ institutions of
civil society. Devlet kurumları, sivil toplumun 'özel' kurumlarının aksine, kabul
edilebilir bir şekilde 'kamusal'dır.
The state is an exercise in legitimation. Devlet bir meşrulaştırma egzersizidir.
The state is an instrument of domination. Devlet bir tahakküm aracıdır.
The state is a territorial association. Devlet, bölgesel bir dernektir.
The classic definition of the state in international law is found in the Montevideo
Convention on the Rights and Duties of the State (1933). According to Article 1 of the
Montevideo Convention, the state has four features: Uluslararası hukukta devletin
klasik tanımı, Devletin Hak ve Görevlerine İlişkin Montevideo Sözleşmesi'nde (1933)
bulunur. Montevideo Sözleşmesinin 1. maddesine göre devletin dört özelliği vardır:
o
o
o
o
a defined territory tanımlanmış bir bölge
a permanent population kalıcı bir nüfus
an effective government etkili bir hükümet
the capacity to enter into relations with other states. diğer devletlerle ilişkilere
girme kapasitesi.
Rival theories of the state
•
•
•
•
the pluralist state
the capitalist state
the leviathan state
the patriarchal state.
State of nature: A society devoid of political authority and of formal (legal)
checks on the individual; usually employed as a theoretical device. Siyasi otoriteden ve birey
üzerindeki resmi (yasal) kontrollerden yoksun bir toplum; genellikle teorik bir cihaz olarak
kullanılır.
Social-contract theory
A social contract is a voluntary agreement made amongst individuals through which an
organized society, or state, is brought into existence. Used as a theoretical device by thinkers
such as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau (see p. 97), the social contract has been revived by
modern theorists such as John Rawls (see p. 45). The social contract is seldom regarded as a
histori- cal act. Rather, it is used as a means of demonstrating the value of government and
the grounds of political obligation; social-contract theorists wish individuals to act as if they
had concluded the contract themselves. In its classic form, social-contract theory has three
elements: Bir sosyal sözleşme, örgütlü bir toplumun veya devletin ortaya çıktığı bireyler
arasında yapılan gönüllü bir anlaşmadır. Hobbes, Locke ve Rousseau gibi düşünürler
tarafından teorik bir araç olarak kullanılan (bkz. s. 97), toplumsal sözleşme, John Rawls gibi
modern teorisyenler tarafından yeniden canlandırıldı (bkz. s. 45). Toplumsal sözleşme nadiren
tarihsel bir eylem olarak görülür. Daha ziyade, hükümetin değerini ve siyasi yükümlülüğün
temellerini göstermenin bir aracı olarak kullanılır; sosyal sözleşme teorisyenleri, bireylerin
sözleşmeyi kendileri yapmış gibi hareket etmelerini isterler. Klasik biçiminde, sosyal sözleşme
teorisinin üç unsuru vardır:
•
•
•
The image of a hypothetical stateless society (a ‘state of nature’) is established.
Unconstrained freedom means that life is ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’
(Hobbes). Varsayımsal bir devletsiz toplum imajı (“doğa durumu”) kurulur. Sınırsız
özgürlük, hayatın "yalnız, fakir, kötü, vahşi ve kısa" olduğu anlamına gelir (Hobbes).
Individuals therefore seek to escape from the state of nature by entering into a social
contract, recog- nizing that only a sovereign power can secure order and stability. Bu
nedenle bireyler, yalnızca egemen bir gücün düzen ve istikrarı güvence altına
alabileceğini kabul ederek, bir toplumsal sözleşmeye girerek doğa durumundan
kaçmaya çalışırlar.
The social contract obliges citizens to respect and obey the state, ultimately in
gratitude for the stability and security that only a system of political rule can deliver.
Sosyal sözleşme, vatandaşları devlete saygı duymaya ve itaat etmeye zorlar, sonuçta
yalnızca bir siyasi yönetim sisteminin sağlayabileceği istikrar ve güvenliğe
minnettardır.
NeopluralismNeopluralism is a style of social theorizing that remains faithful to
pluralist values while recognizing the need to revise or update classical pluralism in the light
of, for example, elite, Marxist and New Right theories. Neopluralizm, klasik çoğulculuğu
örneğin seçkinler, Marksist ve Yeni Sağ teoriler ışığında gözden geçirme veya güncelleme
ihtiyacını kabul ederken çoğulcu değerlere sadık kalan bir sosyal teorileştirme tarzıdır.
Neo-Marxism Neo-Marxism (sometimes termed ‘modern’ or ‘western’
Marxism) refers to attempts to revise or recast the classical ideas of Marx while remaining
faithful to certain Marxist principles or aspects of Marxist methodology. Neo-Marksizm
(bazen 'modern' veya 'batı' Marksizmi olarak adlandırılır), Marksist metodolojinin belirli
Marksist ilkelerine veya yönlerine sadık kalarak Marx'ın klasik fikirlerini gözden geçirme veya
yeniden biçimlendirme girişimlerine atıfta bulunur.
The role of the state Contrasting interpretations of state power have clear
implications for the desir- able role or responsibilities of the state. What should states do? What
functions or responsibilities should the state fulfil, and which ones should be left in the hands of
private individuals? In many respects, these are the questions around which electoral politics and
party competition revolve. With the exception of anarchists, who dismiss the state as fundamentally
evil and unnecessary, all political thinkers have regarded the state as, in some sense, worthwhile.
Even revolu- tionary socialists, inspired by the Leninist slogan ‘smash the state’, have accepted the
need for a temporary proletarian state to preside over the transition from capitalism to communism,
in the form of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Nevertheless, there is profound disagreement
about the exact role the state should play, and therefore about the proper balance between the state
and civil society. Among the different state forms that have developed are the following: Devlet
gücünün zıt yorumlarının, devletin arzu edilen rolü veya sorumlulukları konusunda açık sonuçları
vardır. Devletler ne yapmalı? Devlet hangi işlevleri veya sorumlulukları yerine getirmeli ve hangileri
özel kişilere bırakılmalıdır? Pek çok açıdan bunlar, seçim siyasetinin ve parti rekabetinin etrafında
döndüğü sorulardır. Devleti temelde kötü ve gereksiz olarak reddeden anarşistler dışında, tüm siyasi
düşünürler devleti bir anlamda değerli görmüşlerdir. Leninist “devleti parçala” sloganından ilham alan
devrimci sosyalistler bile, kapitalizmden komünizme geçişe “proletarya diktatörlüğü” biçiminde
başkanlık edecek geçici bir proleter devletin gereğini kabul ettiler. Bununla birlikte, devletin tam
olarak oynaması gereken rol ve dolayısıyla devlet ile sivil toplum arasındaki uygun denge konusunda
derin bir anlaşmazlık vardır. Geliştirilen farklı devlet biçimleri arasında şunlar yer almaktadır:
•
•
•
•
•
•
minimal states
developmental states
social-democratic states
collectivized states
totalitarian states
religious states
Collectivization: The abolition of private property in favour of a
system of common or public ownership.
Totalitarianism: An all- encompassing system of political rule,
involving pervasive ideological manipulation and open brutality
Failed state A failed state is a state that is unable to perform its key role of
ensuring domestic order by monopolizing the use of force within its territory.
Examples of failed states in recent years include Cambodia, Haiti, Rwanda, Liberia and
Somalia. Failed states are no longer able to operate as viable political units, in that
they lack a credible system of law and order. They are no longer able to operate as
viable economic units, in that they are incapable of providing for their citizens and
have no functioning infrastructure. Başarısız bir devlet, kendi topraklarında güç
kullanımını tekeline alarak iç düzeni sağlamadaki kilit rolünü yerine getiremeyen bir
devlettir. Son yıllarda başarısız olan devletlere örnek olarak Kamboçya, Haiti, Ruanda,
Liberya ve Somali verilebilir. Başarısız devletler, güvenilir bir hukuk ve düzen
sisteminden yoksun olduklarından, artık geçerli siyasi birimler olarak faaliyet
gösteremezler. Vatandaşlarına hizmet sağlayamadıklarından ve işleyen bir altyapıya
sahip olmadıklarından, artık uygulanabilir ekonomik birimler olarak faaliyet
gösteremezler.
•
•
The state is a political association that exercises sovereign jurisdiction within defined
territorial borders. As a system of centralized rule that emerged in Europe between
the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, and succeeded in subordinating all other
institutions and groups, the state came to dominate political life in all its forms. The
spread of the European model of the state to other lands and continents has seen the
state become the universal form of political organization around the world Devlet,
tanımlanmış toprak sınırları içinde egemen yargı yetkisini kullanan siyasi bir birliktir.
On yedinci ve on dokuzuncu yüzyıllar arasında Avrupa'da ortaya çıkan ve diğer tüm
kurum ve grupları tabi kılmayı başaran merkezi bir yönetim sistemi olarak devlet, tüm
biçimleriyle siyasi yaşama egemen oldu. Avrupa devlet modelinin diğer topraklara ve
kıtalara yayılması, devletin dünya çapında evrensel siyasi örgütlenme biçimi haline
geldiğini gördü.
There are a number of rival theories of the state. Pluralists hold that the state is a
neutral body that arbi- trates between the competing interests of society. Marxists
argue that the state maintains the class system by either oppressing subordinate
classes or ameliorating class conflict. The New Right portrays the state as a self-serving
monster that is intent on expansion and aggrandizement. Radical feminists point to
patriarchal biases within the state that support a system of male power. Devletle ilgili
çok sayıda rakip teori vardır. Çoğulcular, devletin, toplumun çatışan çıkarları arasında
hakemlik yapan tarafsız bir organ olduğuna inanırlar. Marksistler, devletin ya bağımlı
•
•
•
sınıfları ezerek ya da sınıf çatışmasını düzelterek sınıf sistemini koruduğunu iddia
ederler. Yeni Sağ, devleti genişlemeye ve büyütmeye niyetli, kendi kendine hizmet
eden bir canavar olarak tasvir ediyor. Radikal feministler, devlet içinde bir erkek
iktidarı sistemini destekleyen ataerkil önyargılara işaret ediyor.
Those who support the state see it either as a means of defending the individual from
the encroachments of fellow citizens, or as a mechanism through which collective
action can be organized. Critics, however, tend to suggest that the state reflects either
the interests of dominant social groups, or interests that are separate from, and
antithetical to, society. Devleti destekleyenler, onu ya bireyi hemcinslerinin
tecavüzlerinden korumanın bir aracı olarak ya da kolektif eylemin örgütlenebileceği
bir mekanizma olarak görüyorlar. Ancak eleştirmenler, devletin ya egemen sosyal
grupların çıkarlarını ya da toplumdan ayrı ve toplumla zıt düşen çıkarları yansıttığını
öne sürme eğilimindedir.
States have fulfilled very different roles. Minimal states merely lay down the
conditions for orderly existence. Developmental states attempt to promote growth
and economic development. Social-democratic states aim to rectify the imbalances
and injustices of a market economy. Collectivized states exert control over the
entirety of economic life. Totalitarian states bring about all-encompassing
politicization and, in effect, extin- guish civil society. Religious states are used as
instruments of moral and spiritual renewal. Devletler çok farklı roller üstlenmiştir.
Minimal devletler sadece düzenli varoluşun koşullarını ortaya koyar. Kalkınmacı
devletler, büyümeyi ve ekonomik kalkınmayı teşvik etmeye çalışır. Sosyal demokrat
devletler, bir piyasa ekonomisinin dengesizliklerini ve adaletsizliklerini düzeltmeyi
amaçlar. Kolektifleştirilmiş devletler, ekonomik hayatın tamamı üzerinde kontrol
uygular. Totaliter devletler her şeyi kapsayan politizasyona yol açar ve aslında sivil
toplumu yok eder. Dini devletler, ahlaki ve ruhsal yenilenmenin araçları olarak
kullanılır.
Modern debate about the state is dominated by talk of retreat, decline and even
collapse. The decline of the state is often explained in terms of the impact of
globalization, the rise of non-state actors and the growing importance of international
organizations. Most dramatically, some postcolonial states have collapsed, or barely
function as states, having a negligible capacity to maintain order. However, the retreat
of the state may have been exaggerated and, in relation to security and economic
development in particular, the state may be reviving in importance. Devlet hakkındaki
modern tartışmalara geri çekilme, gerileme ve hatta çöküş konuşmaları hakimdir.
Devletin gerilemesi genellikle küreselleşmenin etkisi, devlet dışı aktörlerin yükselişi ve
uluslararası örgütlerin artan önemi ile açıklanmaktadır. En çarpıcı biçimde, bazı
postkolonyal devletler çökmüştür ya da düzeni sağlamak için ihmal edilebilir bir
kapasiteye sahip olan devletler olarak zar zor işlev görmektedir. Bununla birlikte,
devletin geri çekilmesi abartılmış olabilir ve özellikle güvenlik ve ekonomik kalkınma
ile ilgili olarak, devletin önemi yeniden canlanıyor olabilir.
Theories of representation
There is no single, agreed theory of representation. Rather, there are a number of competing
theories, each of which is based on particular ideological and political assumptions. For
example, does representative government imply that govern- ment ‘knows better’ than the
people, that government has somehow ‘been instructed’ by the people what to do and how to
behave; or that the government ‘looks like’ the people, in that it broadly reflects their
characteristics or features? Such questions are not of academic interest alone. Particular
models of represen- tation dictate very different behaviour on the part of representatives. For
instance, should elected politicians be bound by policies and positions outlined during an
election and endorsed by the voters, or is it their job to lead public opinion and thereby help to
define the public interest? Moreover, it is not uncommon for more than one principle of
representation to operate within the same political system, suggesting, perhaps, that no single
model is sufficient in itself to secure representative government. Tek, üzerinde anlaşmaya
varılmış bir temsil teorisi yoktur. Aksine, her biri belirli ideolojik ve politik varsayımlara dayanan
bir dizi rakip teori vardır. Örneğin, temsili hükümet, hükümetin halktan 'daha iyi bildiğini',
hükümetin bir şekilde halk tarafından ne yapılması ve nasıl davranılması gerektiği konusunda
'eğitim verildiğini' mi ima eder; ya da hükümet, onların özelliklerini veya özelliklerini geniş
ölçüde yansıttığı için halka "benziyor" mu? Bu tür sorular tek başına akademik ilgi alanı değildir.
Belirli temsil modelleri, temsilciler adına çok farklı davranışlar gerektirir. Örneğin, seçilmiş
politikacılar, bir seçim sırasında ana hatları çizilen ve seçmenler tarafından onaylanan politikalar
ve pozisyonlarla bağlı mı olmalı, yoksa onların görevi kamuoyunu yönlendirmek ve böylece
kamu çıkarını tanımlamaya yardımcı olmak mı? Ayrıca, aynı siyasi sistem içinde birden fazla
temsil ilkesinin işlemesi alışılmadık bir durum değildir; bu, belki de hiçbir tek modelin temsili
hükümeti güvence altına almak için tek başına yeterli olmadığını düşündürür.
Dört temel temsil modeli geliştirilmiştir:Four principal models of representation have been
advanced:
•
•
•
•
trusteeship
delegation
the mandate
resemblance.
Referendums: for or against?
Amongst the advantages of referendums are
the following:
•
•
They check the power of elected governments, ensuring that they stay in line with
public opinion. Seçilmiş hükümetlerin gücünü denetleyerek kamuoyuyla aynı çizgide
kalmalarını sağlarlar.
They promote political participation, thus helping to create a more educated and
better-informed electorate. Siyasal katılımı teşvik ederler, böylece daha eğitimli ve
daha bilgili bir seçmen kitlesi oluşturmaya yardımcı olurlar.
The disadvantages of referendums include the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
They leave political decisions in the hands of those who have the least education and
experience, and are most susceptible to media and other influences. Siyasi kararları,
en az eğitim ve deneyime sahip olan ve medyadan ve diğer etkilerden en çok
etkilenenlerin ellerine bırakırlar.
They provide, at best, only a snapshot of public opinion at one point in time. En iyi
ihtimalle, belirli bir zamanda kamuoyunun yalnızca bir anlık görüntüsünü sağlarlar.
They allow politicians to manipulate the political agenda and absolve themselves of
responsibility for making difficult decisions. Politikacıların siyasi gündemi manipüle
etmelerine ve kendilerini zor kararlar alma sorumluluğundan kurtarmalarına izin
verirler.
They tend to simplify and distort political issues, reducing them to questions that have
a yes/no answer. Siyasi meseleleri basitleştirmeye ve çarpıtmaya, onları evet/hayır
cevabı olan sorulara indirgeme eğilimindedirler.
Functions of elections
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recruiting politicians:
Making governments:
Providing representation:
Influencing policy:
Educating voters:
Building legitimacy:
Strengthening elites:
Public interest The public interest consists of the general or collective interests
of a community; that is, that which is good for society as a whole. Kamu yararı, bir topluluğun
genel veya kolektif çıkarlarından oluşur; yani, bir bütün olarak toplum için iyi olan.
•
•
•
Representation is a relationship in which an individual or group stands for, or acts on
behalf of, a larger body of people. This may be achieved through the exercise of
wisdom by an educated elite, through guidance or instructions given to a delegate,
through the winning of a popular mandate, or through representatives being drawn
from the groups they represent. Temsil, bir bireyin veya grubun daha geniş bir insan
topluluğunu temsil ettiği veya onun adına hareket ettiği bir ilişkidir. Bu, eğitimli bir elit
tarafından bilgeliğin uygulanması, bir delegeye verilen rehberlik veya talimatlar, bir
halk mandasının kazanılması veya temsil ettikleri gruplardan seçilen temsilciler yoluyla
başarılabilir.
In modern politics, representation is invariably linked with elections. Elections may
not be a sufficient condi- tion for political representation, but are certainly a necessary
condition. For elections to serve representative purposes, however, they must be
competitive, free and fair, and conducted on the basis of universal adult suffrage.
Modern siyasette temsil, her zaman seçimlerle bağlantılıdır. Seçimler siyasi temsil için
yeterli bir koşul olmayabilir, ancak kesinlikle gerekli bir koşuldur. Ancak seçimlerin
temsili amaçlara hizmet etmesi için rekabetçi, özgür ve adil olması ve evrensel yetişkin
oy hakkı temelinde yapılması gerekir.
Elections have a variety of functions. On the one hand, they have ‘bottom-up’
functions, such as political recruitment, representation, making government and
influencing policy. On the other hand, radical theorists emphasize their ‘top-down’
functions, which include that they build legitimacy, shape public opinion and help to
strengthen elites. Seçimlerin çeşitli işlevleri vardır. Bir yandan, siyasi işe alma, temsil,
hükümet kurma ve politikayı etkileme gibi “aşağıdan yukarıya” işlevleri vardır. Öte
•
•
•
yandan, radikal teorisyenler, meşruiyet inşa etmelerini, kamuoyunu
şekillendirmelerini ve seçkinleri güçlendirmeye yardımcı olmalarını içeren “yukarıdan
aşağıya” işlevlerini vurgular.
Electoral systems are often classified as either majoritarian systems or proportional
systems. In majoritarian systems, large parties typically win a higher proportion of
seats than votes, thereby increasing the chances of single-party government. In
proportional systems, there is an equal (or at least, more equal) relationship between
the percentages of seats and votes won, increasing the likelihood of coalition
government. Seçim sistemleri genellikle ya çoğunlukçu sistemler ya da orantısal
sistemler olarak sınıflandırılır. Çoğunlukçu sistemlerde, büyük partiler tipik olarak
oylardan daha yüksek oranda sandalye kazanır ve böylece tek partili hükümet şansını
artırır. Orantılı sistemlerde, sandalye yüzdeleri ile kazanılan oylar arasında eşit (veya
en azından daha eşit) bir ilişki vardır ve bu da koalisyon hükümeti olasılığını artırır.
Majoritarian systems are usually defended on the grounds that they offer the
electorate a clear choice of potential governments, invest winning parties with a
policy mandate, and help to promote strong and stable government. In contrast,
proportional systems are defended on the grounds that they usually give government a broader electoral base, promote consensus and cooperation amongst a
number of parties, and estab- lish a healthy balance between the executive and the
assembly. Çoğunlukçu sistemler genellikle seçmenlere açık bir potansiyel hükümet
seçimi sundukları, kazanan partilere bir politika yetkisiyle yatırım yaptıkları ve güçlü ve
istikrarlı bir hükümeti teşvik etmeye yardımcı oldukları gerekçesiyle savunulur. Buna
karşılık, orantısal sistemler, genellikle hükümete daha geniş bir seçmen tabanı
sağladığı, bir dizi parti arasında fikir birliği ve işbirliğini teşvik ettiği ve yürütme ile
meclis arasında sağlıklı bir denge kurduğu gerekçesiyle savunulmaktadır.
The meaning of elections is closely linked to the factors that shape voting behaviour.
Amongst the various theories of voting are models that highlight the importance of
party identification and habitual attachments, those that emphasize the importance
of group membership and social alignment, those that are based on rational choice
and calculations of self-interest, and those that suggest that individual choices are
shaped by ideological manipulation and control. Seçimlerin anlamı, oy verme
davranışını şekillendiren faktörlerle yakından bağlantılıdır. Çeşitli oylama teorileri
arasında, parti kimliğinin ve alışılmış bağlılıkların önemini vurgulayan modeller, grup
üyeliğinin ve sosyal uyumun önemini vurgulayanlar, rasyonel seçime ve kişisel çıkar
hesaplamalarına dayananlar ve bunu önerenler bulunmaktadır. bireysel seçimler
ideolojik manipülasyon ve kontrol ile şekillenir.
Types of party A variety of classifications have been used for political parties.
The most impor- tant of these are the following:
•
•
•
•
cadre and mass parties
representative and integrative parties
constitutional and revolutionary parties
left-wing and right-wing parties.
Political partyA political party is a group of people that is organized for the
purpose of winning government power, by electoral or other means. Parties typically exhibit
the following characteristics (1) They aim to exercise government power by winning political
office (small parties may nevertheless use elections more to gain a platform than to win
power). (2) They are organized bodies with a formal ‘card carrying’ membership. (3) They
typically adopt a broad issue focus, addressing each of the major areas of government policy
(small parties, however, may have a single-issue focus). (4) To varying degrees, they are
united by shared political preferences and a general ideological identity. Siyasi parti, seçim
veya diğer yollarla hükümet gücünü kazanmak amacıyla örgütlenmiş bir grup insandır.
Partiler tipik olarak aşağıdaki özellikleri sergilerler (1) Siyasi makamlar kazanarak hükümet
gücünü kullanmayı amaçlarlar (yine de küçük partiler seçimleri güç kazanmaktan çok bir
platform kazanmak için kullanabilirler). (2) Resmi bir 'kart taşıma' üyeliği olan örgütlü
kuruluşlardır. (3) Genellikle hükümet politikasının ana alanlarının her birini ele alan geniş bir
konu odağını benimserler (ancak küçük partiler tek bir konuya odaklanabilir). (4) Değişen
derecelerde, paylaşılan siyasi tercihler ve genel bir ideolojik kimlikle birleşirler.
Faction,factionalismA faction is a section or group within a larger
formation, usually a political party. Its aims and organizational status must therefore be
compatible with those of its host party; otherwise the group is a ‘party within a party’. A
distinction is sometimes drawn between ‘factions’ and ‘tendencies’, the latter being looser
and more informal groups, distinguished only by a common policy or ideological disposition.
Bir hizip, daha büyük bir oluşum, genellikle bir siyasi parti içindeki bir bölüm veya gruptur. Bu
nedenle amaçları ve örgütsel statüsü, ev sahibi tarafınkilerle uyumlu olmalıdır; aksi halde
grup "parti içinde parti"dir. Bazen 'hizipler' ve 'eğilimler' arasında bir ayrım yapılır, ikincisi
daha gevşek ve daha gayri resmi gruplardır ve yalnızca ortak bir politika veya ideolojik eğilim
ile ayırt edilir.
Left
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Liberty
Equality
Fraternity
Rights
Progress
Reform
Internationalism
Right
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Authority
Hierarchy
Order
Duties
Tradition
Reaction
Nationalism
Functions of parties
•
•
•
•
•
•
Representation
elite formation and recruitment
goal formulation
interest articulation and aggregation
socialization and mobilization
organization of government.
Party democracy Party democracy is a form of popular rule that operates
through the agency of a party. There are two models of party democracy. In the first
(intraparty democracy), parties are democratic agents, in that power within them is widely
and evenly dispersed. This implies, for instance, that there should be broad participation in
the election of leaders and selection of candidates. In the second model, democracy dictates
that policy-making power should be concentrated in the hands of party members who are
elected and, therefore, publicly accountable. In this view, the first model may lead to the
tyranny of non- elected constituency activists. Parti demokrasisi, bir parti aracılığıyla işleyen
bir popüler yönetim biçimidir. Parti demokrasisinin iki modeli vardır. İlkinde (parti içi
demokrasi), partiler demokratik ajanlardır, çünkü içlerindeki güç geniş ve eşit bir şekilde
dağılmıştır. Bu, örneğin, liderlerin seçimine ve adayların seçimine geniş katılımın olması
gerektiği anlamına gelir. İkinci modelde demokrasi, politika yapma gücünün seçilmiş ve
dolayısıyla kamuya hesap verebilir parti üyelerinin elinde toplanması gerektiğini belirtir. Bu
görüşe göre, ilk model seçilmemiş seçmen aktivistlerinin zorbalığına yol açabilir.
PARTY SYSTEMS
•
•
•
•
one-party systems
two-party systems
dominant-party systems
multiparty systems.
•
A political party is a group of people organized for the purpose of winning government
power, and usually displays some measure of ideological cohesion. The principal
classifications of parties have distinguished between cadre and mass or, later, catchall parties, parties of representation and parties of integration, constitutional or
‘mainstream’ parties and revolutionary or anti-system ones, and left-wing parties and
right-wing parties.
Parties have a number of functions in the political system. These include their role as
a mechanism of repre- sentation, the formation of political elites and recruitment into
politics, the formulation of social goals and government policy, the articulation and
aggregation of interests, the mobilization and socialization of the electorate, and the
organization of governmental processes and institutional relationships.
•
•
•
•
•
the organization and structure of parties crucially influence the distribution of power
within society at large. Party democracy can be promoted either by a wide dispersal of
power within the party, or by the concentra- tion of power in the hands of the party’s
elected and publicly accountable members. Oligarchic tendencies may be an
inevitable consequence of organization, or they may arise from the need for party
unity and elec- toral credibility.
A party system is a network of relationships through which parties interact and
influence the political process. In one-party systems, a ‘ruling’ party effectively
functions as a permanent government. In two-party systems, power alternates
between two ‘major’ parties. In dominant-party systems, a single ‘major’ party retains
power for a prolonged period. In multiparty systems, no party is large enough to rule
alone, leading to a system of coalition government.
Party systems shape the broader political process in various ways. They influence the
range and nature of choice available to the electorate, and affect the cohesion and
stability of governments. They structure the relationship between the executive and
the assembly, establish a bias in favour of either conflict or consen- sus, and shape the
general character of the political culture.
Evidence of a crisis in party politics can be found in the decline in party membership
and partisanship, as well as in the rise of ‘antiparty’ groups and movements. This can
be explained by the perception that parties are tainted by power, ambition and
corruption, and that they have suffered as a result of general disillusionment caused
by the growing inability of governments to deliver on their promises. They are also
seen to have failed to articulate the aspirations and sensibilities associated with
postmaterialism, or generated within post-indus- trial societies.
Constitution A constitution is, broadly, a set of rules, written and unwritten, that
seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of the various institutions of government;
regulate the relationships between them; and define the relationship between the state and
the individual. Bir anayasa, genel olarak, çeşitli hükümet kurumlarının görevlerini, yetkilerini
ve işlevlerini belirlemeye çalışan yazılı ve yazılı olmayan bir kurallar dizisidir; aralarındaki
ilişkileri düzenlemek; ve devlet ile birey arasındaki ilişkiyi tanımlar.
Classifying constitutions
Constitutions can be classified in many different ways. These include the follow- ing:
•
•
•
•
the form of the constitution and status of its rules (whether the constitution is written
or unwritten, or codified or uncodified)
the ease with which the constitution can be changed (whether it is rigid or flexible)
the degree to which the constitution is observed in practice (whether it is an effective,
nominal or façade constitution)
the content of the constitution and the institutional structure that it estab- lishes
(whether it is, for example, monarchical or republican, federal or unitary, or
presidential or parliamentary).
The strengths of a codified or written constitution include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Major principles and key constitutional provisions are entrenched, safeguarding them
from interfer- ence by the government of the day.
The power of the legislature is constrained, cutting its sovereignty (see p. 58) down to
size.
Non-political judges are able to police the constitu- tion to ensure that its provisions
are upheld by other public bodies.
Individual liberty is more securely protected, and authoritarianism is kept at bay.
The codified document has an educational value, in that it highlights the central values
and overall goals of the political system.
The drawbacks or weaknesses of codification include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
A codified constitution is more rigid, and may therefore be less responsive and
adaptable than an uncodified one.
Government power may be more effectively constrained by regular elections than by
a constitu- tional document.
With a codified constitution, constitutional supremacy resides with non-elected
judges, rather than with publicly accountable politicians.
Constitutional provisions enshrined in custom and convention may be more widely
respected because they have been endorsed by history and not ‘invented’.
Constitutional documents are inevitably biased, because they endorse one set of
values or principles in preference to others, meaning that they may precipitate more
conflicts than they resolve.
Parliamentary sovereignty Parliamentary sovereignty refers to the
absolute and unlimited authority of a parliament or legislature, reflected in its ability to
make, amend or repeal any law it wishes.
The purpose of a constitution
Not only do the vast majority of states have constitutions, but also most institu- tions and
organized groups have rules that have some kind of constitutional effect. This applies in the
case of international bodies such as the United Nations and the European Union, and is also
true of regional and provincial government, political parties, interest groups, corporations,
churches, clubs and so on. The popularity of these constitutional rules draws attention to the
fact that constitutions somehow play a vital role in the running of organizations. Why is it
difficult, and perhaps impossible, for states and other organized bodies to function without a
constitu- tion? The difficulty with answering this question is that constitutions do not have a
single or simple purpose. Rather, they have a number of functions and are used in a variety of
ways. The most important of these are to:
•
•
•
•
•
empower states
establish unifying values and goals
provide government stability
protect freedom
legitimize regimes.
•
•
•
•
•
•
A constitution is a set of rules that seek to establish the duties, powers and functions
of the institutions of government and define the relationship between the state and
the individual. Constitutions can be classified on the basis of the status of their rules,
how easily their rules can be changed, the degree to which their rules are observed in
practice, and the content of their rules and the institutional structure that they
establish.
Constitutions do not serve a single or simple purpose. Amongst their functions are
that they empower states by defining a sphere of independent authority, establish a
set of values, ideals and goals for a society, bring stability, order and predictability to
the workings of government, protect individuals from the state, and legit- imize
regimes in the eyes of other states and their people.
There is an imperfect relationship between the content of a constitution and political
practice. Constitutions ‘work’ in certain conditions, notably when they correspond to,
and are supported by, the political culture, when they are respected by rulers and
accord with the interests and values of dominant groups, and when they are
adaptable and can remain relevant in changing political circumstances.
Questions about the actual and desirable relationship between law and politics are
deeply controversial. Liberal theory, sensitive to civil liberties and human rights, tends
to emphasize the limited province of law operating simply as a means of guaranteeing
orderly existence. The conservative view, however, emphasizes the link between law
and social stability, acknowledging that law has an important role to play in enforcing
public morality.
The separation of law from politics is accomplished through attempts to make the
judiciary independent and impartial. Judicial independence, however, is threatened by
the close involvement of political bodies in the process of judicial recruitment and
promotion. Judicial impartiality is compromised by the fact that nowhere are judges
representatives of the larger society. In western polyarchies, for instance, they are
overwhelmingly male, white, materially privileged and relatively old.
As judges impose meaning on law, they cannot but be involved in the policy process.
The extent of their influence varies according to the clarity and detail with which the
law is specified and the scope available for judicial interpretation, and according to
the existence or otherwise of a codified or written constitution, which invests in
judges the power of judicial review.
Functions of assemblies
To classify assemblies simply as legislatures, debating chambers or representative bodies
obscures their true significance. Although the role of the assembly varies from state to state
and from system to system, in every case it fulfils a complex of functions. Above all,
assemblies provide a link between government and the people, a channel of communication
that can both support government and help to uphold the regime, and force government to
respond to public demands and anxieties. The principal functions of assemblies are:
•
•
•
•
•
Legislation
Representation
Scrutiny
political recruitment
legitimacy.
Unicameralism: The principle or practice of having an assembly composed of a
single legislative chamber. Tek bir yasama odasından oluşan bir meclise sahip olma ilkesi veya
uygulaması.
Bicameralism: The principle or practice of fragmenting legislative power
through the establishment of two (in theory, co-equal) chambers in the assembly. Mecliste iki
(teoride, eşit) meclisin kurulması yoluyla yasama gücünü parçalama ilkesi veya uygulaması.
A committee is a small work group composed of members drawn from a larger body and
charged with specific responsibilities. Whereas ad hoc committees are set up for a particular
purpose and disbanded when that task is complete, permanent or standing commit- tees
have enduring responsibilities and an institutional- ized role. Committee structures have
become increasingly prominent in legislative and executive branches of government, as
deliberative and consulta- tive forums and also as decision-making bodies.
Amongst the advantages of committees are the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
They allow a range of views, opinions and interests to be represented.
They provide the opportunity for fuller, longer and more detailed debate.
They encourage decisions to be made more efficiently and speedily by restricting the range of
opposing opinions.
They make possible a division of labour that
encourages the accumulation of expertise and specialist knowledge.
However, committees have been criticized for the following reasons:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
They can easily be manipulated by those who set up and staff them.
They encourage centralization by allowing a chair- person to dominate proceedings
behind a mask of consultation.
They narrow the range of views and interests that are taken into account in decisionmaking.
They divorce their members from the larger body, creating a form of sham
representation.
policy-making assemblies, which enjoy significant autonomy and have an active
impact on policy
policy-influencing assemblies, which can transform policy but only by reacting to
executive initiatives
executive-dominated assemblies, which exert marginal influence or merely rubberstamp executive decisions.
Adversary politics is a style of politics characterized by an antagonistic relationship between
major parties that turns political life into an ongoing electoral battle. Parliamentary debate
thus becomes a ‘continuous polemic’ before what is seen as the ‘bar of public opinion’.
Adversarialism has been defended on the following grounds:
•
•
•
•
•
It offers voters clear alternatives, thus promoting electoral choice and democratic
accountability.
It checks government power by ensuring that there is opposition and scrutiny.
Its dangers, nevertheless, include the following:
It discourages sober and rational debate, and precludes compromise.
It fosters polarization, which, as governments change, gives rise to political instability.
Why are assemblies in decline?
There is nothing new about the ‘decline of assemblies’ debate. Since the late nine- teenth
century, anxiety has been expressed about the strengthening of executives, and particularly
bureaucracies, at the expense of assemblies. This anxiety has been heightened by the fact
that, since the days of Locke (see p. 31) and Montesquieu, assemblies have been seen as the
principal vehicles for delivering responsible and representative government. The notion that
good government requires a strong assembly is questionable, however. Assembly power can
certainly become ‘excessive’, especially when it leads to immobilism and policy stalemate.
The model of the US Congress, for instance, has as many critics as it has admirers. There is,
nevertheless, general agreement that, during the twenti- eth century, the power and status
of assemblies changed, and usually for the worse. Whether this amounts to a general decline
of assemblies, or, rather, a shift in their purpose or function, is another matter. The principal
factors that have brought about these changes are the following:
•
•
•
•
the emergence of disciplined political parties
the growth of ‘big’ government
the organizational weaknesses of assemblies
the rise of interest-group and media power.
•
•
•
•
•
•
The terms ‘assembly’, ‘legislature’ and ‘parliament’ are usually used interchangeably.
The term ‘assembly’ suggests that the body is a surrogate for the people, as it is
composed of lay politicians who claim to repre- sent the people rather than of trained
or expert government officials. The term ‘legislature’ is misleading, because
assemblies never monopolize law-making power. The term ‘parliament’ draws
attention to the importance within assemblies of debate and deliberation.
A parliamentary system is one in which government governs in and through the
assembly or parliament, the executive being drawn from, and accountable to, the
assembly. A presidential system is based on a separation of powers between the
assembly and the executive. This establishes a relationship characterized by a combination of independence and interdependence between the two branches.
Assemblies provide a link between government and the people: that is, a channel of
communication that can support government and uphold the regime, and force
government to respond to popular demands. The chief functions of an assembly are to
enact legislation, act as a representative body, oversee and scrutinize the executive,
recruit and train politicians, and assist in maintaining the political system’s legitimacy.
Assemblies generally comprise either one or two chambers. The attraction of
bicameralism is that it strength- ens checks and balances and broadens
representation, which is particularly useful in federal systems. Its disadvantage is that,
in this type of system, there is a tendency towards immobilism and government gridlock. Committee systems are increasingly important in the legislative process; strong
assemblies usually have strong committees, weak ones have weak committees.
Assemblies rarely make policy. More usually, they influence policy or are executivedominated. The amount of power an assembly has is determined by a variety of
factors. These include the extent of the assembly’s constitutional authority, its degree
of political independence from the executive, the nature of the party system, and the
assembly’s level of organizational coherence.
The decline of assemblies provokes anxiety because it is linked to the health of
responsible and representa- tive government. Assemblies have declined because of
the emergence of disciplined political parties, the growth in the role of government,
the executive’s greater capacity to formulate policy and provide leadership, and the
increasing strength of interest groups and the mass media.
ROLE OF THE EXECUTIVE
Who’s who in the executive?
The executive is, technically, the branch of government that is responsible for the execution
or implementation of policy. The division of government into execu- tive, legislative and
judicial institutions has been sustained by the doctrine of the separation of powers (see p.
313), and has been the traditional basis on which to analyse government since the time of
Montesquieu (see p. 312). From this point of view, three distinct branches of government can
be identified:
•
•
•
Legislatures make law; they enact legislation.
Executives implement law; they execute law.
Judiciaries interpret law; they adjudicate on the meaning of law.
Parliamentary executive: An executive, typically composed of a
prime minister and cabinet, that is drawn from and accountable to the parliament, and is
formed through parliamentary elections.
Presidential executive: An executive that is headed by a separately
elected president, who enjoys political and constitutional independence from the parliament.
Presidential power is, nevertheless, often fragile and insubstantial. Neustadt’s classic text
Presidential Power (1990) remains correct: the chief power of the US president is the ‘power
to persuade’; that is, the ability to bargain, encourage and even cajole, but not dictate. The
ability of US presidents to get their way depends on four crucial relationships, specifically
those with:
•
•
•
•
Congress
the federal bureaucracy
the Supreme Court
the media.
Impeachment: A formal process for the removal of a public official in the
event of personal or professional wrongdoing.
Theories of leadership The question of political leadership is
surrounded by controversy. To what extent is leadership compatible with freedom and
democracy? Does personalized lead- ership inspire and motivate, or does it subdue and
repress (see p. 305)? Are strong leaders to be admired or feared? At the heart of these
disagreements lie differing views about the nature of political leadership. What does the
phenom- enon of leadership comprise? Where does leadership come from? Four contrast- ing
theories of leadership can be identified. Leadership can be understood as:
•
•
•
•
a natural gift
a sociological phenomenon
an organizational necessity
a political skill.
Styles of leadership
A style of leadership refers to the strategies and behavioural patterns through which a
leader seeks to achieve his or her goals. Quite simply, leaders are not all alike: leadership
can be exercised in a number of different ways. The factors that shape the adoption of a
particular leadership strategy or style are, of course, numerous. Amongst the most
obvious are the personality and goals of the leader, the institutional framework within
which he or she operates, the political mech- anisms by which power is won and retained,
the means of mass communication available, and the nature of the broader political
culture. Three distinctive styles of leadership have been identified (Burns, 1978):
•
•
•
laissez-faire leadership
transactional leadership
transformational leadership.
•
•
•
•
•
•
The executive branch of government is responsible for the execution or
implementation of policy. The politi- cal executive comprises a core of senior
figures and is roughly equivalent to ‘the government of the day’ or ‘the
administration’. The bureaucratic executive consists of public officials or civil
servants. However, the political/bureaucratic distinction is often blurred by the
complexities of the policy-making process.
Political executives act as the ‘commanding heights’ of the state apparatus and
carry out a number of leader- ship roles. These include representing the state on
ceremonial occasions, offering policy-making leadership in relation to strategic
priorities, mobilizing popular support for the government or administration,
overseeing the bureaucratic machine, and taking the initiative in the event of
domestic or international crises.
Presidential executives concentrate executive power in the hands of a president
who combines the roles of head of state and head of government, but confronts
an assembly that enjoys constitutional and political independence. Prime ministers
in parliamentary systems operate through two key sets of relationships: the first is
with their cabinets, ministers and departments; the second is with their parties
and the assembly from which their power stems.
The power of chief executives has been enhanced by the tendency of the media
and electoral politics to focus on personality and image, by the opportunities to
display statesmanship provided by international affairs and summitry, and by the
need for political and ideological leadership within an increasingly large and
complex executive branch. Their power is, nevertheless, checked by the
importance of government and party unity, the need to maintain support in the
assembly, and the difficulty of controlling the sprawling bureau- cratic machine.
Political leadership has been understood in various ways. It has been interpreted
as a personal gift based on individual qualities such as charisma, as a sociological
phenomenon in which leaders express particular socio- historical forces, as an
organizational necessity rooted in the need for coherence and unity of direction,
and as a political skill that can be learned by leaders intent on manipulating their
colleagues and the masses.
Leaders have adopted very different strategies to achieve their goals. Laissez-faire
leadership attempts to foster harmony and teamwork by broadening the
responsibilities of subordinates. Transactional leadership allows leaders to act as
brokers, and balance rival factions and interests against each other.
Transformational leadership places a heavy emphasis on the mobilization of
support through the leader’s capacity to inspire and to advance a personal vision.