Landes’ Definition of Politics

Ronald Landes defines politics as the “exercise of power and influence on matters that affect the community.” He makes the point that politics is not society itself, but a social process that certainly pervades nearly every facet of our lives.

Landes’ definition excludes the ‘internal’ politics of human associations in general (i.e. families, unions, etc.), and confines itself to politics on a community level.

Landes also maintains that “the political system can be distinguished from other social systems.” This is in contrast, for example, to political economists who blur the line between political and economic systems.

On the Importance of Politics

Since politics is so pervasive in our lives, it should be important to us. Taking an interest in the institutions and processes that affect our lives has obvious benefits. Robert Dahl makes the point that while most people are interested in little outside ‘primary activities’ (food, sex, love, family, etc.), this is largely because they don’t realize the extent to which politics affects their daily activities, including these primary ones.

“As with birth itself, initial membership in a political system gives one little freedom of choice – it is a nonvoluntary option. We are automatically members of a political system at birth and are subject to the consequences of such membership throughout our lives. If government is ubiquitous, then politics is more so, for government constitutes only a portion of the broader process of politics.” (Landes, TCP, p20)

Society or the Social System

As mentioned, both Dahl and Landes differentiate between ’society’ and ‘politics.’ Society, necessarily the more encompassing of the two, is described generally as activity between indivduals or groups, and more specifically as “a system of human interaction involving two or more persons, in which each person takes into account how others will likely act.” I’m not entirely sure how the italicized portion is integral to this definition, however.

The Relation of Politics to Society

Having stated that politics is only one part of society, Landes goes on to define precisely which part. Consider the following definition,

“Politics is the exercise of power and influence concerning the establishment, maintenance, and breakdown of order in the community.” (Landes, 22)

The bolded terms are not arbitrary – they have very specific definitions that Landes lays out further on. An important element of this definition is its restrictive nature – according to Landes, politics occurs on the community level (i.e. he isn’t concerned with the inner ‘politics’ of companies or unions, etc.).

Dahl’s definition proper isn’t as limited, but from what I gather he also restricts his application of politics in a manner similar to Landes.

Landes Differentiation Between Politics and Government

While politics is the exercise of power and influence with regard to order in the community, government is the “instutional organization of political power within a given territory” (Landes, 8). Here are some more points concerning the concept of government:

• gov’t is the final arbiter (for making rules in a society)
• “Successfully upholds a claim to the exclusive regulation of the legitimate use of physical force…within a given territorial area” (Dahl, 10)
• gov’t is a subset of politics

Conservatism’s Perpective on the Role of Government

Landes cites the late Michael Oakeshott’s writings (London School of Economics) as a classic example of the conservative view of politics. Oakeshott defined conservatism as,

“A propensity to use and enjoy what is available rather than to wish for or to look for something else; to delight in what is present rather than what was or what may be”.

Oakeshott believed that principles of governance should be based on a people’s “tradition and accumulated experience,” and viewed anything less or more as mere ‘rationalist thought’, grounded in preconceived notions.

Conservatism is based on the implicit notion that people are imperfect, and further, imperfectible. This idea becomes extended to society in general, and necessarily to government and politics. Oakeshott offers us this metaphor as a description of how a conservative approaches the role of government and social change:

In political activity…men sail a boundless and bottomless sea; there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting place nor appointed destination. The enterprise is to keep afloat on an even keel; the sea is both friend and enemy; and the seamanship consists in using the resources of a traditional manner of behaviour in order to make a friend of every hostile occasion” (Oakeshott, 1962: 127).

I think this is a ridiculous approach to politics. If Oakeshott had become disillusioned with existing political ideologies (understandable), you would expect him to call on reason for a solution. By touting ‘tradition’ as man’s only guide to governance, he implies that the only ‘right’ way to govern is the way we’ve always done it. This isn’t a theory, but a negation – a negation of our ability to think and formulate a method of governing that is consistent with reality.

Liberalism’s Perspective on the Role of Government

Classically, liberalism concerns itself with the individual’s basic human rights. Therefore, it argues for limited government, and a means of protection (i.e. a constitution) for fundamental political and civil liberties. Landes writes (in the context of a liberal perspective), “the state exists to serve and protect the individual” (Landes, 24). He introduces Bernard Crick as typifying liberal thought. Crick defines politics very simply as “the public actions of free men.”

Unfortunately, Crick, like most contemporary ‘liberals,’ concerns himself less with the individual’s rights and more with…..well, just being ‘liberal.’ He begins by stating that politics has no role in ‘basic arenas of social interaction’, but goes on to say that “the diversity of political ideologies helps to sustain political rule, while the dominance of a single political ideology results in the demise of politics.” Is he speaking of the tolerance of differing political ideologies (a given under limited government)? Or, more likely, is he suggesting that government should equally welcome and adopt consevative, liberal, and socialist principles? If so, he’s already sacrificed the rights of the individual.

He does offer a good metaphor for politics, which contrasts greatly with Oakeshott’s malevolent one.

“[Politics] rescues mankind from the morbid dilemmas in which the state is always seen as a ship threated by a hostile environment of cruel seas, and enables us, instead, to see the state as a city settled on the firm and fertile ground of mother earth. It can offer us no guarantees against storms encroaching from the sea, but it can offer us something worth defending in times of emergency and amid threats of disaster” (Crick, 1964: 140).

Socialism’s Perspective on the Role of Government

In order to understand socialism’s perspective, we look first to how it views traditional politics. Landes notes that Marx, an early proponent of socialism, saw politics up until his time as “a mechanism for the exploitation of people by people, the means by which the dominant class ruled over other classes” (Landes, 25). Socialism seeks to eliminate ‘class conflict’ by equalizing the ownership of productive forces in a community. This necessarily gives rise to a very active role for government – the equal distribution (or more precisely, redistribution) of resources.

3 Ideologies on the Desirability of Social Change

With regard to social change, conservatism defends the existing order and is generally opposed. Liberalism favours incremental change when it’s necessary. A socialist’s position on social change will depend on where he falls in the continuum between ‘pure’ and ‘democratic’ socialism. An advocate to the former seeks social change (i.e. class abolishment) by any means necessary, including violence, while a ‘democratic’ socialist desires change according to that same ideal, but through the democratic process.

An Indigenous Perpective on Major Political Ideologies

Some key elements of liberalism, conservatism, and socialism would likely be agreeable to an indigenous perspective, others disagreeable….others irrelevant altogether.

As per their traditions, aboriginal peoples generally favour decision-making on the local, even group level. In the case of large groups, decisions are come to by consensus and go from the bottom up. To them, the ‘European’ notion of government, top-down decision-making on a national level, is foreign.

As far as I can tell, aboriginal groups tend to favour socialism among the three major political ideologies, as it is closest to what they’re accustomed to. By this I mean class equality, and mob rule. I’m not sure to what degree of esteem they hold basic human rights (do aboriginal cultures traditionally recognize private property?), but I do know they take issue with any sort of governance ‘by the few.’

The aboriginal practice of group decision-making resembles direct democracy (popular government) for all intents and purposes. Therefore, social change could only come about as a result of mass consensus, as opposed to the consensus of a majority.

Feminism: A separate ideology?

Although there are liberal, conservative, and socialist variants of feminism, some feminists cite a need for a completely separate ideology. They don’t seem to know what such an ideology might be, but they claim that politics and its study, as it is now, as “a game in one simple sense for middle-aged men.” The feminist logic is as follows: existing political ideologies are concerned with those in power, the majority of those in power to date have been men, therefore they almost only pertain to men.

I offer the following humorous excerpt regarding what feminists are seeking in a new, as yet undefined ‘feminist political ideology.’

“Many feminists argue that the realm of the public should be enlarged to include more what was formerly considered private and personal. Thus, political scientists could legitimately study “sexual politics,” a “politics of the family,” and a “politics of housework.”"

I propose that from here on in, we refer to the feminist political ideology simply as ‘housework politics.’

The ‘Elite’ Perspective

Dye and Ziegler’s The Irony of Democracy opens with this quote by Harold Lasswell,

“Government is always government by the few, whether in the name of the few, the one, or the many.”

Adopting an ‘elite perspective’ means working from the assumption that societal division between elite and mass is universal. This being the case, democracy becomes ironic (hence the book title), in that “elites must govern wisely if government ‘by the people’ is to survive.”

The ‘elite perpective’ seems to negate Marx’s claim that in the last stage of history, class divisions and politics in general will cease to exist. It does, however, concur with his assessment that the primary purpose of politics is to legitimize the rule of those in power.

Regarding conservatism, I suppose the ‘elite perspective’ would contend that the idolization of ‘tradition’ is an effective method for rulers to stabilize and prolong their rule.

The ‘elite perpective’ probably clashes most with the liberal ideology, wherein the focus is supposedly the individual. While someone like Lasswell may agree that individual rights are upheld in a liberal-democratic regime, they would point out that this is only the case because the elites in power believe in the sanctity of the individual. This, as opposed to the conclusion that a government protects the rights of individuals because it is mandated to do so by its people.

Political Analysis

‘Political analysis’ differs from merely having an opinion about politics. Landes offers us a very specific definition of political analysis.

“The attempt to explain why a specific pattern of power and influence emerges, how power is gained and lost, and why certain political events occurred” (Landes, 20).

In political analysis, in other words, we try to impose a conceptual order on the political process. At the core of political analysis is the belief that all political events are explainable. Political analysis is both broader and more in-depth than a mere opinion on politics – it seeks to answer ‘why?’.

Empirical and Normative Statements of Politics

“A normative definition is concerned with what ought to be, while an empirical definition is concerned with what is. A normative statement cannot be disproved, while an empirical statement may be…A normative conception of politics develops a desired or a preferred pattern of political organization, while an empirical approach is based on existing political reality” (Landes, 22).

I believe all major political ideologies contain both normative and empirical elements. For example, socialism’s conclusions about class divisions and the use of power are statements that can either be proven or disproven by research, study, and thought, whereas the statement that all men are entitled to the same standard of living is a clear example of a normative concept (an offensive one, at that).

“South Korean presidents are elected through a democratic process” is a very simple empirical political statement, whereas “the South Korean electoral system should be reformed to allow for a broader variety of political parties” is clearly a normative statement.

The Comparative Approach

The comparative approach is useful to the study of politics. By analyzing political phenomena in several countries, we can better explain the nature of the political process. The benefits of the comparative approach are,

• it introduces us to the array of existing political systems
• we can overcome the parochialism of our own political experience
• it recognizes the increasingly complex interdependence of nations and takes into account that foreign political systems have a direct effect on a nation’s internal politics
• develops hypotheses that explain the similarities and differences among political systems