CU-BA-Eng-SEM-IV-Sociology-IV-Second Draft

uncovering meaning and motive in people’s lives, is that it is in the ordinary, everyday, unthought-about tasks of daily life that this attitude becomes apparent. Therefore I have approached this research into our relationship to place through the theme of belonging, a way of situating ourselves in the everyday. However, in contrast to May who looks at belonging from the starting point of a person, I am approaching this research from the position of place as the social and material location where particular people live out their lives. Taking inspiration from Miller I have broken aspects of belonging into social, historical and geographical connections, purely for analytic purposes: place is all of these things. My starting point is place and people’s relationship to place. Although there is a considerable amount of sociological research around people who share a location, or place communities, little of this takes into account the effect of the place itself on the people who live there. Many classic community studies tend to treat place as an inert background where the relations between people are acted out. I suggest that place can instead be understood as imagined and embodied, an active site for social practices through history, memory, other embodied and emplaced people and material things. In order to investigate this relationship to place I have chosen to focus on ‘doing belonging’, which can be seen as way of situating ourselves in the everyday. Following Miller I have broken aspects of belonging into social, historical and geographical connections allowing a multi-dimensional belonging in place, an ‘ontological belonging’, to emerge. Places, in all their different guises are included here: imagined historic places, sites of social relationships, material, lively places. The temporal and the material are connected in each dimension. Imagined, historic places are inseparable from the material places experienced by embodied people; sites of social relationships, what I call a ‘peoples cape’, is embodied and connects across time to the ‘world of restorable reach’; geographic or material places are used by embodied people who leave inalienable traces in the place. This multi-dimensionality incorporates different layers of attachment to place, some of which have been addressed by previous research but this study benefits from the combined effect of studying all these different dimensions together. To have ‘a sense of belonging’ is passive, intangible, unseen; I address belonging as ‘doing belonging’, an everyday, yet active, way of being-in-relation-to a place, thus bringing an active place into the sociological domain? The thesis therefore addresses two main issues: how can place be brought into sociological research; ii) how can belonging in place be understood sociologically. The central argument of this thesis is that place plays an integral role in who we are and consequently how everyday life is lived. Place should therefore be considered more thoroughly in much sociological research. Through addressing belonging-in place the importance of place in social life - an open, fluid and relational place - will come to the fore. Current sociological literature on belonging is often around ‘not belonging’. This literature serves to highlight the importance of belonging in people’s lives, but does not address belonging-in-place. Belonging is in fact a nebulous term without a clear definition. For the purposes of this research I have used the term ‘ontological belonging’ - belonging as a way of being in the world - taken from Miller to denote the active nature of the belonging-in-place 151 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

that is researched here. Other sociological literature does address belonging and place but lacks the three dimensions of historical, social and embodied and geographical, or material, connections to places that I explore here. I am using embodied here to refer to embodied people in place and material to refer to materiality of place, although they are often interconnected concepts. In Globalization and Belonging Savage et al have elucidated a particular form of belonging practised largely by middle-class professionals based on weak ties; more recently May has described a multifaceted belonging which she proposes can help to evaluate social change. Although these accounts of belonging include relationships to places, neither examines belonging-in-place from the bottom up, starting from place, which is what this thesis does. There is a large literature of community studies that does seem to address place, as each study is based in one, or sometimes multiple, particular places. However, these places are, especially in the older studies, inert rather than active; the places can be seen as useful classificatory aspects of the research, defining who should be included in the study, rather than as a participatory force in the social life of the place. I have, in fact, also used place in order to determine who should participate but this is only one way in which place has been used in this research. Another way of addressing place in research on belonging is through ‘imagined’ places. Imagined communities have a marked influence on how people negotiate place identities and a sense of belonging, as is shown in Chapter 4 Imagining Us below, but, I argue, this is only one aspect of belonging-in-place. In the three dimensional analysis of belonging here I also evaluate social connections to known others in the place and connections to the material place through personal, family and communal history. As sociological literature is currently lacking in studies which have an understanding of place as an act ant in social life, I turned to geographical and anthropological literature to develop an understanding of an open, relational place and the way in which people act together in and with place. From this literature I was able to develop an original framework from which to explore how people interact with places through historical, social and material connections which have provided a structure for the empirical chapters. Imagining us examines how the participants use their own and others’ imaginaries and histories of Wigan to position themselves vis-à-vis their place. These stories are not unified across the respondents but tailored to individual lives and positions within the place. Social connections are explored in Worlds within Reach which looks, not at family and friends, although these are certainly present in the data, but focuses on the less obvious connections to others who are a ‘part of the place’, those who form what I call a ‘peoples cape’ by which I mean a place of face-to-face relationships to known others. These people are the shopkeepers, neighbours and others who form a web of connections within a locality. The extent of this web across and through time is perhaps indicative of an embeddedness within the place. How people connect to the past and future through the material place is examined in Material Places. Here place is likened to Mau’s’ ‘gift’ with inalienable connections to past and future generations. The unfolding of these three data chapters can be seen as an unpeeling of layers of belonging, from the outermost layer of a cognitive, visually imagined place, through intersubjective 152 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

connections to other emplaced and embodied people to finally reach the materiality of the place, the core element of an ontological belonging, where past, present and future collide in buildings, worn paving stones and the swings in the park. Together these dimensions of belonging make a significant contribution to knowledge through this framework of imagined places, ‘peoples cape’ and place as inalienable gift. In order to investigate the way belonging in place is ‘done’ I needed to gain a good understanding of the life-worlds of the participants. To do this I undertook a variety of qualitative methods of data collection, to give a three dimensional view of these people’s lives, encompassing Miller’s three dimensions of ontological belonging. 5.7 CLAN A clan is a group of people united by actual or perceived kinshipand descent. Even if lineage details are unknown, clan members may be organized around a founding member or apical ancestor. Clans, in indigenous societies, tend to be endogamous, meaning that their members can marry one another. Clans preceded more centralized forms of community organization and government, and exist in every country. Members may identify with a coat of arms or other symbol to show that they are an independent clan. The kinship-based bonds may also have a symbolic ancestor, whereby the clan shares a \"stipulated\" common ancestor that is a symbol of the clan's unity. When this \"ancestor\" is non-human, it is referred to as a totem, which is frequently an animal. In different cultures and situations, a clan usually has different meaning than other kin-based groups, such as tribes and bands. Often, the distinguishing factor is that a clan is a smaller, integral part of a larger society such as a tribe, chiefdom, or a state. In some societies, clans may have an official leader such as a chief, matriarch or patriarch; or such leadership role is performed by elders. In others, leadership positions may have to be achieved. Examples include Irish, Scottish, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese clans, which exist as kin groups within their respective nations. Note, however, that tribes and bands can also be components of larger societies. The early Norse clans, the letter, are often translated as \"house\" or \"line\". The Biblical tribes of Israel were composed of many clans. Arab clans are sub-tribal groups within Arab society. Native American and First Nations peoples, often referred to as \"tribes\", also have clans. For instance, Ojibwa bands are smaller parts of the Ojibwa people or tribe in North America. The many Native American peoples are distinguished by language and culture, and most have clans and bands as the basic kinship organizations. In some cases tribes recognized each other's clans; for instance, both the Chickasaw and Choctaw tribes of the Southeast United States had fox and bear clans, who felt a kinship that reached beyond their respective tribes. Apart from these different historical traditions of kinship, conceptual confusion arises from colloquial usages of the term. In post-Soviet countries, for example, it is quite common to speak of \"clans\" in reference to informal networks within the economic and political sphere. 153 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

This usage reflects the assumption that their members act towards each other in a particularly close and mutually supportive way, approximating the solidarity among kinsmen. Similar usage of the term applies to specific groups of various cultures and nationalities involved in organized crime. Polish clans differ from most others as they are a collection of families who bear the same coat of arms, as opposed to claiming a common descent. There are multiple closely related clans in the Indian subcontinent, especially South India. Clan, kin group used as an organizational device in many traditional societies. Membership in a clan is traditionally defined in terms of descent from a common ancestor. This descent is usually unilineal, or derived only through the male or the female (matriclan) line. Normally, but not always, the clans are exogamous, or out-marrying: marriage within the clan is forbidden and regarded as a form of incest. Clans may segment into sub clans or lineages, and genealogical records or myths may be altered to incorporate new members who have no biological relation to the clan. Until the later 20th century, clans were a phenomenon of great interest to anthropologists, but since then they have generally become less important in analyses of cultural organization. From a functional perspective, clans help to unify groups by cross-cutting other forms of social organization, such as the settlement, post marital residence patterns, or age sets. Allied clans generally have reciprocal relations, providing each other with mutual support and defence and with emotionally or financially taxing services such as funerals. Some clans express their unity in terms of the possession of a common emblem, which may represent the ancestral being or common origin of the members and, as such, is often an object of reverence. All the lineal descendants of the family are introduced by the name. A clan is never constituted by combining the lineages of both the mother and father. It is unilateral. It may be either of matrilineal or patrilineal lineage. Several lineages, together constitute a clan. Clan names are based on various grounds. It may be after a saint, totem, and place or even on the basis of a substitute name. Clan is an exogamous division of a tribe, the members of which are held to be related to one another by some common ties; it may be belief in descent from common possession of a common totem or habitation of a common territory. Thus, in brief, clan is that collection of unilateral families whose members believe themselves to be the common descendants of a real or mythical ancestor. Majumdar and Madan have defined clan by saying that, “A sib or clan is often a combination of few lineages and descent who may be ultimately traced to a mythical ancestor, who may be a human or human like animal, plant or even in animate”. William P. Scott writes, clan refers to “a unilateral kin-group based on either matrilineal or patrilineal descent. 154 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

According to R. N. Sharma, “A clan is that collection of unilateral families whose members believe themselves to be the common descendants of a real or mythical ancestor”. A clan is based on strong ‘We feeling’. The authority of the head of the clan is accepted. He exercises control on the entire property and functions also as the priest. Clan is an exogamous social group. 5.8 LINEAGE Lineage, descent group reckoned through only one parent, either the father (patrilineage) or the mother (matrilineage). All members of a lineage trace their common ancestry to a single person. A lineage may comprise any number of generations but commonly is traced through some 5 or 10. Notionally, lineages are exclusive in their membership. In practice, however, many cultures have methods for bestowing lineage membership on individuals who are not genetically related to the lineage progenitor. The most common of these is adoption, although other forms of fictive kinship are also used. Lineages are normally corporate, meaning that their members exercise rights in common and are subject to obligations collectively. Lineage structure may be regarded as a branching process, as when two or three founders of small lineages are represented as brothers or sisters. The groups thus constitute a single larger lineage in which the smaller groups are segments. This structure may lend stability to a society; the lineages are considered permanent groups and thus perpetuate concomitant political and religious relationships over time. In societies lacking central political authority, territorial groups often organize themselves around lineages; as these are usually exogamous, or out-marrying, marriage becomes a means of bringing together otherwise unrelated groups. Lineage is understood as a principle on the basis of which alignment or inheritance is chosen in a linear fashion. Such an arrangement is called a line or lineage. Most common forms of which are patrilineage and matrilineage. It gives rise to descent groups that are linear in character. It also refers to a particular type of kin group (Kula in Indian system) in which members have a common ancestor whose identity is known and who is generally considered as the founder of the group. In lineage, the common ancestor of lineage members is usually an actual remembered person. In case of lineage, one can trace one’s ancestors whereas in case of descent one often fails to trace one’s ancestors and the ancestor could be substituted by a mythical one symbolizing the origin of one’s descent. 5.9 SUMMARY  Goethe’s novel is the story of a couple, Eduard and Charlotte (landed gentry, both in their second marriage) and the changes that follow when two new people are added to their household: Eduard’s best friend, referred to throughout as ‘Captain’, and Otilia, Charlotte’s niece. Quite predictably (and this seems to be part of Goethe’s point), 155 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

Eduard falls in love with Otilia, and Charlotte develops an intense attraction for the Captain. If this is not sufficiently to be expected, Goethe foreshadows these events with a conversation between Charlotte, Eduard and the Captain about “elective affinity”. Goethe uses this discussion as a means of reflecting on, and having the characters reflect on, the nature of affinity, or Verwandtschaften (which can simply mean family relations) and to develop a theory of the ‘chemistry’ that draws pairs together— and that can break apart previously bonded couples. Near the beginning of the novel, Charlotte asks the two men, who had been discussing some scientific matter, to explain to her the meaning of “elective affinity”, and an elaborate conversation follows. In the course of this conversation, Goethe develops a foreshadowing of the events of the novel, and a ‘chemistry’ of social relations. The Captain begins by explaining to Charlotte that in nature, everything is “drawn to itself”, a basic scientific principle in the early 19th Century: Think of water, oil, or mercury and you will see a unity, a coherence in their composition. From this United States they will never depart, unless by force or some other intervention. Remove that force and they once restore themselves to wholeness’.  The Captain explains to Charlotte that affinity indicates the oft noted tendency that “like attracts like”. Charlotte adds that she has noticed this phenomenon—raindrops form together into streams and quicksilver (mercury) beads quickly unite with one 10 another into larger beads. Charlotte senses that she did know something about affinity after all, and interjects: ‘Let me run ahead…and see if I can guess what you are aiming at. Just as everything has an attraction to itself so too there must be a relationship with other things.’ ‘And that will vary according to the different natures of the things concerned,’ said Eduard in haste. ‘Sometimes they will meet as friends and old acquaintances and come together quickly and be united without either altering the other at all, as wine for example mixes with water. But others will remain strangers’ side by side and will never be united even if mechanically ground and mixed.  Thus oil and water shaken together will immediately separate again’. The discussion quickly picks up two additional themes that go beyond the principle of homophily. The first is that in the same way that like attracts like, opposites are typically repelled by each other: “You can’t mix oil and water”. Of particular importance is the second theme, introduced here by Eduard: there is an anthropomorphic analogy between chemistry and social relations (indeed much of the discussion uses terms derived from social relations). Some elements quickly develop friendly relationships and unite with the other, Eduard explains. Some, on the other hand, will not “mix” even if they are immediately in one another’s presence. They repel one another, remaining strangers.  Charlotte is none too happy to hear her husband suggesting that “separations” (“that unhappy word…which we hear all too often in our world today”) occur in nature, and 156 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

could then be seen as ‘natural’ in human relations. According to Captain, the important thing is not the separation, but rather the “new combination”, the new coupling that follows the divorce. When this happens, he says, the elements that have been drawn together to form this new relationship have clearly made a choice, and we are justified using the term “elective affinity”, because “it really does seem as though one relationship were preferred to another and a choice made for one over the other” . In the discussion between Charlotte, Eduard and the Captain, Goethe has developed the idea of both affinity and elective affinity in ways that are directly relevant for helping us understand Weber’s usage of these terms. Affinity expresses first of all a certain similarity and can be observed in attraction of same and same (water, mercury), or at least similar, such that they have the ability to meet “as acquaintances and old friends” (wine and water). Others are inclined to repel each other, unless they are bound by a chemical reaction. In the case of human groups that tend to repel each other, the nobility and the third-estate, they may be joined, but only by force of custom or law. These however, cannot be said to have an affinity for each other, they are different and act upon each other only to repel the other.  This conversation about the nature of elective affinities between three of the four principle characters foreshadows the events which will unfold when the fourth character arrives. The Captain’s description of the effect of elective affinity on four elements soon finds parallel in their own lives: Imagine an A closely bound to a B and by a variety of means and even by force not able to be separated from it; imagine a C with a similar relationship to a D; now bring the pairs into contact; A will go over to D, C to B without our being able to say who first left the other, who first with another was united again. Soon Charlotte’s niece Otilia will arrive, and before long we will sense the attraction between her and Eduard, and the growing mutual affection of Charlotte and the Captain.  In the conversation that foreshadows the events as well as in the rest of the novel it is clear that the chain of reactions is set off precisely by the arrival of D (Ottilie). There is never indication of a bond forming between Charlotte and the Captain until attraction between Eduard and Ottilie begins to pull Eduard from Charlotte. As in a chemical equation, the bonds created between two elements create a substance that may be very different than either of the elements so united. But such merging of the two people (such as the “two joined as one” of a marriage bond) creates a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, and the parts themselves can sometimes be indistinguishable from one another.  Much of the rest of the novel is not directly applicable for understanding Weber’s use of ‘elective affinity’. However, there is a miraculous product that results from the elective affinity of Eduard and Ottilie, Charlotte and the Captain, and this needs to be mentioned. As the attractions have begun to powerfully draw in the characters, 157 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

Eduard and Charlotte spend the night together; each of them, however, imagines their new elective affinity. Nine months later, after Eduard and Charlotte have separated, Charlotte gives birth to a child. The child, however, looks like the Captain and Ottilie, not Eduard and Charlotte—this is a source of amazement to everyone who looks at the child, including his two biological parents. The child is a product of the elective affinity, as Charlotte said earlier of the chemical reactions, “they seem to me not so much blood relations as related in spirit and in the soul”. In the elective affinities, it is not possible to identify the cause’ in the sense that this term is used in much of contemporary social science. The two forces attract and act upon one another such that “it would not have been possible to say who first seized hold of the other”.  An elective affinity often involves a break with a previous relationship, as Eduard puts it: “I know very well that relationships of this kind are neither annulled nor formed unless things fall that are at present standing, and unless things shift that only desire to stay”. The events result from the addition of Ottilie; she cannot, however, be said to be the cause of the events, which are brought about by a complex of attractions between the four characters. Elective affinity may involve similarity (upon which the principle of ‘like attracts like’ is based) or it may not (as in the case of acids and alkali); in either case, the attraction is clearly demonstrated by the ‘choice’ that each makes for one substance over another. If it is based on similarity, then it can be seen as an extension of affinity, if it is different, or even opposite, then it can become the basis for, as Charlotte says, an ‘intenser union’. Goethe’s book, while recognising that attraction among opposites (the sexes, for example) can be powerful, tends to emphasise the election of affinities, the attraction of those substances, or people, that share a spiritual likeness 5.10 KEYWORDS  Economy - The institution responsible for the production and distribution of goods and services.  Education - The institution responsible for preparing young people for a functional place in adult life and for transmitting culture from one generation to the next.  Ethnomethodology - A theoretical perspective formulated by Garfinkel that examines how people background assumptions help them make sense of everyday situations.  Formal Organization- A secondary group that is organized to achieve specific goals and tends to be large and impersonal.  Gender Role- A set of behaviours, attitudes, and personality characteristics expected and encouraged of a person based on his or her sex. 158 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

5.11 LEARNING ACTIVITY 1. Create a session on Heritability and Resemblance. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 2. Create a survey on Significance and A Brief Understanding of Incest. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 5.12 UNIT END QUESTIONS A. Descriptive Questions Short Questions 1. What is meant by Heritability? 2. What is Resemblance? 3. Describe the term Intangible? 4. Define the term Ethereal Affinities? 5. Write down the meaning of Kinship? Long Questions 1. Explain the significance of Kinship. 2. Discuss the Significance of Incest. 3. Illustrate the concept of Affinity. 4. Describeabout the Clan. 5. Examine the overview of Lineage. B. Multiple Choice Questions 1. Which is the language from which the term Gemeinschaft is derived? a. German b. Latin c. Spanish d. Greek 2. Which is the language from which the term Gesellschaftsis derived? 159 a. Greek CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

b. Hindi c. Latin d. Sanskrit 3. What is the meaning of the term Gemeinschaft? a. Community b. Caste c. Group d. Clan 4. What is the meaning of the term Gesellschafts in social science? a. Group b. Society c. Kin d. Community 5. Which is the thought system conceptualizes the sociology is the combination of different branches of knowledge? a. Formalistic School b. Specialistic School c. Synthetic school d. Chicago School Answers 1-a, 2-c, 3-a, 4-b, 5-c 5.13 REFERENCES References book  Dunbar, R. (2015). Social networks and their implications for community living for people with a learning disability. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 61(2), 101-106.  Dunning, T. (2009). Aging, Activities, & the Internet. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 33, 263- 264. 160 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

 Ebbesen, E. B., Kjos, G. L., & Konecni, V. J. (1976). Spatial ecology: Its effects on the choice of friends and enemies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 505–518. Textbook references  Elliott, B. (2009). Theories of Community in Habermas, Nancy and Agamben: A Critical Evaluation. Philosophy Compass, 4(6), 893-903.  Faruque, F. S., Lofton, S. P., Doddato, T. M., & Mangum, C. (2003). Utilizing Geographic Information Systems in Community Assessment and Nursing Research. Journal of community health nursing, 20(3), 179-191.  Gochenour, P. H. (2006). Distributed Communities and Nodal Subjects. New Media & Society, 8(1), 33-51. Website  https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/tribes/essay-on-clan-tribal-society-india/4415  https://www.britannica.com/topic/consanguinity  https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/kinship-and-family/kinship-meaning- types-and-other-details/34960 161 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

UNIT 6 – POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS PART I STRUCTURE 6.0 Learning Objectives 6.1 Introduction 6.2 State 6.2.1 State and Society under Capitalism 6.2.2 State and Society under Socialism 6.3 Government and Political Parties 6.3.1 Ideological Spectrum 6.3.2 Structure of Competition 6.3.3 State Party Systems in State Legislatures 6.4 Features and Functions 6.5 Summary 6.6 Keywords 6.7 Learning Activity 6.8 Unit End Questions 6.9 References 6.0 LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this unit, you will be able to:  Describeabout theState and Society Under Capitalism.  Illustrate the concept of State and Society under Socialism.  Explain the concept of Ideological Spectrum. 6.1 INTRODUCTION Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, and democratic control, such as workers' self-management of enterprises. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems. Social ownership can be public, 162 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

collective, cooperative, or of equity. While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element. The types of socialism vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, on the structure of management in organizations, and from below or from above approaches, with some socialists favouring a party, state, or technocratic-driven approach. Socialists disagree on whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change. Socialist systems are divided into non-market and market forms. Non-market socialism substitutes factor markets and money with integrated economic planning and engineering or technical criteria based on calculation performed in-kind, thereby producing a different economic mechanism that functions according to different economic laws and dynamics than those of capitalism. A non-market socialist system eliminates the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with capital accumulation and the profit system in capitalism. The socialist calculation debate, originated by the economic calculation problem, concerns the feasibility and methods of resource allocation for a planned socialist system. By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and in some cases the profit motive, with respect to the operation of socially owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend. Anarchism and libertarian socialism oppose the use of the state as a means to establish socialism, favouring decentralisation above all, whether to establish non-market socialism or market socialism. Socialist politics has been both internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organised through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions and at other times independent and critical of them; and present in both industrialised and developing nations. While retaining socialism as a long-term goal, since the post-war period it has come to embrace a Keynesian mixed economy within a predominantly developed capitalist market economy and liberal democratic polity that expands state intervention to include income redistribution, regulation and a welfare state. Economic democracy proposes a sort of market socialism, with more democratic control of companies, currencies, investments and natural resources. The socialist political movement includes a set of political philosophies that originated in the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 18th century and out of concern for the social problems that were associated with capitalism. By the late 19th century, after the work of Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels, socialism had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for a post-capitalist system based on some form of social ownership of the means of production. By the 1920s, communism and social democracy had become the two dominant political tendencies within the international socialist movement, with socialism 163 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

itself becoming the most influential secular movement of the 20th century. Socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence on all continents, heading national governments in many countries around the world. Today, many socialists have also adopted the causes of other social movements such as environmentalism, feminism and progressivism. While the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally socialist state led to socialism's widespread association with the Soviet economic model, some economists and intellectuals argued that in practice the model functioned as a form of state capitalism or a non-planned administrative or command economy. Several academics, political commentators and scholars have distinguished between authoritarian socialist and democratic socialist states, with the first representing the Soviet Bloc and the latter representing Western Bloc countries which have been democratically governed by socialist parties such as Britain, France, Sweden and Western social- democracies in general, among others For Andrew Vincent, \"the word 'socialism' finds its root in the Latin sociare, which means to combine or to share. The related, more technical term in Roman and then medieval law was societies. This latter word could mean companionship and fellowship as well as the more legalistic idea of a consensual contract between freemen\". Initial use of the term Socialism was claimed by Pierre Leroux who alleged he first used the term in the Parisian journal Le Globe in 1832. Leroux was a follower of Henri de Saint- Simon, one of the founders of what would later be labelled utopian socialism. Socialism contrasted with the liberal doctrine of individualism that emphasized the moral worth of the individual whilst stressing that people act or should act as if they are in isolation from one another. The original utopian socialists condemned this doctrine of individualism for failing to address social concerns during the Industrial Revolution, including poverty, oppression and vast wealth inequality. They viewed their society as harming community life by basing society on competition. They presented socialism as an alternative to liberal individualism based on the shared ownership of resources. Saint-Simon proposed economic planning, scientific administration and the application of scientific understanding to the organisation of society. By contrast, Robert Owen proposed to organise production and ownership via cooperatives. Socialism is also attributed in France to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud while in Britain it is associated to Owen, who became one of the fathers of the cooperative movement. The definition and usage of socialism settled by the 1860s, replacing associations, co- operative and mutualist that had been used as synonyms while communism fell out of use during this period. An early distinction between communism and socialism was that the latter aimed to only socialise production while the former aimed to socialise both production and consumption (in the form of free access to final goods). By 1888, Marxists employed socialism in place of communism as the latter had come to be considered an old-fashioned 164 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

synonym for socialism. It was not until after the Bolshevik Revolution that socialism was appropriated by Vladimir Lenin to mean a stage between capitalism and communism. He used it to defend the Bolshevik program from Marxist criticism that Russia's productive forces were not sufficiently developed for communism. The distinction between communism and socialism became salient in 1918 after the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party renamed itself to the All-Russian Communist Party, interpreting communism specifically to mean socialists who supported the politics and theories of Bolshevism, Leninism and later that of Marxism–Leninism, although communist parties continued to describe themselves as socialists dedicated to socialism. According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, \"Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, Communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that 'socialism' and 'Communism' are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death\". In Christian Europe, communists were believed to have adopted atheism. In Protestant England, communism was too close to the Roman Catholic communion rite, hence socialist was the preferred term. Engels argued that in 1848, when The Communist Manifesto was published, socialism was respectable in Europe while communism was not. The Owenites in England and the Fourierists in France were considered respectable socialists while working- class movements that \"proclaimed the necessity of total social change\" denoted themselves communists. This branch of socialism produced the communist work of Étienne Cabet in France and Wilhelm Weitling in Germany. British moral philosopher John Stuart Mill discussed a form of economic socialism within a liberal context that would later be known as liberal socialism. In later editions of his Principles of Political Economy , Mill further argued that \"as far as economic theory was concerned, there is nothing in principle in economic theory that precludes an economic order based on socialist policies “and promoted substituting capitalist businesses with worker cooperatives. While democrats looked to the Revolutions of 1848 as a democratic revolution which in the long run ensured liberty, equality and fraternity, Marxists denounced it as a betrayal of working-class ideals by a bourgeoisie indifferent to the proletariat. 6.2 STATE States come in many shapes and sizes. Democracies and dictatorships, those that provide lots of social welfare, those that provide none at all, some that allow for a lot of individual freedom and others that don't. But these categories are not set in stone. Democracies and dictatorships rise and fall, welfare systems are set up and taken apart while civil liberties can be expanded or eroded. 165 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

Figure 6.1: State All states have the same basic functions in that they are an organisation of all the law making and law enforcing institutions within a specific territory. And, most importantly, it is an organisation controlled and run by a small minority of people. So sometimes, a state will consist of a parliament with elected politicians, a separate court system and a police force and military to enforce their decisions. At other times, all these functions are rolled into each other, like in military dictatorships for example. But the ability within a given area to make political and legal decisions – and to enforce them, with violence if necessary – is the basic characteristic of all states. Crucially, the state claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, within its territory and without. As such, the state is above the people it governs and all those within its territory are subject to it. In a capitalist society, the success or failure of a state depends unsurprisingly on the success of capitalism within it. Essentially, this means that within its territory profits are made so the economy can expand. The government can then take its share in taxation to fund its activities. If businesses in a country are making healthy profits, investment will flow into profitable industries, companies will hire workers to turn their investment into more money. They and their workers will pay taxes on this money which keep the state running. But if profits dip, investment will flow elsewhere to regions where profits will be higher. Companies will shut down, workers will be laid off, tax revenues will fall and local economies collapse. So promoting profit and the growth of the economy is the key task of any state in capitalist society - including state capitalist economies which claim to be \"socialist\", like China or Cuba. Read our introduction to capitalism here. 166 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

The primary need of a sound capitalist economy is the existence of a group of people able to work, to turn capitalists' money into more money: a working class. This requires the majority of the population to have been dispossessed from the land and means of survival, so that the only way they can survive is by selling their ability to work to those who can buy it. This dispossession has taken place over the past few hundred years across the world. In the early days of capitalism, factory owners had a major problem in getting peasants, who could produce enough to live from the land, to go and work in the factories. To solve this, the state violently forced the peasants off common land, passed laws forbidding vagrancy and forced them to work in factories under threat of execution. Today, this has already happened to the vast majority of people around the world. However, in some places in the so-called \"developing\" world, the state still plays this role of displacing people to open new markets for investors. Read our introduction to class here. Different states perform many different tasks, from providing free school meals to upholding religious orthodoxy. But as we mentioned above, the primary function of all states in a capitalist society is to protect and promote the economy and the making of profit. However, as businesses are in constant competition with each other, they can only look after their own immediate financial interests – sometimes damaging the wider economy. As such, the state must sometimes step in to look after the long-term interests of the economy as a whole. So states educate and train the future workforce of their country and build infrastructure (railways, public transport systems etc) to get us to work and transport goods easily. States sometimes protect national businesses from international competition by taxing their goods when they come into the country or expand their markets internationally through wars and diplomacy with other states. Other times they give tax breaks and subsidies to industries, or sometimes bail them out entirely if they are too important to fail. These measures sometimes clash with the interests of individual businesses or industries. However, this doesn't change the fact that the state is acting in the interests of the economy as a whole. Indeed, it can be seen basically as a way to settle disputes among different capitalists about how to do it. Some states also provide many services which protect people from the worst effects of the economy. However, this has rarely, if ever, been the result of generosity from politicians but of pressure from below. So for instance, after World War II, the UK saw the construction of the welfare state, providing healthcare, housing etc to those that needed it. However, this was because of fear amongst politicians that the end of the war would see the same revolutionary upheaval as after World War I with events like the Russian and German revolutions, the Biennia Rosso in Italy, the British army mutinies etc. 167 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

This fear was justified. Towards the end of the war, unrest amongst the working classes of the warring nations grew. Homeless returning soldiers took over empty houses while strikes and riots spread. Tory MP Quintin Hogg summed up the mood amongst politicians in 1943, saying “if we don't give them reforms, they will give us revolution.” This does not mean reforms are 'counter-revolutionary'. It just means that the state is not the engine for reform; we, the working class – and more specifically, our struggles – are. When our struggles get to a point where they cannot be ignored or repressed anymore, the state steps in to grant reforms. We then end up spending the next 100 years hearing people go on about what a 'great reformer' so-and-so was, even though it was our struggles which forced those reforms onto them. When as a class we are organised and militant, social reforms are passed. But as militancy is repressed or fades away, our gains are chipped away at. Public services are cut and sold off bit-by-bit, welfare benefits are reduced, fees for services are introduced or increased and wages are cut. As such, the amount of welfare and public service provision to the working class in a society basically marks the balance of power between bosses and workers. For example, the French working class has a higher level of organisation and militancy than the American working class. As a result, French workers also generally have better conditions at work, a shorter working week, earlier retirement and better social services (i.e. healthcare, education etc) -regardless of whether there is a right or left wing government in power. However, faced with the realities of being in Parliament, and therefore the dependence on a healthy capitalist economy they quickly abandoned their principles and consistently supported anti-working class policies both in opposition and later in government. From supporting the imperialist slaughter of World War I, to murdering workers abroad to maintain the British Empire, to slashing workers' wages to sending troops against striking dockers. When the working class was on the offensive, Labour granted some reforms, as did the other parties. But, just like the other parties, when the working class retreated they eroded the reforms and attacked living standards. For example just a few years after the introduction of the free National Health Service Labour introduced prescription charges, then charges for glasses and false teeth. As outlined, this was not because Labour Party members or officials were necessarily bad people but because at the end of the day they were politicians whose principle task was to keep the UK economy competitive in the global market. 6.2.1 State and Society under Capitalism State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes business and commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are nationalized as state-owned enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, centralized management and wage labour). 168 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

The definition can also include the state dominance of corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along business-management practices) or of public companies such as publicly listed corporations in which the state has controlling shares. Marxist literature defines state capitalism as a social system combining capitalism with ownership or control by a state. By this definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production. This designation applies regardless of the political aims of the state, even if the state is nominally socialist. Many scholars agree that the economy of the Soviet Union and of the Eastern Bloc countries modelled after it, including Maoist China, were state capitalist systems, and some western commentators believe that the current economies of China and Singapore also constitutes a form of state capitalism. State capitalism is used by various authors in reference to a private capitalist economy controlled by a state, i.e. a private economy that is subject to economic planning and interventionism. It has also been used to describe the controlled economies of the Great Powers during World War I. Alternatively, state capitalism may refer to an economic system where the means of production are privately owned, but the state has considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment. This was the case of Western European countries during the post-war consensus and of France during the period of dirigisme after World War II. Other examples include Hungary under Viktor Orbán, Russia under Vladimir Putin, Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew and Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as well as military dictatorships during the Cold War and fascist regimes such as Nazi Germany. State capitalism has also come to be used to describe a system where the state intervenes in the economy to protect and advance the interests of large-scale businesses. Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism' to the economy of the United States, where large enterprises that are deemed \"too big to fail\" receive publicly funded government bailouts that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws, and where private production is largely funded by the state at public expense, but private owners reap the profits. This practice is held in contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism. There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which existed before the October Revolution. The common themes among them identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production and that capitalist social relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism, fundamentally retaining the capitalist mode of production. In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Friedrich Engels argued that state ownership does not do away with capitalism by itself, but rather would be the final stage of capitalism, consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and 169 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

communication by the bourgeois state. He argued that the tools for ending capitalism are found in state capitalism. In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin claimed that World War I had transformed laissez-faire capitalism into the monopolist state capitalism. If the crisis revealed the incapacity of the bourgeoisie any longer to control the modern productive forces, the conversion of the great organizations for production and communication into joint-stock companies and state property shows that for this purpose the bourgeoisie can be dispensed with. All the social functions of the capitalists are now carried out by salaried employees. The capitalist has no longer any social activity save the pocketing of revenues, the clipping of coupons, and gambling on the stock exchange, where the different capitalists fleece each other of their capital. Just as at first the capitalist mode of production displaced the workers, so now it displaces the capitalists, relegating them to the superfluous population even if not in the first instance to the industrial reserve army. But neither the conversion into joint stock companies nor into state property deprives the productive forces of their character as capital. In the case of joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, too, is only the organization with which bourgeois society provides itself in order to maintain the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against encroachments either by the workers or by individual capitalists. The modern state, whatever its form, is then the state of the capitalists, the ideal collective body of all the capitalists. The more productive forces it takes over as its property, the more it becomes the real collective body of the capitalists, the more citizens it exploits. The workers remain wage-earners, proletarians. The capitalist relationship isn't abolished; it is rather pushed to the extreme. But at this extreme it is transformed into its opposite. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but it contains within itself the formal means, the key to the solution. Engels described state capitalism as a new form or variant of capitalism. In 1896, following Engels, the German Social Democrat Wilhelm Liebknecht said: \"Nobody has combated State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I that State Socialism is really State capitalism.\" It has been suggested that the concept of state capitalism can be traced back to Mikhail Bakunin's critique during the First International of the potential for state exploitation under Marxist-inspired socialism, or to Jan Waclav Machajski's argument in The Intellectual Worker that socialism was a movement of the intelligentsia as a class, resulting in a new type of society he termed state capitalism. For anarchists, state socialism is equivalent to state capitalism, hence oppressive and merely a shift from private capitalists to the state being the sole employer and capitalist. In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and Imperialism and World Economy, both Vladimir Lenin and Nikolai Bukharin, respectively, had similarly identified the growth of state capitalism as one of the main features of capitalism in its imperialist epoch. In The State and Revolution, Lenin wrote that \"the erroneous bourgeois reformist assertion that monopoly capitalism or state-monopoly capitalism is no longer capitalism, but can now be called \"state 170 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

socialism\" and so on, is very common”. During World War I, using Lenin's idea that tsarism was taking a Prussian path to capitalism, the Bolshevik Nikolai Bukharin identified a new stage in the development of capitalism in which all sectors of national production and all important social institutions had become managed by the state—he termed this new stage state capitalism. After the October Revolution, Lenin used the term state capitalism positively. In spring 1918, during a brief period of economic liberalism prior to the introduction of war communism and again during the New Economic Policy (NEP) of 1921, Lenin justified the introduction of state capitalism controlled politically by the dictatorship of the proletariat to further central control and develop the productive forces. Figure 6.2: State and Society under Capitalism Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labour.In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by owners of wealth, property, or production ability in capital and financial markets—whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets. Economists, historians, political economists and sociologists have adopted different perspectives in their analyses of capitalism and have recognized various forms of it in practice. These include laissez-faire or free-market capitalism, state capitalism and welfare capitalism. Different forms of capitalism feature varying degrees of free markets, public ownership,obstacles to free competition and state-sanctioned social policies. The degree of competition in markets and the role of intervention and regulation as well as the scope of state ownership vary across different models of capitalism.The extent to which different markets are free and the rules defining private property are matters of politics and policy. 171 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

Most of the existing capitalist economies are mixed economies that combine elements of free markets with state intervention and in some cases economic planning. Market economies have existed under many forms of government and in many different times, places and cultures. Modern capitalist societies developed in Western Europe in a process that led to the Industrial Revolution. Capitalist systems with varying degrees of direct government intervention have since become dominant in the Western world and continue to spread. Economic growth is a characteristic tendency of capitalist economies. Critics of capitalism argue that it concentrates power in the hands of a minority capitalist class that exists through the exploitation of the majority working class and their labour; prioritizes profit over social good, natural resources and the environment; is an engine of inequality, corruption and economic instabilities; is anti-democratic; and that many are not able to access its purported benefits and freedoms, such as freely investing. Supporters argue that it provides better products and innovation through competition, promotes pluralism and decentralization of power, disperses wealth to people who are able to invest in useful enterprises based on market demands, allows for a flexible incentive system where efficiency and sustainability are priorities to protect capital, creates strong economic growth, and yields productivity and prosperity that greatly benefit society. Capitalism in its modern form can be traced to the emergence of agrarian capitalism and mercantilism in the early Renaissance, in city-states like Florence.Capital has existed incipiently on a small scale for centuriesin the form of merchant, renting and lending activities and occasionally as small-scale industry with some wage labour. Simple commodity exchange and consequently simple commodity production, which is the initial basis for the growth of capital from trade, have a very long history. Arabs promulgated capitalist economic policies such as free trade and banking. Their use of Indo-Arabic numerals facilitated bookkeeping. These innovations migrated to Europe through trade partners in cities such as Venice and Pisa. The Italian mathematician Fibonacci travelled the Mediterranean talking to Arab traders and returned to popularize the use of Indo-Arabic numerals in Europe. 6.2.2 State and Society under Socialism State socialism is a political and economic ideology within the socialist movement advocating state ownership of the means of production, either as a temporary measure or as a characteristic of socialism in the transition from the capitalist to the socialist mode of production or communist society. Aside from anarchists and other libertarian socialists, there was in the past confidence amongst socialists in the concept of state socialism as being the most effective form of socialism. Some early social democrats in the late 19th century and early 20th century such as the Fabians claimed that British society was already mostly socialist and that the economy was significantly socialist through government-run enterprises created by conservative and 172 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

liberal governments which could be run for the interests of the people through their representatives' influence, an argument reinvoke by some socialists in post-war Britain.State socialism went into decline starting in the 1970s, with the discovery of stagflation during the 1970s energy crisis,the rise of neoliberalism and later with the fall of state socialist regimes in the Eastern Bloc during the Revolutions of 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union. As a term, state socialism is often used interchangeably with state capitalism in reference to the economic systems of Marxist–Leninist states such as the Soviet Union to highlight the role of state planning in these economies, with the critics of said system referring to it more commonly as state capitalism.Democratic and libertarian socialists claim that these states had only a limited number of socialist characteristics. However, others maintain that workers in the Soviet Union and other Marxist–Leninist states had genuine control over the means of production through institutions such as trade unions. Academics, political commentators and other scholars tend to distinguish between authoritarian state socialism and democratic state socialism, with the first representing the Soviet Bloc and the latter representing Western Bloc countries which have been democratically governed by socialist parties such as Britain, France, Sweden and Western social-democracies in general, among others. As a classification within the socialist movement, state socialism is held in contrast with libertarian socialism which rejects the view that socialism can be constructed by using existing state institutions or by governmental policies.By contrast, proponents of state socialism claim that the state—through practical considerations of governing—must play at least a temporary part in building socialism. It is possible to conceive of a democratic socialist state that owns the means of production and is internally organized in a participatory, cooperative fashion, thereby achieving both social ownership of productive property and democracy. Today, state socialism is mainly advocated by Marxist– Leninists and other socialists supporting a socialist state. The role of the state in socialism has divided the socialist movement. The philosophy of state socialism was first explicitly expounded by Ferdinand Lassalle. In contrast to Karl Marx's perspective, Lassalle rejected the concept of the state as a class-based power structure whose main function was to preserve existing class structures. Lassalle also rejected the Marxist view that the state was destined to \"wither away\". Lassalle considered the state to be an entity independent of class allegiances and as an instrument of justice that would therefore be essential for the achievement of socialism. Early concepts of state socialism were articulated by anarchist and libertarian philosophers who opposed the concept of the state. In Statism and Anarchy, Mikhail Bakunin identified a statist tendency within the Marxist movement which he contrasted to libertarian socialism and attributed to Marx's philosophy. Bakunin predicted that Marx's theory of transition from capitalism to socialism involving the working class seizing state power in 173 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

a dictatorship of the proletariat would eventually lead to an usurpation of power by the state apparatus acting in its own self-interest, ushering in a new form of capitalism rather than establishing socialism. As a political ideology, state socialism rose to prominence during the 20th century Bolshevik, Leninist and later Marxist–Leninist revolutions where single-party control over the state and by extension over the political and economic spheres of society was justified as a means to safeguard the revolution against counter-revolutionary insurrection and foreign invasion.The Stalinist theory of socialism in one country was an attempt to legitimize state-directed activity in an effort to accelerate the industrialization of the Soviet Union. As a political ideology, state socialism is one of the major dividing lines in the broader socialist movement. It is often contrasted with non-state or anti-state forms of socialism such as those that advocate direct self-management adhocracy and direct cooperative ownership and management of the means of production. Political philosophies contrasted to state socialism include libertarian socialist philosophies such as anarchism, De Leonism, economic democracy, free-market socialism, libertarian Marxism and syndicalism. These forms of socialism are opposed to hierarchical technocratic socialism, scientific management and state-directed economic planning. The modern concept of state socialism, when used in reference to Soviet-style economic and political systems, emerged from a deviation in Marxist theory starting with Vladimir Lenin. In Marxist theory, socialism is projected to emerge in the most developed capitalist economies where capitalism suffers the greatest amount of internal contradictions and class conflict. On the other hand, state socialism became a revolutionary theory for the poorest, often quasi-feudal, countries of the world. In such systems, the state apparatus is used as an instrument of capital accumulation, forcibly extracting surplus from the working class and peasantry for the purposes of modernizing and industrializing poor countries. Such systems are described as state capitalism because the state engages in capital accumulation, mostly as part of the primitive accumulation of capital . The difference is that the state acts as a public entity and engages in this activity in order to achieve socialism by re-investing the accumulated capital into the society, whether be in more healthcare, education, employment or consumer goods, whereas in capitalist societies the surplus extracted from the working class is spent in whatever needs the owners of the means of production wants. In the traditional view of socialism, thinkers such as Friedrich Engels and Henri de Saint- Simon took the position that the state will change in nature in a socialist society, with the function of the state changing from one of political rule over people into a scientific administration of the processes of production. Specifically, the state would become a coordinating economic entity consisting of interdependent inclusive associations rather than a 174 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

mechanism of class and political control, in the process ceasing to be a state in the traditional definition. Preceding the Bolshevik-led revolution in Russia, many socialist groups such as anarchists, orthodox Marxist currents such as council communism and the Mensheviks, reformists and other democratic and libertarian socialists criticized the idea of using the state to conduct central planning and nationalization of the means of production as a way to establish socialism.. State socialism was traditionally advocated as a means for achieving public ownership of the means of production through nationalization of industry. This was intended to be a transitional phase in the process of building a socialist economy. The goals of nationalization were to dispossess large capitalists and consolidate industry so that profit would go toward public finance rather than private fortune. Nationalization would be the first step in a long-term process of socializing production, introducing employee management and reorganizing production to directly produce for use rather than profit. The British Fabian Society included proponents of state socialism such as Sidney Webb. George Bernard Shaw referred to Fabians as \"all Social Democrats, with a common confliction of the necessity of vesting the organization of industry and the material of production in a State identified with the whole people by complete Democracy”. Nonetheless, Shaw also published the Report on Fabian Policy, declaring: \"The Fabian Society does not suggest that the State should monopolize industry as against private enterprise or individual initiative”. Robert, a member of the Fabian Society and the Independent Labour Party, wrote the work Merrie England that endorsed municipal socialism.In Merrie England, Blatchford distinguished two types of socialism, namely an ideal socialism and a practical socialism. Blatchford's practical socialism was a state socialism that identified existing state enterprise such as the Post Office run by the municipalities as a demonstration of practical socialism in action while claiming that practical socialism should involve the extension of state enterprise to the means of production as common property of the people. Although endorsing state socialism, Blatchford's Merrie England and his other writings were nonetheless influenced by anarcho-communist William Morris—as Blatchford himself attested to—and Morris' anarcho-communist themes are present in Merrie England. Social democrats and other democratic socialists argue for a gradual, peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism. They wish to neutralize or to abolish capitalism, respectively, but through political reform rather than revolution. This method of gradualism implies utilization of the existing state apparatus and machinery of government to gradually move society toward socialism and is sometimes derided by other socialists as a form of socialism from above or political elitism for relying on electoral means to achieve socialism.In contrast, Marxism and revolutionary socialism holds that a proletarian revolution is the only practical way to implement fundamental changes in the structure of society. Socialists who advocate representative democracy believe that after a certain period of time under socialism 175 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

the state will \"wither away\" because class distinctions cease to exist and representative democracy would be replaced by direct democracy in the remaining public associations comprising the former state. Political power would be decentralized and distributed evenly among the population, producing a communist society. In 1888, the individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker, who proclaimed himself to be an anarchistic socialist in opposition to state socialism, included the full text of a \"Socialistic Letter\" by Ernest Lesigne in his essay \"State Socialism and Anarchism”. According to Lesigne, there are two socialisms: \"One is dictatorial, the other libertarian”. Tucker’s two socialisms were the state socialism which he associated to the Marxist school and the libertarian socialism that he advocated. Tucker noted that \"the fact that State Socialism has overshadowed other forms of Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic idea”. According to Tucker, what those two schools of socialism had in common was the labour theory of value and the ends, by which anarchism pursued different means. 6.3 GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL PARTIES A political party is an organization that coordinates candidates to compete in a specific country's elections. It is common for the members of a party to hold similar ideas about politics, and parties may promote specific ideological or policy goals. Political parties have become a major part of the politics of almost every country, as modern party organizations developed and spread around the world over the last few centuries. Some countries have only one political party while others have several. It is extremely rare for a country to have no political parties. Parties are important in the politics of autocracies as well as democracies, though usually democracies have more political parties than autocracies. Autocracies often have a single party that governs the country, and some political scientists consider competition between two or more parties to be an essential part of democracy. Parties can develop from existing divisions in society, like the divisions between lower and upper classes, and they streamline the process of making political decisions by encouraging their members to cooperate. Political parties usually include a party leader, who has primary responsibility for the activities of the party; party executives, who may select the leader and who perform administrative and organizational tasks; and party members, who may volunteer to help the party, donate money to it, and vote for its candidates. There are many different ways in which political parties can be structured and interact with the electorate. The contributions that citizens give to political parties are often regulated by law, and parties will sometimes govern in a way that favours the people who donate time and money to them. Many political parties are motivated by ideological goals. It is common for democratic elections to feature competitions between liberal, conservative, and socialist parties; other common ideologies of very large politicalparties include communism, populism, nationalism, 176 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

and Islamism. Political parties in different countries will often adopt similar colours and symbols to identify themselves with a particular ideology. However, many political parties have no ideological affiliation, and may instead be primarily engaged in patronage, clientelism, or the advancement of a specific political entrepreneur. Political parties are collective entities that organize competitions for political offices.The members of a political party contest elections under a shared label. In a narrow definition, a political party can be thought of as just the group of candidates who run for office under a party label.In a broader definition, political parties are the entire apparatus that supports the election of a group of candidates, including voters and volunteers who identify with a particular political party, the official party organizations that support the election of that party's candidates, and legislators in the government who are affiliated with the party. Political parties are distinguished from other political groups and clubs, such as political factions or interest groups, mostly by the fact that parties are focused on electing candidates whereas interest groups are focused on advancing a policy agenda.This is related to other features that sometimes distinguish parties from other political organizations, including a larger membership, greater stability over time, and deeper connection to the electorate. In many countries the notion of a political party is defined in law, and governments may specify requirements for an organization to legally qualify as a political party. In some definitions of political parties, a party is an organization that advances a specific set of ideological or policy goals, or that organizes people whose ideas about politics are similar.However, many political parties are not primarily motivated by ideology or policy; for example, political parties can be mainly clientelist or patronage-based organizations, or tools for advancing the career of a specific political entrepreneur. Political parties are easily one of the most visible institutions in a democracy. For most ordinary citizens, democracy is equal to political parties. If you travel to remote parts of our country and speak to the less educated citizens, you could come across people who may not know anything about our Constitution or about the nature of our government. But chances are that they would know something about our political parties. At the same time this visibility does not mean popularity. Most people tend to be very critical of political parties. They tend to blame parties for all that is wrong with our democracy and our political life. Parties have become identified with social and political divisions. Therefore, it is natural to ask – do we need political parties at all? About hundred years ago there were few countries of the world that had any political party. Now there are few that do not have parties. Why did political parties become so omnipresent in democracies all over the world? Let us first answer what political parties are and what they do, before we say why we need them. Political party, a group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power. Political parties originated in their modern form in Europe and the United States in the 19th century, along with the electoral and parliamentary systems, whose development reflects the evolution 177 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

of parties. The term party has since come to be applied to all organized groups seeking political power, whether by democratic elections or by revolution. In earlier, preRevolutionary, aristocratic and monarchical regimes, the political process unfolded within restricted circles in which cliques and factions, grouped around particular noblemen or influential personalities, were opposed to one another. The establishment of parliamentary regimes and the appearance of parties at first scarcely changed this situation. To cliques formed around princes, dukes, counts, or marquesses there were added cliques formed around bankers, merchants, industrialists, and businessmen. Regimes supported by nobles were succeeded by regimes supported by other elites. These narrowly based parties were later transformed to a greater or lesser extent, for in the 19th century in Europe and America there emerged parties depending on mass support. The 20th century saw the spread of political parties throughout the entire world. In less- developed countries, large modern political parties have sometimes been based on traditional relationships, such as ethnic, tribal, or religious affiliations. These last-mentioned European parties demonstrated an equal aptitude for functioning within multiparty democracies and as the sole political party in a dictatorship. Developing originally within the framework of liberal democracy in the 19th century, political parties have been used since the 20th century by dictatorships for entirely undemocratic purposes. 6.3.1 Ideological Spectrum The study of ideology in authoritarian regimes—of how public preferences are configured and constrained—has received relatively little scholarly attention. Using data from a large- scale online survey, we study ideology in China. We find that public preferences are weakly constrained, and the configuration of preferences is multidimensional, but the latent traits of these dimensions are highly correlated. Those who prefer authoritarian rule are more likely to support nationalism, state intervention in the economy, and traditional social values; those who prefer democratic institutions and values are more likely to support market reforms but less likely to be nationalistic and less likely to support traditional social values. This latter set of preferences appears more in provinces with higher levels of development and among wealthier and better-educated respondents. These findings suggest that preferences are not simply split along a proregime or ant regime cleavage and indicate a possible link between China’s economic reform and ideology. Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism that combines conservative values and policies with classical liberal stances. Historically, the term referred to combination of economic liberalism, which champions laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservatism concern for established tradition, respect for authority, and religious values. It contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres. 178 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

Libertarian conservatism describes certain political ideologies within the United States and Canada which combine libertarian economic issues with aspects of conservatism. Libertarian conservatives generally support strict laissez-faire policies such as free trade and oppose any national bank, regulations on businesses, environmental regulation, corporate subsidies, and other areas of economic intervention. Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt. Edmund Burke, in particular, argued that a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer. National conservatism concentrates more on national interests than standard conservatism, and it upholds cultural and ethnic identity. It is heavily oriented towards the traditional family and social stability, and it is in favour of limiting immigration. As such, national conservatives can be distinguished from economic conservatives, for whom free market economic policies, deregulation, and fiscal conservatism are the main priorities. Cultural conservativism the preservation of the heritage of one nation, or of a shared culture that is not defined by national boundaries. Cultural conservatives hold fast to traditional ways of thinking even in the face of monumental change. They believe strongly in traditional values and politics, and often have an urgent sense of nationalism. Social conservatism is distinct from cultural conservatism, although there are some overlaps. Social conservatives believe that the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing what they consider traditional values or behaviours. A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often through civil law or regulation. Social change is generally regarded as suspect. Religious conservatives principally seek to apply the teachings of particular religions to politics, sometimes by merely proclaiming the value of those teachings, and at other times by having those teachings influence laws. Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic policy. Both modern American conservatism and social liberalism split from Classical Liberalism in the early 20th century. At that time conservatives adopted the Classic Liberal beliefs in protecting economic civil liberties. Conversely social liberals adopted the Classical Liberal belief in defending social civil liberties. Neither ideology adopted the pure Classical Liberal belief that government exists to protect both social & economic civil liberties. Conservatism shares an ideological agreement on limited government in the area of preventing government restriction against economic civil liberties as embodied in the ability of people to sell their 179 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

goods, services or labour to anyone they choose free from restriction except in rare cases where society’s general welfare is at stake. While many modern scholars argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and modern liberalism exists, others disagree. According to William J. Novak, liberalism in the United States shifted in the late 19th and early 20th century from classical liberalism to “democratic social-welfarism”. This shift included qualified acceptance of government intervention in the economy and the collective right to equality in economic dealings. These theories came to be termed “liberal socialism”, which is related with social democracy in Europe. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, “In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies.” Consequently, in the U.S., the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism, became the basis for the emerging school of right-wing libertarian thought. 6.3.2 Structure of Competition Whether as model or foil, twentieth-century Western Europe sets the standard against which scholars in political science evaluate structures of political competition. It is therefore particularly important to have a detailed picture of those structures. But the diversity within the region, and the rapid changes in both the social context of politics and in the political articulation of society during the past decades have complicated the development of meaningful generalizations. The challenges of operationalization and measurement, and a still fluid conceptual vocabulary add to the complexity of the task and often make the communication across the field cumbersome. The articles in this volume advance the field by presenting new empirical data on the power of most relevant attitudinal and socio-demographic variables and by suggesting novel methods and conceptual approaches. The volume has its roots in the 2003 Edinburgh and 2007 Helsinki workshops of the European Consortium on Political Research and a variety of panels at the American Political Science Association annual meetings. These gatherings brought together scholars with an interest in the interaction between political parties, socio- demographic characteristics and ideological orientations from many countries and many sub- disciplines. The emphasis is therefore on variety, with a range of theoretical approaches and conceptual vocabularies. The findings sometimes reinforce one another and sometimes do not, but even the disagreements provide material for the volume's concluding section of provocative commentaries by senior scholars in the field. The empirical analyses presented in this volume provide a consistent picture of incremental change and weak-but-persistent relationships. They document that the issue space in most Western European countries continues to be structured around two axes, with a relatively 180 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

clear economic dimension and a far more diffuse cultural dimension whose content and significance fluctuates considerably depending on the period and context. They also show that the relationships between individuals' demographic characteristics, their values and their political choices are not insignificant and that education and occupation have eclipsed many of the traditional socio-demographic characteristics in structuring the vote. The first group of contributions, Stoll and Bornschier, research the value-defined space of party elites looking at party programs and media accounts across both space and time with multiple cases and multiple time periods. They find a continuing dominant socio-economic dimension of political competition but also, in almost all cases, a second dimension, though the authors disagree on the degree to which this dimension can be narrowed down to ‘cultural-identity’ politics. A related contribution by Henjak also looks at value orientations, but focuses on individual-level alignments between values and party vote in a large number of countries using public opinion survey data gathered during the early 2000s. Henjak finds a two-dimensional structure of competition but suggests a wide variety in the strength of the two dimensions as well as in the component elements of the second dimension from one country to the next. While Stoll and Bornschier ascribe an important role to parties in shaping the contours of the arena in which they compete, Henjak explores the interplay between deeper cultural and economic factors and the role of political leaders through their support for particular policies related to the welfare state. A second group of contributions add direct consideration of socio-demographic characteristics to the value and institutional variables. Stubager's study takes advantage of the focused scope of the case study method to document shifts in the relationship between socio- demographic categories and value orientations and party preference in one country – Denmark – over more than two decades of public opinion data. Dolezal's contribution documents the relationship between socio-demographics and value orientations for a single family of parties – the Greens – across Europe in public opinion data collected during the early 2000s. Both articles suggest that shifts in underlying socio-demographic characteristics, particularly increases in the share of the population with higher education, help to create new alignments, though both also suggest an important role for party responses to the demographic change. A third group of contributions look at the ways that the interactions among socio- demographic elements, value orientations and party choice are shaped by space and time. The article by Knutsen uses a combination of election results and opinion surveys from the early 2000s to test the degree to which regional patterns of party voting depend on various types of socio-demographic variables and value orientations. He finds that regional differences are to a considerable extent due to differences in class composition. The contribution by Van der Brug uses four rounds of opinion surveys from across Europe between the late 1980s and mid-2000s to test the degree to which relationships depend on time-period, cohort and life- cycle. He finds that the influence of class, religion and left–right orientation is in decline, 181 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

though the decline is not entirely secular. Finally, the contribution by Tóka and Gosselin uses survey data from the early 2000s to address the degree to which particular configurations of structural and value variables mobilize political behaviour and stabilize political choices over time. They demonstrate that the voters who are attracted to parties because of party-specific social and attitudinal variables are more loyal and politically more active than other citizens. These eight contributions serve as the basis for the volume's second section containing reviews of the volume and the field by four leading experts: Geoffrey Evans, Mark Franklin, Herbert Kitschiest, and Hans Peter Kriesi. These commentators graciously accepted our request not only for their synthetic thoughts on the volume and its relationship to their own work in the field but also for more polemic and speculative thoughts on four big questions: ‘the most useful generalization we can make about the structure of political competition’, ‘the most misleading current misconception about structure’, ‘the most promising but not yet fully proven hypothesis’ and ‘the kind of research and data that we now need the most.’ Their reflections make it evident that the empirical studies presented in the volume have been conducted in a methodological and conceptual minefield. We are grateful both to the senior scholars for their valuable comments and to the authors of the empirical articles for their readiness to expose themselves to the sharp and often polemic observations in the commentaries. By asking the commentators not only to give their subjective assessment of the current scholarship but also to point out what bothers them most, we encouraged diverging views – typically latently – to come to the surface and hope that the open contention can serve as a basis for future work in the field. Finally, toward that same end, the editors offer concluding thoughts of their own which address the impact of political agency on the types of structures discussed in this volume and offer a theoretical framework designed to help to integrate the excellent but fragmented efforts of scholars who explore the ways in which political leaders shape structural constraints. The editors wish to heartily thank the contributors to this volume for their diligent effort and active cooperation, but our thanks go beyond those whose names are listed in the table of contents. Each article benefited from the comments of multiple anonymous reviewers and the editors were aided in their task by other scholars including Jennifer Fitzgerald, Staffan Kumlin, Stratos Patrikios, Eleanor Scarbrough, Hermann Schmitt, and Sara Svensson, who reviewed aspects of particular texts. The other participants of the ECPR Joint Sessions in Helsinki, Finland – Asher Arian, Daniele Caramani, Goran Čular, Ivan Gregurić, Youngmi Kim, Shahaeen Mozaffar, Oleh Protsyk, James Scarritt, Gunes Tezcur, and Joost van Spanje – also contributed to the project through their insightful comments on agency and cleavage. We are particularly grateful to Peter Mair who encouraged and supported the idea of the volume. Finally, we are thankful for the support of our families; it is strangely appropriate that our meetings to prepare this volume led our wives and children to form their own enduring social relationships. 182 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

6.3.3 State Party Systems in State Legislatures A party system is a concept in comparative political science concerning the system of government by political parties in a democratic country. The idea is that political parties have basic similarities: they control the government, have a stable base of mass popular support, and create internal mechanisms for controlling funding, information and nominations. The concept was originated by European scholars studying the United States, especially James Bryce and Moisey Ostrogorsky, and has been expanded to cover other democracies. Giovanni Sartori devised the most widely used classification method for party systems. He suggested that party systems should be classified by the number of relevant parties and the degree of fragmentation. Party systems can be distinguished by the effective number of parties. A one-party state, single-party state, one-party system, or single-party system is a type of unitary state in which only one political party has the right to form the government, usually based on the existing constitution. All other parties are either outlawed or allowed to take only a limited and controlled participation in elections. Sometimes the term de facto one- party state is used to describe a dominant-party system that, unlike the one-party state, allows democratic multiparty elections, but the existing practices or balance of political power effectively prevent the opposition from winning power. The rule of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) in the Ottoman Empire following the 1913 Ottoman coup d'état is considered the first one-party state. One-party states explain themselves through various methods. Most often, proponents of a one-party state argue that the existence of separate parties runs counter to national unity. Others argue that the one party is the vanguard of the people, and therefore its right to rule cannot be legitimately questioned. The Soviet government argued that multiple parties represented the class struggle and because of this the Soviet Union legally authorized and recognized a single party leading the proletariat, namely the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Some one-party states only outlaw opposition parties, while allowing allied parties to exist as part of a permanent coalition such as a popular front. However, these parties are largely or completely subservient to the ruling party and must accept the ruling party's monopoly of power as a condition of their existence. Examples of this are the People's Republic of China under the United Front, the National Front in former East Germany and the Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea in North Korea. Others may outlaw all other parties yet allow non-party members to run for legislative seats as independent, as was the case with Taiwan's Tangwai movement in the 1970s and 1980s, as well as the elections in the former Soviet Union. Still others may both outlaw all other parties and include party membership as a prerequisite for holding public office, such as in Turkmenistan under the rule of Saparmurat Niyazov or Zaire under Mobutu Sese Seko. 183 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

Within their own countries, dominant parties ruling over one-party states are often referred to simply as the Party. For example, in reference to the Soviet Union, the Party meant the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; in reference to the pre-1991 Republic of Zambia, it referred to the United National Independence Party. One-party states are usually considered to be authoritarian, to the extent that they are occasionally totalitarian. On the other hand, not all authoritarian or totalitarian states operate upon one-party rule. Some, especially amongst absolute monarchies and military dictatorships, have no need for a ruling party, and therefore make all political parties illegal. The term \"communist state\" is sometimes used in the West to describe states in which the ruling party subscribes to a form of Marxism–Leninism. However, such states may not use that term themselves, seeing communism as a phase to develop after the full maturation of socialism, and instead use descriptions such as \"people's republic\", \"socialist republic\", or \"democratic republic\". One peculiar example is Cuba where, despite the role of the Communist Party being enshrined in the constitution, no party, including the Communist Party, is permitted to campaign or run candidates for elections. Candidates are elected on an individual referendum basis without formal party involvement, although elected assemblies predominantly consist of members of the Communist Party alongside non-affiliated candidates. If there is a sense of unease with the way the Parliament and the State legislatures are functioning, it may be due to a decline in recent years in both the quantity and quality of work done by them. Over the years the number of days on which the houses sit to transact legislative and other business has come down very significantly. Even the relatively fewer days on which the houses meet are often marked by unseemly incidents, including use of force to intimidate opponents, shouting and shutting out of debate and discussion resulting in frequent adjournments. There is increasing concern about the decline of Parliament, falling standards of debate, erosion of the moral authority and prestige of the supreme tribune of the people. Corrective steps are urgently needed to strengthen Parliament's role as the authentic voice of the people as they struggle and suffer to realise the inspiring vision of a free and just society enshrined in the Constitution. Also, it is of the utmost importance for survival of democracy that Parliament continues to occupy a position of the highest esteem in the minds and hearts of the people. The most important function of the Parliament and the State legislatures is to represent the people. It is, however, important to remember that in parliamentary polity the legislature has also to provide from within itself a representative, responsible and responsive government to the people. One way to judge whether the system is working well or not is to see whether it has brought into being governments that last their terms and succeed in providing good governance to the community. The overriding objective has to be to make both government and parliament relevant to meet today's challenges which bear little comparison to those faced by our society in the middle decades of the twentieth century. The fundamental 184 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

challenges are economic and technological. Parliament has a decisive role in refashioning the national economy, keeping in the forefront the ideals of a self-reliant economy that serves the real needs and aspirations of our vast masses. Parliament can play this historic role only if it consciously reforms its procedures and prioritizes its work. At the State level since the late sixties and in recent years at the Union level also, we have been faced with the phenomena of governmental instability resulting from hung houses and/or unprincipled defections by legislators. For governments all the time preoccupied with the struggle for their survival, it is unfair to expect good governance in the interests of the people. The anti-defection law in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution sought to bring about some stability by providing for disqualification of defectors but it failed to solve any problem. Whereas individual defection was penalised, group defection was not. Indeed splits and mergers, defections by other names, were not only not frowned upon, but were encouraged by the lure of ministerial offices to political adventurers and entrepreneurs resourceful enough and adventurous enough to organise group crossovers. 6.4 FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS Religion has manifold and differing political functions for different societies. These functions underlie and influence the relationships between religious institutions and the state on the level of the law; their role in history often forms an important part of the collective memory of a people and their identities. Today, it remains a foremost challenge to politics and international law to institutionalize universal foundational claims of freedom of religion or belief and equal treatment in the large variety of differing cultural contexts. While it is possible to identify three basic types of relationships between religions and the state – state religions, separation regimes, and cooperationist systems – these classifications are overlaid by social circumstances which suggest different groupings. Contemporary challenges often relate to migration, state aid to religions, religious autonomy, and pluralism. In general, the rules for the selection of judges tend to address their political function more openly than those of ordinary courts. They try to square the circle between providing for judicial independence and democratic legitimacy. A majoritarian solution (election by the majority of the day) creates the fewest theoretical problems for democratic legitimacy but endangers the control function. Attempts to reconcile the two aims include election with supermajorities leading de facto to equal appointment rights between government and opposition, the distribution of nominating rights among different constitutional organs, and the inclusion of professional bodies in the nominating process. As the political element is stronger, appointment to CCs tends not to simply depend on advancement in the judicial hierarchy. Law professors and former politicians are especially highly represented. A relatively strong political influence on the appointment process is counterbalanced regularly by strong guarantees for judicial independence. Appointment or election is either for life or long term. 185 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

Political Science is one of the oldest among social sciences. Several Social sciences have tried to trace their origin back to the ancient Greece but not as successfully as political science. Ever since the Greek Philosophers spoke on political sciences, various scholars have tried to formulate principles which could accurately explain all these political institutions and processes that are essentially the same in all societies and periods. System theory is the creation of 20th century. This concept can be traced back to the writings of Lading von Bertillon. He invented this concept for the study of Biology and it was also adopted by other social sciences like Sociology. It was in the mid-sixties of 20th century that this theory became an important tool of analysis and mode of inquiry in political science. David Easton considers it as \"the best possible approach to the development of a general theory in the field of national politics while Merton Kaplan considers its best in the field of international politics. So the study of political science by applying system approach became popular particularly in America during late 1950s and early sixties. This approach discarded the traditional approaches-for example Historical Approach, Philosophical Approach and instead of its political scientist adopted system approached like Decision Making Approach, structural-functional approach, Game Theory etc. 'Political System' is a term which has gained wide currency in recent years and has displaced the state from the centre of the stage. This is so because it offers a better way of looking at political phenomena than the state. In fact, it helps to direct attention to the entire scope of political activity within a society. It takes into account not only the formal institutions but also informal structures and even non- political ones growing in so far as they affect politics It is necessary to pause here and consider what events, activities and aspects of behaviour we include in our conception of the 'political' as distinct from non-political. We perform a variety of roles in our daily lives. Our interests and activities are multifarious. For example: one looks after the family; works in the field or factory or office; goes to a church or temple; participates in festivals, watches a cricket match and votes during elections. Again one may join a political party, participate actively in-an election campaign, organise or join a political party, participate actively in an election campaign, organise or join a strike or demonstration. But a political scientist is not concerned with all these activities. Therefore, we must have some criterion for separating the political form the non-political. A general view is that in the term 'political' we can include those matters which are related to government and its functioning. Earlier political thinkers like Aristotle felt that 'authority' or rule was the hall mark of a polity. In our own age, Max Weber has taken the application or threat' of use of physical force as the distinguishing feature of a political organisation. David Easton includes within the scope of the 'political' all such activities as are related to an 'authoritative allocation of values.' This does not mean that a political system is concerned only with using force. Actually, the matters of major concern m a political system may be public welfare, economic growth, social justice, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual and so on. However, a distinguishing mark of the political system is that whatever decisions and rules are made in it, can be enforced if necessary, with the exercise of coercive authority. 186 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

System is a word with which most of us are familiar. It refers to \"a set of elements standing in interaction.\" The nearest and most familiar example of a system is the biological system, for example, a human being. We know that the various organs of a man's body-the heart, the lungs, the liver etc. are interdependent parts of a whole. In their functioning or performance of their respective roles, they are inter-related. There is an understandable pattern in their functioning and in the variety of processes, such as the circulation of blood, the decay of old cells and the birth of new ones, which go in the human organism. In other words, there is a regularity in the behaviour of these parts and in their interactions. Similarly a clock, a car engine, a computer are 'system'. The solar system may be cited as another example, on earth there are systems of weather. In society there are social, political, economic and cultural systems. Family is the example of a social system where all the members are inter-called to each other in a sense of unity and welfare. Each society must have a political system in order to maintain recognized procedures for allocating valued resources. In large complex societies, many decisions must be made about the duties and responsibilities of citizens and also about the rights and privileges. If the society is to be orderly, people must obey the rules that are made. The political institution determines and enforces the laws and punishes those who disobey them. Even in stateless societies which had no developed formal central institutions were seen having some kind of decision-making and rule-making processes which were dominated by some members. As societies become wealthier and more complex, political systems develop and grow more powerful. According to renowned political scientists, Gabriel Almond and James Coleman, ‘Political system is that system of interactions to be found in all independent societies which performs the functions of integration and adaptation by means of legitimate physical compulsion.’ The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology defines it as, ‘a political system in any persistent pattern of human relationship that involves power, rule and authority.’ It is a collectively of political institutions (e.g., government), associations (e.g., political parties) and organizations performing roles based on a set of norms and goals (like maintaining internal order, regulating foreign relations, etc.). Sociologically, the term ‘political system’ refers to the social institution which relies on a recognized set of procedures for implementing and achieving the political goals of a community or society. Overview on Political spectrum A political spectrum is a system to characterize and classify different political positions in relation to one another. These positions sit upon one or more geometric axes that represent independent political dimensions. The expressions political compass and political map are used to refer to the political spectrum as well, especially to popular two-dimensional models of it. Most long-standing spectra include the left-right dimension which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution, with radicals on the left 187 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

and aristocrats on the right. Most long-standing spectra include the left-right dimension which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution, with radicals on the left and aristocrats on the right. While communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, conservatism and reactionism are generally regarded as being on the right. Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts, being sometimes on the left (social liberalism) and other times on the right (conservative liberalism or classical liberalism). Those with an intermediate outlook are sometimes classified as centrists. Politics that rejects the conventional left-right spectrum is often known as syncretic politics, although the label tends to mischaracterize positions that have a logical location on a two-axis spectrum because they seem randomly brought together on a one-axis left-right spectrum. Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left- right axis is too simplistic and insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and included other axes. Although the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, the axes of popular biaxial spectra are usually split between economic issues (on a left-right dimension) and socio-cultural issues (on an authority-liberty dimension) The terms right and left refer to political affiliations originating early in the French Revolutionary era of 1789- 1799 and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. As seen from the Speaker's seat at the front of the Assembly, the aristocracy sat on the right (traditionally the seat of honour) and the commoners sat on the left, hence the terms right-wing politics and left-wing politics. Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the AncientRegime (\"old order\"). \"The Right\" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests and the church, while \"The Left\" implied support for republicanism, secularism and civil liberties. Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original \"Left\" represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class (with notable exceptions such as the proto-communist Gracchus Babeuf). Support for laissez-faire commerce and free markets were expressed by politicians sitting on the left because these represented policies favourable to capitalists rather than to the aristocracy, but outside parliamentary politics these views are often characterized as being on the Right. The reason for this apparent contradiction lies in the fact that those \"to the left\" of the parliamentary left, outside official parliamentary structures (such as the sans- culottes of the French Revolution), typically represent much of the working class, poor peasantry and the unemployed. Their political interests in the French Revolution lay with opposition to the aristocracy and so they found themselves allied with the early capitalists. However, this did not mean that their economic interests lay with the laissez-faire policies of those representing them politically. As capitalist economies developed, the aristocracy became less relevant and were mostly replaced by capitalist representatives. The size of the working class increased as capitalism expanded and began to find expression partly through trade unionist, socialist, anarchist and communist politics rather than being confined to the capitalist policies expressed by the original \"left\". This evolution has often pulled parliamentary politicians away from laissez-faire economic policies, although this has 188 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

happened to different degrees in different countries, especially those with a history of issues with more authoritarian-left countries, such as the Soviet Union or China under Mao Zedong. Thus, the word \"Left\" in American political parlance may refer to \"liberalism\" and be identified with the Democratic Party, whereas in a country such as France these positions would be regarded as relatively more right-wing, or centrist overall, and \"left\" is more likely to refer to \"socialist\" or \"social-democratic\" positioned rather than \"liberal\" ones. Submitting the results to factor analysis, he was able to identify three factors, which he named religionism, humanitarianism and nationalism. He defined religionism as belief in God and negative attitudes toward evolution and birth control; humanitarianism as being related to attitudes opposing war, capital punishment and harsh treatment of criminals; and nationalism as describing variation in opinions on censorship, law, patriotism and communism. This system was derived empirically, as rather than devising a political model on purely theoretical grounds and testing it, Ferguson's research was exploratory. As a result of this method, care must be taken in the interpretation of Ferguson's three factors, as factor analysis will output an abstract factor whether an objectively real factor exists or not. Although replication of the nationalism factor was inconsistent, the finding of religionism and humanitarianism had a number of replications by Ferguson and others. Shortly afterward, Hans Eysenck began researching political attitudes in Great Britain. He believed that there was something essentially similar about the National Socialists on the one hand and the communists on the other, despite their opposite positions on the left-right axis. As Hans Eysenck described in his 1956 book Sense and Nonsense in Psychology, Eysenck compiled a list of political statements found in newspapers and political tracts and asked subjects to rate their agreement or disagreement with each. Submitting this value questionnaire to the same process of factor analysis used by Ferguson, Eysenck drew out two factors, which he named \"Radicalism\" (R-factor) and \"Tender-Mindedness\" (T-factor). Such analysis produces a factor whether or not it corresponds to a real-world phenomenon and so caution must be exercised in its interpretation. While Eysenck's R-factor is easily identified as the classical \"left-right\" dimension, the T-factor (representing a factor drawn at right angles to the R- factor) is less intuitive, as high-scorers favoured pacifism, racial equality, religious education and restrictions on abortion, while low-scorers had attitudes more friendlily to militarism, harsh punishment, easier divorce laws and companionate marriage. According to social scientist Bojan Todosijevic, radicalism was defined as positively viewing evolution theory, strikes, welfare state, mixed marriages, student protests, law reform, women's liberation, United Nations, nudist camps, pop-music, modern art, immigration, abolishing private property, and rejection of patriotism. Conservatism was defined as positively viewing white superiority, birching, death penalty, anti-Semitism, opposition to nationalization of property, and birth control. Tender-mindedness was defined by moral training, inborn conscience, Bible truth, chastity, self-denial, pacifism, anti-discrimination, being against the death penalty, and harsh treatment of criminals. Tough-mindedness was defined by compulsory sterilization, euthanasia, easier divorce laws, racism, anti-Semitism, compulsory military 189 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

training, wife swapping, casual living, death penalty, and harsh treatment of criminals. Despite the difference in methodology, location and theory, the results attained by Eysenck and Ferguson matched. Simply rotating Eysenck's two factors 45 degrees renders the same factors of religionism and humanitarianism identified by Ferguson in America. One interesting result Eysenck noted in his 1956 work was that in the United States and Great Britain, most of the political variance was subsumed by the left/right axis, while in France the T-axis was larger and in the Middle East the only dimension to be found was the T-axis: \"Among mid-Eastern Arabs it has been found that while the tough-minded/tender-minded dimension is still clearly expressed in the relationships observed between different attitudes, there is nothing that corresponds to the radical-conservative continuum Eysenck's political views related to his research: Eysenck was an outspoken opponent of what he perceived as the authoritarian abuses of the left and right and accordingly he believed that with this T axis he had found the link between Nazism and communism. According to Eysenck, members of both ideologies were tough-minded. Central to Eysenck's thesis was the claim that tender- minded ideologies were democratic and friendly to human freedoms, while tough-minded ideologies were aggressive and authoritarian, a claim that is open to political criticism. In this context, Eysenck carried out studies on Nazism and communist groups, claiming to find members of both groups to be more \"dominant\" and more \"aggressive\" than control groups. Eysenck left Nazi Germany to live in Britain and was not shy in attacking Stalinism, noting the anti-Semitic prejudices of the Russian government, the luxurious lifestyles of the Soviet Union leadership and the Orwellian \"doublethink\" of East Germany's naming itself the German Democratic Republic despite being \"one of the most undemocratic regimes in the world today”. While Eysenck was an opponent of Nazism, his relationship with fascist organizations was more complex. Eysenck himself lent theoretical support to the English National Party (which also opposed \"Hitlerite\" Nazism) and was interviewed in the first issue of their journal The Beacon in relation to his controversial views on relative intelligence between different races. At one point during the interview, Eysenck was asked whether or not he was of Jewish origin before the interviewer proceeded. His political allegiances were called into question by other researchers, notably Steven Rose, who alleged that his scientific research was used for political purposes. 6.5 SUMMARY  Over the past half-century, Europe has experienced the most radical reallocation of authority that has ever taken place in peace-time, yet the ideological conflicts that will emerge from this are only now becoming apparent. This book originated in the efforts of a group of scholars to investigate the patterns of conflict - dimensions of contestation - that have arisen from European integration. The question that motivates us is a broad one: how does European integration play into the domestic politics of the member states? 1 In this volume, we resolve this abstract question into a more precise 190 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

and empirical one: to what extent and how are the issues arising from European integration connected to the dimensions of contestation that structure domestic politics? Is European integration assimilated within the major lines of conflict, above all the competition between left and right, or is it unrelated? Rather than divide Europe by country, each of us examines one kind of group - citizens, national political parties, social movements, interest groups, members of the European Parliament, and European political parties - for the EU as a whole.  We engage several kinds of data, including Euro barometer surveys, party manifestos, expert evaluations of party positions, and elite interviews. We cannot claim to be of a single mind, but we do claim that we arrive at broadly consistent answers to our question. The aim of this chapter is to convey their substantive thrust. That our conclusions are based on analysis of several independent sets of data for diverse national and European actors reinforces, we think, their plausibility. *I would like to thank LisbethHough for inspiration and ideas, and Simon Hix, Herbert Kitschelt, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Fritz Scharf, Wolfgang Streak, Bernhard Wessels, and members of the research unit on Institutions and Social Change at the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin for perceptive comments on this chapter. I would also like to thank seminar participants at the Technische Universitat Miinchen and the Max Planck Institute for Social Research in Cologne to whom this chapter was presented.  At the aggregate level - that is to say, when we treat European integration as a single dimension - the model that best describes the relationship of European integration to the left/right dimension over the past two decades is the Hix-Lord model, in which European integration and left/right positioning are orthogonal to each other. According to this model, left/right conflict allocates values among functional groups, whereas European integration allocates values among territorial groups. Hence, the position that a person takes on one dimension does not constrain her position on the other dimension. As we described this model in the Introduction, all four quadrants are feasible policy options: left/pro-integration, left/anti integration, right/pro- integration, and right/anti-integration. This is confirmed by the chapters in this volume that are concerned with individual citizens. Matthew Gabel and Christopher Anderson find that citizens' views on European integration are weakly associated with left/right self-placement. Left/right self-placement has a factor loading of 0.065 in a one-factor model of attitudes towards more EU activity, far lower than any other item. Cees van der Eijk and Mark Franklin find essentially the same thing. Pro-/anti-EU orientations of voters bear almost no systematic relation to their left/right self- placement, as illustrated in figure 2.1.  We reject one possible explanation for this non-association, namely that orientations toward European integration are unstructured and, consequently, random. Gabel and Anderson find that attitudes towards European integration in the public at large are 191 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

quite well structured. Van der Eijk and Franklin note that respondents appear to have little difficulty placing themselves on an EU integration scale. The percentage of missing data for this scale in their survey of the European electorate is little more than half that for the left/right scale.2 Respondents are not at a loss to place themselves on a pro-/anti-European integration scale. Moreover, as van der Eijk and Franklin point out, respondents locate themselves further toward the extremes on the EU integration scale than they do on.  Analyses of political parties also conclude that there is no strong and durable relationship between left/right positioning and support or opposition to European integration in general. Liesbet Hooghe, Gary Marks, and Carole J. Wilson find a positive linear association between left/right party position and overall support for European integration. Right parties are more likely than left parties to support European integration in general. However, as we discuss below, they are less likely to support further integration on issues such as the environment and employment policy. So there is no overall significant linear association between European integration, conceived as a whole, and left/right contestation. This leads van der Eijk and Franklin to describe European integration as a \"sleeping giant.\" European integration is orthogonal to the left/right divide, yet it is difficult to overestimate its substantive importance. European integration has transformed Europe economically and politically, yet orientations to it are not constrained by the dimension that chiefly structures contestation across European societies. If European integration were to become highly salient, it might therefore become a combustible issue.  The most powerful association that we find at the aggregate level between left/right position and European integration is an inverted U-curve describing support for European integration among centrist parties, and opposition among parties toward the extremes of both left and right. Doug Imig finds that the bulk of popular contestation oriented directly or indirectly toward the European Union is anti-integration. Most of the groups that have organized protests are on the left, but all are outside the centrist mainstream that controls the levers of authority. Hooghe, Marks, and Wilson find that national political parties towards the left and right extremes take Eurosceptic positions on European integration at the aggregate level and across the board on individual issues. Van der Eijk and Franklin also find an inverted U-curve in party positions as imputed by-voters  There is a substantive explanation for this and a strategic one. Substantively, the European Union is a centrist project for the simple reason that mainstream parties - Christian democrats, liberals, social democrats, and conservatives - have dominated national governments, national parliaments, the European Parliament, and the European Commission. Parties on the extreme left and extreme right, along with contentious social movements, have little love for institutions they have done almost 192 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

nothing to create. They attack European integration as an extension of their domestic opposition. The extreme left views European integration as an elitist capitalist project that isolates decision-making from citizens in the interests of powerful corporations.  The extreme right views European integration as an elitist supranational project that weakens national autonomy and traditional values. Strategically, positions on European integration are framed with an eye to sustaining or challenging existing dimensions of domestic conflict. Centrist political parties converge in support of European integration because they want to bottle up a potential new dimension of conflict.  They cannot assimilate European integration into the dominant left/right dimension that structures national competition, and so they try to avoid competing on it. This has the considerable advantage of dampening an issue that could otherwise fracture mainstream parties. Conversely, parties that are toward the left and right extremes want to raise the heat by taking anti positions on European integration. While such parties are minor contenders on the established left/right dimension, they may be far more successful if they can impose a cross-cutting conflict on which they are more united than their mainstream competitors.  An issue-based approach tells a different story. When Gabel and Anderson examine citizens' views on \"what kind of integration,\" rather than \"more or less integration,\" they find that a left/right dimension underlies public attitudes. The items that load most heavily on this dimension are \"improving equality of opportunity\" (for minorities and women), \"more help to the poor and socially excluded\" (and to the Third World), \"support for poorer EU regions,\" and \"protecting consumers.\" 6.6 KEYWORDS  Illegitimate Opportunity Structures- Cloward and Ohlin’s term for opportunities for crimes that are a basic part of our society.  Impression Management- Goffman’s term for the tendency of individuals to manipulate the impressions that others have of them.  Indentured Servitude- A system of stratification in which an individual agrees to sell his or her body or labour to another for a specified period of time.  Holistic Medicine- A medical approach that involves learning about a patient’s physical environment and mental state.  Feminization of Poverty - The phrase that describes the increasing number of female-headed households living at or below the poverty level. 193 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

6.7 LEARNING ACTIVITY 1. Create a session on State and Society under Socialism. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 2. Create a survey on Structure of Competition. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 6.8 UNIT END QUESTIONS A. Descriptive Questions Short Questions 1. What is Socialism? 2. What is meant by Capitalism? 3. Describe the term Spectrum? 4. Define the Competition? 5. Write the main issues of Society? Long Questions 1. Discuss about the Government and Political Parties. 2. Explain the concept of Ideological Spectrum. 3. Describe the Features of Politics. 4. Examine the Functions of Politics. 5. Illustrate the Structure of Competition. B. Multiple Choice Questions 1. Which School of thought opined that sociology is a general science? a. Synthetic School b. Formalistic School c. Vienna School d. Scientific School 2. Who was the prominent thinker belongs to synthetic school of thought? 194 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

a. Bourdieu b. Karl Mannheim c. Comte d. Montesquieu 3. Which is the idea analysed in social morphology as a branch of sociology? a. Social structure b. Social action c. Social function d. Social behaviour 4. Which branch of sociology deals with the problems in society? a. Social morphology b. Criminology c. Social pathology d. Law 5. Who propounded the theory of Sociological Imagination? a. Mills b. Schutz c. Garfinkel d. Domer Answers 1-a, 2-b, 3-a, 4-c, 5-a 6.9 REFERENCES References book  Goodings, L., Locke, A., & Brown, S. D. (2007). Social Networking Technology: Place and Identity in Mediated Communities. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17, 463-476.  Gusfield, J. R. (1975). Community: A Critical Response. New York: Harper and Row. 195 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

 Hall, P. D. (2009). [Review of the book Contesting Communities: The Transformation of Workplace Charity, by E. Barman]. American Journal of Sociology, 115(1), 307-309. Textbook references  Henderson, S. D., & Hodges, S. H. (2007). Music, song, and the creation of community and community spirit by a gay subculture. Sociological Spectrum, 27, 57- 80.  Hillery, G. (1955). Definitions of Community: Areas of agreement. Rural Society, 20, 111-125.  Holcombe, S. (2004). The Sentimental Community: A Site of Belonging. A Case Study from Central Australia. The Australian Journal of Anthropology. Website  https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/political-institutions/political-systems- meaning-functions-and-types-of-political-systems/31365  https://legalaffairs.gov.in/sites/default/files/chapter%205.pdf  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402381003654254 196 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

UNIT 7 – POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS PART II STRUCTURE 7.0 Learning Objectives 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Economic Institutions 7.3 Features and Functions 7.3.1 Capitalist or free enterprise economy 7.3.2 Socialist or centrally planned economy 7.3.3 Mixed economy 7.4 Property 7.5 Division of Labour 7.6 Summary 7.7 Keywords 7.8 Learning Activity 7.9 Unit End Questions 7.10 References 7.0 LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this unit, you will be able to:  Describeabout the free enterprise economy.  Illustrate the concept of Mixed economy.  Explain the centrally planned economy. 7.1 INTRODUCTION This text seeks to introduce students to some analytical dimensions of political science through discussions of research, theory, comparative, U.S., and international questions within the discipline. As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 1, this text includes chapters on political science and scientific research approaches, key concepts in political science, political theory and political ideology, comparative politics and U.S. politics, and international relations. The text draws on academic and applied contributions to political 197 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

discourse in an effort to show students that political science is a field of inquiry with many practical uses. Specifically, in this text I try to introduce basic political science concepts, demonstrate their significance in understanding contemporary political issues, and connect the concepts to larger theoretical models of analysis. The goal of encouraging students to think critically about the questions discussed in this text has also motivated every substantive decision throughout the composition process. Analysing Politics is written not only to instruct, but also to provoke, to challenge, and sometimes to unsettle readers. Furthermore, I hope the text invites students to explore a broader range of perspectives and sources than those traditionally incorporated into introductory political science classes; toward this end, I have included more advanced topics, such as postmodernism. Many students and a few professors have accepted my invitation to e-mail me with questions and comments about any issues raised in the text. These e-mail exchanges have been among the most satisfying and enriching of my academic experiences. Students from large universities and small colleges have pushed me to think more carefully about topics and have debated with me about how concepts in the book apply to changing political circumstances. Just as my own students at UNM continue to be among the best teachers I have ever had, my “e-mail students” have helped me see politics from new perspectives and have compelled me to expand the range of questions I ask. My deepest thanks to all of you who have e-mailed me over the years Consider how differently you might view your life, your goals, and your attitudes about politics if you could be transported across the boundaries of identity, gender, nationality, age, and/or economic status. Imagine for a moment that you reside in Cairo’s City of the Dead, a sprawling, crowded cemetery in which tombs are intersected by satellite dishes. The City of the Dead has become home to many of Cairo’s poor and homeless as the city’s population growth has outpaced its infrastructure. If recent predictions by the United Nations prove to be correct, your life—one lived in congested urban quarters—will become the life of more and more men and women as the year 2030 approaches. Indeed, the United Nations cautions that ours is becoming ‘‘a planet of slums.’’ Now, imagine yourself a member of the Nakakuma, a nomadic, self-contained people living far away from cities and deep in the jungles of Colombia. If you happened to be one of the approximately 80 members of your people who recently—for reasons unclear to outsiders—left the Amazonian jungle and entered San Jose del Guaviare, you encountered an unfamiliar world. You brought with you no word for money, no understanding of airplanes, and you have never heard of Colombia, the country in whose borders you and your people have existed for hundreds of years. Imagine you are Dena al-Atassi. You were the only Muslim in your high school in Bunnell, Florida. A daughter of a Syrian father and a U.S. mother, you have endured death threats for wearing a scarf. Your stepmother stopped wearing her scarf out of fear of a backlash against all Muslims after 9/11. However, you find strength in following the example of Muslim women who wear the scarf. You pledge to never let your fear compel you to remove the hejab. Imagine you are Mark Osterloh of Tucson, Arizona. You have a plan for addressing the problem of low voter turnout in the United States. Why not, you ask, give people a clear, irresistible incentive to 198 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

vote in elections? You decide to put forward the Voter Reward Act, a proposal to make all those who vote in state elections eligible for a $1million drawing. How could people continue to say no to voting under such a system? You have observed that people buy lottery tickets in spite of the odds, and you can point out that the odds of winning under the Voter Reward Act are better than winning the lottery. Imagine you are Ehren Watada. When you were studying for your business degree at Hawaii Pacific University in Honolulu, the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened. You joined the military to serve your country. However, you became convinced that the war in Iraq was not the right way to fight terrorism; you volunteered to be deployed to Afghanistan, but you refused to serve in Iraq. The military brought charges against you; your court martial ended in a mistrial in February 2007. Imagine you are Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. In 2005, you were elected with 59 percent of the vote to be Liberia’s first woman president and Africa’s first woman elected head of state. One of your priorities is seeking debt relief/forgiveness for Liberia under the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative. Your election was not the only milestone for feminist politics in recent years: Socialist Michelle Bachelet was elected the first woman president of Chile in 2006, the same year in which the women of Kuwait, for the first time in history, were accorded the right to vote in parliamentary elections. Finally, imagine you are Illinois Representative Rahm Emanuel, a very practical man whose job it is—as 2007 Democratic Caucus Chair—to promote the Democratic Party. Promoting the Party means, in part, helping Democrats in the House of Representatives avoid public missteps. One of your goals in 2007 was to convince Democrats to adopt a policy of not appearing on Steven Colbert’s The Colbert Report. You know that Colbert has roughly 1.2 million viewers who tune in to his ‘‘news’’ report. You remember that Colbert once asked Illinois Representative Phil Hare, ‘‘If you could embalm anyone in Congress, who would it be?’’ You know that Colbert asked Georgia Republican Lynn Westmoreland, a co-sponsor of a bill that would require the posting of the Ten Commandments in the nation’s capital, to recite all ten and he could come up with only three. 7.2 ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS Economic institutions are regarded as fundamental causes of economic growth. The contribution of economic institutions to economic growth far outweighs the availability of natural resources, the supply of factors of production and technological progress. Several reasons have been advanced for the importance of economic institutions in stimulating economic growth. One of the reasons is that economic institutions determine the incentives given to the main performers in the economy; the outcomes of economic processes are influenced by the economic institutions. Through these incentives, economic institutions influence investment in physical and human resources, research and development (R&D), technology and the organisation of production. It is posited that economic institutions influence several aspects of economic outcomes, such as the distribution of resources. These resources are income, wealth, and physical and human capital. This means that economic 199 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

institutions determine not only the aggregate economic growth but the distribution of resources in the country and these in turn, contribute to maintaining order in the country. It has also been argued that economic growth causes good economic institutions. Valeriani and Peluso acknowledged the bi-causality between economic institutions and economic growth. The rationale for causality from economic growth to quality economic institutions stems from the simple logic that economic growth implies a high living standard with greater awareness. The higher the level of awareness is, the higher the sense of discipline and the demand for decency from the public. The demand for decency brings about high-quality institutions, for example, the rule of law, property rights, good judicial practices, less harassment from the police, etc. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) formulated the objective of ‘striving to enhance the wellbeing of its citizens and to promote growth’, among other goals. The Economic Community is aware of the need to have good economic institutions to realise this objective. To achieve good economic institutions, it encourages the member states to embrace democratic practices, promote rules of law and property rights. To encourage democratic practices in the region, ECOWAS intervened in Côte d’Ivoire in 2011 and Gambia in 2017 after the incumbent presidents, President Laurent Gbagbo and President Yahya Jammeh called elections, lost and decided not to hand over. This study is therefore undertaken to ascertain to what extent has the promotion of these good economic institutions impacted on per capita growth in the ECOWAS states? To answer the above question, this study is designed to test the alternative hypothesis that economic institutions and some approximate factors stimulating economic growth have promoted economic growth in the region. Existing empirical works on the impact of economic institutions on the economic growth of ECOWAS are sparse and most of them are based on individual countries. For example, the work of Okoh and Ebi examined the impact of economic institutions on economic growth in Nigeria. This study is therefore designed to bridge the existing gap by investigating all the ECOWAS countries. The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: The ‘Theoretical and empirical literature review’ section reviews both theoretical and empirical literature; The ‘Research methodology’ section explains the research methodology applied in this study, the sources of data employed, the measurement of variables applied, the statistical methods of analysis employed and the model used in the analysis. The ‘Results and analysis’ section presents and interprets the results of the data analysed, and conducts diagnostic tests on the results to establish their reliability. The ‘Summary and concluding remarks’ section summarises and concludes the study. Researches, such as North; Rodrick et al. and Petrunya and Ivashina have shown that economic institutions are primary causes of economic growth, far more than the natural environment, the supply of factor inputs and technological progress. Economic institutions that are important for growth include those that protect property rights those that mobilise savings and make them available for investment and those that cause rulers to be subjected to the ruled or hold the rulers accountable to the majority of the people. Przyborski and Cur vale stated that economic institutions that promote economic growth are institutions that absorb, 200 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)