WORDS AND WORD COMBINATIONS. to lie at the heart of politicsбыть сутью политики

to lie at the heart of politics быть сутью политики

to keep at bay не подпускать, держать на

расстоянии

from this perspective с этой точки зрения

to fall into categories делиться на категории

in this respect в этом отношении

insofar as (постольку) поскольку;

в той мере, в какой

to underpin sth поддерживать что-либо

recession экономический спад

universal suffrage всеобщее избирательное право

since long с давних времен

to take up an issue затронуть, поднять вопрос

SKIM reading: Work in pairs:look though the text and bring out topical sentences conveying the main ideas of the text.

TEXT 2: SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

The policy process has been analysed above in largely 'managerial' terms. How are decisions made? What stages are there in the policy process? How effective, efficient and economical (the 'three Es') is policy making? However, a series of deeper 'political' issues underlie these questions. These are not so much concerned with what

government does as with what government should do, that is, with what government is 'for'. The problem is that this uncovers those intractable normative questions that lie at the heart of politics. It is impossible to know what government is for without understanding such issues as the nature of justice and the desirable balance between Ireedom and authority, without, in other words, having a vision of the 'good society'.

Since views about such matters differ fundamentally, the standards against which governments and political systems can be judged also vary. Four widely held such standards can nevertheless be identified, each shedding a very particular light on system performance.

Stability performance

it can reasonably be claimed that the maintenance of stability and mder is the most basic function of government. With the exception of anarchists, who argue that social order will emerge from the spontaneous actions of free individuals, all political thinkers and philosophers have endorsed government as the only means of keeping ihaos and instability at bay. From this perspective, the core purpose of government is to govern, to rule, to ensure stability through the evercise of authority. This, in turn, requires that government is able to perpetuate its own existence and ensure the survival of the broader political system. System performance can thus be judged on the basis of criteria such as longevity and endurance, as the simple fact of survival indicates a regime's ability to contain or reconcile conflict. However, there are differing views about how this goal can be achieved.

These views fall into two broad categories. The first stems from the essentially liberal belief that stable government must be rooted in consensus and consent. In this view, what ensures the long-term survival of a regime is its responsiveness to popular demands and pressures. This is expressed in the language of systems theory as the.ihility to bring the 'outputs' of government into line with the various inputs'. This has often been identified as a particular strength of western liberal democracies. Nevertheless, liberal democracy also has its drawbacks in this respect. Chief amongst these is that usponsiveness may generate instability, insofar as it heightens popular expectations of government and fosters the illusion that the political svsiem can meet all demands and accommodate all 'inputs'. From this perspective, the central dilemma of stable government is that i esponsiveness must be balanced against effectiveness. Government must be sensitive to external pressures, but it must also be able to impose its will on society when those pressures threaten to generate inrconcilable conflict.

 

This latter fear underpins the alternative view of stability and order. Conservative thinkers have traditionally linked stability and order not to responsiveness but to authority. Conservatives have been particularly concerned to stress the degree to which political authority is underpinned by shared values and a common culture. In this view stability and order are largely the product of social and cultural cohesion, the capacity of society to generate respect for authority and maintain support for established institutions.

However, the weakness of this view of stability is that, since it relies on authority being exerted from above, it may not place effective constraints on the exercise 'of government power. If stability is seen as an end in itself, divorced from considerations such as democratic legitimacy, social justice and respect for human rights, the result may simply be tyranny and oppression.

Material performance

The idea that political systems can and should be judged by their material performance is a familiar one. Governments are usually re-elected in periods of growth and widening prosperity, and defeated during recessions and economic crises. Similarly, there can be little doubt that the success of the broader political system is linked to its capacity to 'deliver the goods'. Widespread poverty and low levels of economic growth in developing states have deepened social and ethnic tensions, fuelled corruption, and undermined attempts to establish constitutional and representative government.

The central dilemma that arises from the use of material prosperity as a performance indicator is that growth must he balanced against fairness. Two contrasting views of this problem can be identified. The free-market view holds that general prosperity is best achieved by a system of unregulated capitalism. From this perspective, economic growth is best promoted by material incentives that encourage enterprise and endeavour and penalise laziness. The welfare state should therefore act only as a safety net that protects individuals from absolute poverty in the sense that they lack the basic means of subsistence. In this view, rising social budgets led to a growing tax burden which, in turn, merely hampered the process of wealth generation.

The rival social-democratic view highlights the moral and economic benefits of equality. Not only is unregulated competition¹ condemned for promoting greed and conflict, but it is also seen as inefficient and unproductive. The virtue of social justice is that, by taking the distribution of wealth away from the vagaries of'the market, it ensures that all citizens have a stake in society and that each of them has an incentive to contribute. In tolerating wide social

inequality, free-market policies thus run ihc risk of promoting social exclusion, reflected in the growth of an underclass that is a breeding ground for crime and social unrest. Long-term and sustainable prosperity therefore requires that material incentives operate within a broader framework of fair distribution and effective welfare.

Citizenship performance

A citizen is a member of a political community or state, endowed with a set of rights and a set of obligations. Citizenship is therefore (he 'public' face of individual existence.

There are three sets of rights': civil rights, political rights and social rights. Civil rights are the rights necessary for 'individual freedom'. These include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, freedom of conscience, the right to equality before the law and the right to own property. Civil rights are therefore rights that are exercised within civil society; they are 'negative' rights m the sense that they limit or check the exercise of government power. Political rights provide the individual with the opportunity to participate in political life. The central political rights are thus the right to vote, the right to stand for election and the right to hold public office. The provision of political rights clearly requires the development of universal suffrage, political equality, and democratic government. Finally, citizenship implies social rights which guarantee i lie individual a minimum social status and therefore provide the basis lor the exercise of both civil and political rights. These are 'positive' ughts, as the right 'to live the life of a civilised being according to the siandards prevailing in society' (Marshall).

A major dilemma nevertheless confronts those who employ citizenship as a performance criterion: the need to balance rights against duties and thereby to apportion responsibilities between the individual and the community. Since long this issue has been taken up in the growing debate between liberalism and communitarian ism. (ommunitarian theorists argue that the 'politics of rights' should be icplaced by a 'politics of the common good'. In this view, liberal individualism, in effect, eats itself. By investing individuals with nghts, it simply breeds atomism and alienation, weakening the fnmmunal bonds that hold society together. From this perspective, ■lonwestern societies that may appear to perform poorly in relation to citizenship indicators (with, for example, poor records on human:tj'.hts) may nevertheless succeed in creating a stronger sense of c<immunity and social belonging.

♦ Discuss/check your considerations with the rest of the class.