This was my first piece of freelance writing work which was completed in the early months of 2013. It is surprising how much planning and work goes into such a small piece from different people including the management, myself and the design and printing company.
Click here for the full view
https://practiceplan.proofhq.com/proof/d7479b2e59caf9bd7a6a7ded394d35220ca42
There are many ways in which, over the years, researchers have analysed data found from qualitative research or more specifically, from interviews. However, it is argued that none is considered more useful than thematic analysis. It is often used to break down an interview into clear sections; this makes the researcher’s job far easier, making the most of the data collected. These subsections are identified individually as themes, each theme conveying different aspects of the data. An advantage to using thematic analysis would be that the sections used to simplify the data i.e. The Framework Approach give good structure to an analysis. On the down side, there is no set technique to thematic analysis; it can then become unpredictable particularly in comparison to other analytical methods such as content analysis and critical discourse analysis for example. In order to truly assess whether or not thematic analysis is the superior method of analysis, all aspects of its strengths and weaknesses will have to be looked over before coming to a definitive conclusion.
Thematic analysis is one of the most common approaches to qualitative data research and differs slightly from other methods such as the critical discourse analysis and qualitative content analysis in that it does not have an identifiable heritage or a distinctive cluster of techniques (Bryman, 2008). Thematic analysis splits the data found from the interview research into themes. There are two main forms of thematic research, the ‘Framework’ model and the ‘Block and File’ approach. The idea of a ‘Framework’, which was developed by the National Centre for social research, is best described as a matrix (Bryman, 2008). In order to create this structure of themes within a framework matrix, thorough reading of the transcripts is needed to fully understand the meaning of an interview or the ideas which the interviewee is trying to put across. Bryman emphasises, “The themes and subthemes are essentially recurring motifs in the text that are then applied to the data” (Bryman, 2008, p. 554). Through applying the framework to the dataset, core themes are created from which, subthemes branch off. Each core theme, no matter what the subject, has subthemes which are hugely important and informative. The framework matrix needed to set up an example of thematic analysis is set out in the style of a word processed table or spreadsheet. The idea being is to insert snippets of information from the interview into the correct cell or subtheme. The framework matrix allows interviews, or data, to be compared and contrasted side by side in small bites. Ritchie sets out four main guidelines which must be adhered to in order for the process to be successful. The researcher must indicate where the transcript came from, emphasise the tone and language used by a participant, do not insert too many direct quotes and use abbreviations (Bryman, 2008). In order to determine snippets needed and to gather themes, there are a few signs to look for. These could be repetitions, metaphors or transitions. Other points to look for could be missing data and similarities or differences between the data i.e. the individual interviews (Bryman, 2008).
A weakness of thematic analysis could be that the process itself, “does not necessarily tell the user how to identify themes” (Bryman, 2008). If the correct themes are not identified by the researcher, the whole process could become pointless as the use of the data is not being maximised. Although, as previously mentioned, it is important to try to convey the feel of the interview into the dataset, the chances of being able to do this in reality is somewhat slim. The pauses and hesitations in someone’s speech are removed thus also partly removing the emotion and vital moments of indecision in the interviewee’s voice. This can lead to the decontextualizing of the data as Kvale explains, “transcripts decontextualized conversations; they are abstractions” (Kvale, Doing Interviews, p. 98). The strengths of such a system on the other hand are that it can be used both inductively, looking at literature which already exists but also deductively by means of conducting new interviews. Furthermore, thematic analysis also provides consistency and accuracy in its results.
In comparison to other methods of qualitative data analysis, thematic analysis is not as well known; indeed many find it hard to distinguish it from others of its type, although the introduction of a framework matrix does set it apart. Critical discourse analysis uses the power of language in order to relate to changing ideologies (Bryman, 2008). Kvale explains, “…the focus is on how the talk is constructed and what the social consequences are of the different discursive presentations of a social situation” (Kvale, 2007, p. 113). Content analysis is much closer in method to that of thematic analysis in that it investigates the constructs and meaning of a text (Bryman, 2008). Although thematic analysis can be consistent, based on the discoveries of one individual researcher, content analysis, because it has a set technique to follow, can set out coding schemes to ensure that replications and follow-up studies are feasible (Bryman, 2008).
To conclude, thematic analysis could be a successful tool to use when gathering data, although the process is somewhat complex, the end product is laid out in a very simple fashion which is easy to read and to decode. However, it does have some very significant weaknesses such as the fact that it does not show the researcher how to find codes or themes from a text. The method is entirely based around the ability of an individual. Whereas, in my opinion, content analysis is not only well known but it also offers more advantages, particularly when considering that it does have a set technique to follow, ensuring that an individual can find codes from a dataset, no matter what their skill level.
Bibliography
Alan Bryman, (2008), Social Research Methods, Third Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ritchie, J. and Spencer, E. (1994) Qualitative data analysis for applied policy Research. In, Bryman, A. and Burgess, R.G. (eds.) Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge.
Steinar Kvale, (2007), Doing Interviews, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Although an interview could be seen as a simple form of qualitative research, it does in fact have many complex and unique guises. Taking the semi-structured and unstructured forms as a whole, they are slightly different. An unstructured interview could almost be described as a conversation between two people, with some basic questioning and a topic. This could be considered as an interpretivist approach, looking at it from an interviewee’s point of view. Although for an interviewee, this may feel natural and more relaxed, for an interviewer there is the problem of actually gathering data from simply a conversation. Semi-structured interviews do have a more traditional feel to them as they do incorporate a series of questions from which data can be gathered. However, they are still considered more open than an almost questionnaire-like fully structured interview.
Semi-structured interviews are still in the form of a typical interview, however the interviewer does have scope to change the questions or indeed adapt them according to the answers given by the interviewee. In order to ensure the questionnaire or interview is successful, a researcher could perform a pilot study. Bryman continues, “The questions are frequently somewhat more general in their frame of reference from that typically found in a structured interview schedule” (Bryman, 2008, p.196). Rarely are closed questions used in either semi-structured or unstructured interviews, indeed ‘open’ is the preferred choice of questioning. Times when an interview of this structure could be used is in an informal interview situation for research purposes. The interview itself is still open enough to be able to form a conversation, yet not too general as to be unable to collect any data from it. The semi-structured interview is best summed up as ‘flexible’ (Bryman, 2008). The questions first set out in the interview guide may not continue in the way they were intended and many, if not all, will be worded differently especially in a mass interview process which involves surveying people separately. The advantages of such a system include the ability to talk to people about sensitive issues without coming across as cold or unconcerned for their situation, neither do you want to be seen as dominating the interview with your own experiences, this allows the conversation to flow, yet still having a clear structure. Hannah Creane follows on from this, stating that a semi-structured interview, “…would allow me to gain the research I wanted without pigeon-holing the response of those I was interviewing” (Bryman, 2008, p.438). There are however, a number of disadvantages to consider before attempting an interview using the semi-structured method. As an individual constructing the interview, you would need to be experienced and have the necessary skills required, both to conduct the interview but also to analyse the data appropriately. A semi-structured interview is also considered to be time consuming, particularly in comparison to a structured interview which would take less time to conduct but also less time to analyse the data. Furthermore, as with most interviews, assuring confidentiality is essential but also difficult to achieve. For many, the whole concept of a semi-structured or an unstructured interview could be seen as simply a qualitative interview, though the difference between the two is vast and therefore have been given their own titles (Bryman, 2008).
Unstructured interviews then are far more open and although there may be some preset questions to follow, the whole process of the interview is covered by themes and more general ideas in an ‘interview guide’ as opposed to specific questioning (Bryman, 2008). Bryman goes on, “The style of questioning is usually very informal. The phrasing and sequencing of questions will vary from interview to interview” (Bryman, 2008, p.700). This interview style is more often used in general research about a topic or idea. “Here the researcher uses at most an aide-memoire as a brief set of prompts to him- or herself to deal with a certain range of topics” (Bryman, 2008, p.438). The process could involve many separate participants with the interviewer attempting to settle the interviewee and really get to know them. In ensuring confidentiality, the interviewer can dig deep to find more personal answers. “Unstructured interviewing tends to be very similar in character to a conversation” (Burgess, 1984). This is something perhaps unachievable in a semi-structured interview and certainly in a fully structured interview. Although in theory this is a big advantage to the idea of an unstructured interview, in reality it could well be a disadvantage as building up such a rapport could take much, much more time than what is allocated for a single interview. Furthermore, any significant data is harder to gather and analyse, as it would not be in a structured format. Even if the interview went as planned, it could even over succeed to the point where the interviewee is simply giving the researcher information, should this happen the process ceases to become an interview. There are however two style of interview which could add a slightly different slant to the responses of the interviewee as Kvale explains, “Interviews differ in their openness of purpose; the interviewer can explain the purpose and pose direct questions from the start or can adopt a roundabout approach, with indirect questions, and reveal the purpose only when the interview is over” (Kvale, 2007, p.57).
To conclude, although many see the idea of qualitative research as a more relaxed environment in which to conduct research, perhaps using either the semi-structured or unstructured method does not guarantee the collection of sufficient data. Particularly with regards to an unstructured interview, although these do offer stress free yet intimate conversation, what is ultimately needed from an interview is data of which can be easily analysed. That is something in my opinion the semi-structured interview can achieve, both a relaxed easy going conversation but also something from which data can be found. The theory itself takes the best aspects from both an unstructured interview and a structured one in order to come to a successful compromise; it is the best of both worlds.
Bibliography
Alan Bryman, (2008), Social Research Methods, Third Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burgess, R. G. (1984), In the Field. An introduction to field research, London: George Allen & Unwin.
Steinar Kvale, (2007), Doing Interviews, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
A critical assessment of the claim that New Labour committed ‘constitutional vandalism’ during their time in office between 1997 and 2010.
The Labour Party introduced many reforms to the British Constitution during its time in office between the years of 1997 and 2010, under the leadership of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. The Labour Party was re-elected under the ideological umbrella known as ‘New Labour’ and became known for its modernisation and reform of the political system, with many of the measures introduced still present today. It could be argued though, that many of these reforms were mostly changes for changes sake and that they were unnecessary and simply aligned nicely to New Labour’s sense of modernisation; without having an important political meaning. As Hassan argues, “…none of it added up to a systematic critique of the ancient regime, let alone the emergence of a ‘new politics’. All of these limitations were evident before Labour began to go into reverse and engage in constitutional vandalism…” (Hassan, 2010). The removal of the position of Lord Chancellor is a perfect example of this sense of constitutional vandalism, as it was a reform that arguably had little political significance. Furthermore, there was a feeling within the Labour party that much change was needed in order to re-shape the political system in their vision; with critics labelling the subsequent reforms as uncoordinated. The Labour Party inevitably felt this way because it had been out of power for so long, therefore New Labour showed more willingness to change the constitution than any other government since 1918 (Toye, 2004). Nevertheless, the process of devolution and the introduction of a UK Supreme Court are two examples, along with many others, of logical and modern steps forward for the constitution. Indeed, there was a great deal of support for many of the New Labour reforms as they were seen to comply with constitutional traditions due to their incremental and tailored nature (Straw, 2010). This essay will critically assess the New Labour constitutional reforms with respect to whether or not they were truly needed and conclude that they cannot be described as constitutional vandalism due to their effectiveness and relevance at the time.
Many of New Labour’s constitutional reforms could be best described as vandalism, with one of the most suspect being the removal of the position of the Lord Chancellor. This was a post which was largely unchallenged and posed no threat politically, yet the forces behind New Labour decided that it had to go. Part of New Labour’s political quest was to begin modernising the country from all aspects; with constitutional reform being of paramount importance. The position of Lord Chancellor therefore, it would seem, simply did not fit in with this modernisation process. It could be argued that this reason alone is not enough to justify its removal and here lies the argument as to whether New Labour are guilty of committing constitutional vandalism. The Lord Chancellor had many duties and was responsible for the administration of justice, appointing judges and protecting human rights (Bogdanor, 2009). Therefore, many Conservative backbenchers opposed the reform because of a fear that it would bring judicial independence under threat (Anon, 2004). This was because the position was not to be fully removed; rather it was repositioned to give the government more control. The post of Lord Chancellor became aligned with the secretary of state for justice and certainly lost a noticeable amount of political significance as the two positions were now one and the same (Bogdanor, 2009). One of many example of this would be when the Lord Chancellor was stripped of his duties as the presiding officer of the House of Lords, following the constitutional reform act of 2005 (Bogdanor, 2011). However, New Labour did have relevant justification for the reforming of the Lord Chancellor because it was, according to Beech, “…a measure which was viewed to be a response to the growing desire to increase the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive thus ensuring compliance with Article 6 of the ECHR on judicial independence” (Beech, 2000, p. 86). The separation of powers, outlined by Montesquieu, are critical here as the party felt that the position of Lord Chancellor did not fit securely within any of the three branches of government. Rather, the Lord Chancellor had had responsibilities in the executive, the judiciary and the legislature but now only resides within the executive, leaving advocates of reform to argue that the credibility of the constitution, along with the separation of powers, now remains fully intact. Nevertheless, the reform of the Lord Chancellor’s post is a great example of New Labour’s disregard for the constitution, even if the plans were backed up by logical argument.
However, larger efforts to condemn the Labour Party with the tagline of constitutional vandalism came when New Labour announced that it was to enact a process of devolution that would see England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland partially separated. The Conservative MP’s who opposed devolution argued that the process could signal the end of the centralisation of the UK and could force countries such as Scotland into full independence. Furthermore, the process could undermine Parliament as Little explains, “from a Scottish perspective at least – the viability of classic, Diceyan parliamentary sovereignty as a meaningful constitutional doctrine will be called into question in the years to come” (Little, 2004, p. 540). Parliamentary sovereignty is enshrined within the UK constitution, while the process of devolution attempts to strip the powers of Parliament by transferring them to devolved institutions. This is deeply unconstitutional and could be seen as an example of New Labour’s constitutional vandalism. On the flip side it could be argued that measures such as devolution could in fact help keep the UK together, as it offers a compromise to countries demanding more power and prevents them from turning their intentions to full independence. As Beech argues, “… devolution has not necessarily strengthened support for Scottish independence” (Beech, 2008, p. 84). Therein lies an example of asymmetrical autonomy, as power can now vary between the devolved institutions in order to best adapt to the demands of the given country. Another justification for New Labour’s actions on devolution is the fact that it was a promise the party needed to fulfil following its manifesto pledge (Dorey, 2008). Devolution was a key part of their 1997 manifesto, as Flinders explains, “Devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland had always been intended to be a central part of the ‘new politics’—‘new’ in the sense that it would be based on a more balanced, consensual and less adversarial political culture.” (Flinders, 2007, p. 111). Devolution was seen as a substantial stride in the Labour party’s modernisation program but also, due to their pre-election promises, a failure to deliver the radical reform would have been a political disaster (Marsh, 2007).
There were of course a number of other constitutional reforms which could be viewed as being necessary, or at least positive, changes to the system. New Labour is responsible for the creation of the London assembly which houses an elected Mayor of London, a position which enjoys a mandate from the public (Bogdanor, 2009). The London Mayor is responsible for the policy strategies of London, an example of this being the congestion charge introduced by the first London Mayor Ken Livingstone. Despite this particular policy coming in for criticism, the post itself is seen as an effective addition to the political system and is also effectively held to account by scrutiny of the London assembly (Bogdanor, 2009). The Freedom of Information Act implemented in 2000 reflects New Labour’s view of a liberal and free society and is surely a positive step for the UK constitution. The act allows the public right of access to any important and revealing information held by any public body, thus allowing for an increased chance of scrutiny. Nevertheless the act has come in for criticism regarding a few details and loopholes which subsequently still allow some information to remain closed off from the public, leaving many interested parties disappointed (Coates, 2000, p. 87). Notably, a ministerial veto of the act can ensure information is not displayed to the public; this was used most prominently to deny public access to the cabinet minutes regarding the Iraq war. Issue was also raised with regards to the cost of the system, with similar questions being asked of the planned UK Supreme Court. Introduced in 2009 under the leadership of Gordon Brown, the Supreme Court was a radical change to the constitution which, although expensive, provided the judicial branch of government with more credibility and authority. Bogdanor summarises, “The decisions of the Supreme Court are absolutely final” (Bogdanor, 2009, p. 85). All this meaning that the independent body of the Supreme Court has judges who are accountable to no one (Bogdanor, 2009). First introduced by the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, the Supreme Court ensured that pressure was taken off the judicial branch of the House of Lords; leaving it as the highest court available for civil cases.
Shortly after being elected in 1997, the Labour Party announced the independence of the Bank of England, with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown being the only members of the whole party who knew of the radical change. As Toye summaries, “The shift in Labour’s economic priorities was symbolised by the decision to transfer the power to set interest rates from the Treasury to a new Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee” (Toye, 2004, p. 21). Although deemed as the correct decision in hindsight, the change could be interpreted as reckless and uncoordinated and therefore could be argued to fit with the definition of constitutional vandalism. The incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights could not however and could be likened to the Freedom of Information Act in that it adheres to New Labour’s sense of equality and social democratic position. Moreover, New Labour was attempting to distance itself from old Labour traditions by leaning more towards a sense of collective individualism, with the incorporation of European Human Rights just one part of this (Klug, 2011). It is ironic that the Conservative Party often labels New Labour’s reforms as constitutional vandalism and yet, now in power, has kept all except the one concerning human rights, the one which arguably rejects the idea of constitutional vandalism the most. There are however, some New Labour reforms which can be questioned on the constitutional vandalism front but also in terms of legitimacy. The House of Lords Act makes changes to an institution centuries old, successfully removing all but ninety two hereditary peers from the upper house (Thorpe, 2008). The reform left behind a sense of positive vandalism which was felt by most within the Parliamentary system. The Act faces credible attack however when looking at who replaced the old lords, with many of the new lords, aptly labelled ‘Tony’s cronies’, being revealed as close advisors of Blair; this it could be argued, is even more alarming for democracy. Another area of reform which sparks much debate is that of the voting system. This was perhaps an example of attempted constitutional vandalism by New Labour, as it looked set to reform the voting system from first-past-the-post to proportional representation following its 1997 manifesto pledge to perform a referendum. However, having introduced proportional representation to the devolved institutions of the UK and to the European Parliament and having commissioned the Jenkins report, the party’s opinion changed somewhat, with Tony Blair claiming that a more in depth debate was needed. Beech offers up a cynical position, “The determining factor for most frontbench Labour politicians has not been the democratic merits or demerits of various electoral systems, but rather the benefits that a particular system might offer the party at election time” (Beech, 2008, p. 77).
In conclusion, it could be argued that New Labour is guilty of committing constitutional vandalism due to a number of factors concerning their reforms. The removal of the Lord Chancellor could be seen simply as change for changes sake, while the unconstitutional process of devolution was enacted due simply to a promise the party had made itself whilst out of power. Furthermore, the party was seen to be almost playing around with their policy on electoral reform, while some reforms could not only be described as constitutional vandalism but also that they failed to deliver their purpose due to some compromises. On the other hand, most of New Labour’s reforms are still present today with most performing effectively. The Freedom of Information Act and the Incorporation of European Human Rights certainly show a step forward for the UK constitution and align with New Labour’s vision of equality. Whilst the position of an elected Mayor of London and the introduction of a Supreme Court show how the country was efficiently modernizing under New Labour. Ultimately, although some reforms might have initially appeared rash, New Labour was committed to change and had introduced a new way to govern in an attempt to modernize the country and the constitution (McAnulla, 2006). Therefore the constitutional reforms cannot be described as constitutional vandalism due to their contemporary relevance and to New Labour’s decade of success which followed them.
Bibliography
Books
Beech M. (2008), Ten Years of New Labour, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bogdanor V. (2009), The New British Constitution, Portland: Hart Publishing.
Coates D. (2000), New Labour in Power, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Heffernan R. (2000), New Labour and Thatcherism: Political Change in Britain, Hampshire: Palgrave.
Thorpe A. (2008), A History of the British Labour Party, Third Edition, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Journals
Bogdanor V (2011), ‘An Era of Constitutional Reform’, The Political Quarterly, Volume 81, Issue 1, pp. 53 – 64.
Dorey P. (2008), ‘Stumbling Through ‘Stage Two’: New Labour and House of Lords Reform’, British Politics, Volume 3, pp. 22 – 44.
Flinders M. (2008), ‘Bi-constitutionality: Unravelling New Labour’s Constitutional Orientations’, Parliamentary Affairs, Volume 61, Issue 1, pp. 99 – 121.
Klug F. (2011), ‘New Labour and the Distribution of Power: Constitutional Reform, Human Rights and Civil Liberties’, The Political Quarterly, Volume 81, Issue 1, pp. 78 – 95.
Little G. (2004), ‘Scotland and parliamentary sovereignty’, Legal Studies, Volume 4, Issue 24, pp. 540 – 567.
Marsh D. (2007), ‘The British Political Tradition: Explaining the Fate of New Labour’s Constitutional Reform Agenda’, British Politics, Volume 2, pp. 215 – 238.
Straw J. (2010), ‘New Labour, Constitutional Change and Representative Democracy’, Parliamentary Affairs, Volume 63, Issue 2, pp. 356 – 368.
Toye R. (2004), ‘The smallest party in history? New Labour in historical perspective’, Labour History Review, Volume 69, Issue 1, pp. 371 – 391.
Online
Anon. (2004), Peers bar lord chancellor removal, [online], Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3891567.stm
Hassan G. (2010), After ‘new Britain’: The Strange Death of ‘the Labour Nation’, [online], Available at: http://www.gerryhassan.com/long-journalistic-essays/after-new-britain-the-strange-death-of-the-labour-nation/
McAnulla S. (2006), British Politcs: A Critical Introduction, Google Books [online], Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eVEyirLnmnoC&pg=PA170&dq=constitutional+reform+new+labour&hl=en&sa=X&ei=apB9T9PoLMis8gObpMC8DQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=constitutional%20reform%20new%20labour&f=false
Roberts A. (2007), Breaking up (the country) is hard to do. Unless you are New Labour, of course, [online], Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551363/Breaking-up-the-country-is-hard-to-do.-Unless-you-are-New-Labour-of-course.html
Thomas A. (2003), How united is the UK? [online], Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2562527.stm
Amidst the recent controversy surrounding terrorism and its meaning for our society, I feel that this piece can help people to find a better understanding.
A critical evaluation of Cooper’s (2001: 83) definition of terrorism as “the intentional generation of massive fear by human beings for the purpose of securing or maintaining control over other human beings”.
Terrorism is a massively contentious issue which many analysts look at from differing viewpoints. Perhaps one of the most prominent questions is how to define terrorism. This alone is debatable, with many definitions using the same words as others but taking on a slightly different meaning due to the context in which they were written and the opinion of the writer. Despite Cooper’s definition appearing both broad and easy to apply, terrorism is nevertheless an essentially contested concept. In order to critically evaluate the statement, it will be first important to assess its credibility by cross referencing it with other standpoints on defining terrorism. There are many standpoints when it comes to defining terrorism; many even conflict with each other due to their ideologically driven nature. For example there are state and non-state definitions and also, new and traditional theories on what terrorism is. It will also be worth considering, in context of Cooper’s definition, what the idea of state terrorism means for defining terrorism. Most importantly, for a definition such as Cooper’s, the quote must be applicable to contemporary examples of terrorism such as the war in Iraq. All such questions must be asked of Cooper’s definition in order to perform a critical evaluation and as such, attempt to come to a considered and amicable conclusion of what terrorism could be defined as.
The main issue for governments or analysts trying to define terrorism is that terrorism is an essentially contested concept and contains no truth. It then in turn becomes difficult to analyse all the aspects of terrorism and create a meaningful sentence which looks at all the aspects evenly. It is impossible therefore to develop the perfect definition as there will always be opposition regarding legitimacy, rendering every definition untrue. As Laqueur explains, “There is no authoritative systematic guide to terrorism – no Clausewitz, not even a Jomini – and perhaps there will never be one, simply because there is not one terrorism but a variety of terrorisms and what is true for one does not necessarily apply to others” (Laqueur, 2003, p. 8). There is however, a need for an international definition to be created in some form due to the increase in terrorist activities concerning the western world in recent times. As Hoffman says, “An analysis of political violence is particularly important, given the fact that authoritarian regimes may find it convenient to label all manifestations of violent opposition as terrorist in nature” (Hoffman, 2009, p. 451). Cooper’s definition is an interesting take on terrorism and does lend itself slightly to a certain aspect of terrorism, that being state terrorism. State terrorism is not terrorism as it is immediately thought of but is for sure a very dangerous and malicious variation. Whittaker says that, “The high costs of modern warfare, and concern about non-conventional escalation, as well as the danger of defeat and the unwillingness to appear as the aggressor, have turned terrorism into an efficient, convenient, and generally discrete weapon for attaining state interests in the international realm” (Whittaker, 2001, p. 37). Although it could be argued that state terrorism does not exist at all. This is due to thoughts that terrorism is most often brought about due to a group wanting change rather than a government trying to maintain the status quo. There have however been many examples of where states have used military force to keep its population in line. Such as in Argentina where a government funded organization known as the AAA squad (Argentinian Anti-Communist Alliance) killed in total over one thousand five hundred people who opposed the government. During the mid seventies, the group was at its most brutal and was ordered to kill many political activists but also senior officials such as police officers and judges (Valente, 2007). This was, as Cooper’s definition states; an intentional generation of massive fear which in theory allowed the government to ‘maintain control’.
However, Cooper’s definition stretches beyond just state terrorism and could be used to describe both new and traditional theories. New terrorism is what we see from Al Qaeda today, with tactics such as suicide missions which draw their thought from religious persuasion. Muslim extremism and its aims very much befit the aims and ideas of new terrorism, as it sees violent destruction as an end in itself. As field states, “Proponents of the concept argue that contemporary terrorist groups are operating in an unprecedented manner and pose an entirely new type of terrorist threat” (Field, 2009, p. 1). Again this would be the intentional generation of fear which Cooper’s quote defines. Looking at Al Qaeda, it would appear that its members cannot be reasoned with whilst performing their acts of terrorism as they believe they are doing what is right in accordance to their religion. This mentality gives them the power to generate, as the title definition states, massive fear. More traditional forms of terrorism see destruction and violence as simply a pathway to advantages regarding political ends. According to Field, “The ‘traditional terrorism’ of the past was linked to a predominantly nationalist or separatist agenda and was usually concerned with the political situation within a specific region or country” (Field, 2009, p. 3). Cooper’s quote covers this as well when it communicates the ‘securing’ of power for those enacting terrorism. This differs from the example of the Al Qaeda suicide bombers, who of course cannot secure power from beyond the grave. Therefore Cooper’s definition can show, when taken in context of a given situation, two differing variations of what terrorism is at the same time without necessarily undermining the other.
Alongside contemporary thinkers and analysts such as Cooper, many states have attempted to define what terrorism is. State definitions have often been seen to have conflicted with other non-state definitions in their assessments of terrorism even when they came from the same country. For example, the US State Department has a different interpretation from Brian Jenkins, a former US government advisor. Jenkins codifies terrorism as, “The use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change” (Whittaker, 2001, p. 3). Whereas the US State Department defines terrorism as the, “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetuated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (Whittaker, 2001, p. 3). These two definitions take on similar areas of terrorism but the state definition appears more official, accommodating more specific circumstances. There are many other conflicting definitions of terrorism circling the US system, all of which throws up confusion for both the public and senior officials dealing with terrorists. However, it could as easily be argued that the more definitions the world has, the easier it will be to pin point a violent act as terrorism.
Looking at the above statements, perhaps the only reason why Cooper’s definition cannot fully explain terrorism is because it lacks two key areas or words which show up in many others, that is violence and politics. The two go hand in hand when evaluating terrorism especially concerning traditional theories on terrorism which explains that one often leads to the other. This is all despite the title statement itself being subject to much change over time as Cooper states, “This definition evolved over some 25 years of teaching about the topic of terrorism in a university setting, and during that time, it has undergone a number of small refinements as experience has suggested” (Cooper, 2001, p. 883). Importantly however, in the critical evaluation of Cooper, the definition has shown through the cross referencing of other notions of terrorism, that it can certainly be used to describe varying types of terrorism and could run closely alongside many other definitions and theories. All this meaning that Cooper’s definition is easily justifiable as an evaluation of terrorism.
In order to truly assess Cooper’s claims however, they must be analysed in relation to a case study. The Iraq war broke out due to a reaction to the terrorist attack on September 11th 2001 in New York. The twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York were destroyed by Al Qaeda suicide bombers aboard two aeroplanes; it was believed that terrorist leaders such as Osama Bin Laden were responsible. The UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W. Bush along with other allies agreed to join forces and invade Afghanistan for fear that they possessed weapons of mass destruction. “Testifying in front of the inquiry into the UK’s participation in the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Blair said he had stated publicly that Iraq needed to be confronted over its ambitions to develop weapons of mass destruction” (CNN News, 2010). This war later spread into other parts of the Middle East including Pakistan. There are perhaps two instances of terrorism during this period which Cooper’s definition can cover. The first is obviously the malicious attacks on the UK and US. More significantly the world trade centre attacks on September 11th but also the terrible London bombings in July 2005 where civilians were targeted on public transport. Over seven hundred people were injured during the London attacks with fifty two more killed (One India News, 2010). This would be an example of new terrorism, where death and destruction were the sole aims which Cooper defines as the ‘generation of massive fear’. The other instance of terrorism would be the relentless tactics being used by the Taliban in the war which followed and is still ongoing today. Hoffman, speaking of the Taliban, continues, “…once more is marshalling its forces to continue the struggle against the United States, which Osama Bin Laden formally declared thirteen years ago” (Hoffman, 2009, p. 1). Road-side bombs and suicide bombers have caused many western casualties over the years with the war proving very difficult for either side to win.
It is clear that the Iraq war and the actions preceding it can all be assessed as examples of terrorism in accordance with the title statement. This much is true but it could be interesting to look at the war from a different standpoint, where Cooper’s definition can take on different meanings. Perhaps it is the western allies who are also war criminals in the case of Iraq and are often seen to be committing terrorist acts themselves. Little is mentioned of the deaths of the largely innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan who are often caught up in the conflict. Considering Cooper’s definition, this could be seen as a state, or several more powerful states, aiming to ‘secure’ the control of another when initial fears of the possession of nuclear weapons was somewhat misguided. Schmid suggests that, “By placing narrowly defined acts of terrorism in the context of ‘war crimes’, the dilemma of attributing a given act of violence to the criminal or political sphere disappears” (Schmid, 1993, p. 13). It could be argued therefore that the Taliban is simply trying to defend its own territory by forcing allied troops out of the area despite its violent threats to the Western world. However even this, according to Cooper, is a form of terrorism and can be positioned within the definition when it talks of the ‘maintaining’ of control over other human beings.
Terrorism is an essentially contested concept and it has throughout the ages been difficult to define as it continuously proves today. There are no set rules when defining terrorism, with many definitions using alternative words even when coming to the same conclusions. There have been many attempts at it however, with most definitions covering broadly similar areas even if they do vary in emphasis on different issues. Cooper’s definition stands in my view as a very credible alternative to even those from government departments. It can be applied to varying aspects of terrorism including state terrorism and even war; it is comparable with state definitions, other non-state definitions but also new and traditional thoughts on terrorism. Cooper’s quote also offers up an interesting debate with regards to the War on Terror and how it can be viewed from differing perspectives. In conclusion, although there have been a vast amount of attempts to define terrorism, indeed it is often thought of as an impossibility, in my opinion Cooper’s definition stands up as well as any other.
Bibliography
Books
Hoffman. J (2009), Introduction to Political Theory, Second Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Laqueur. W (2003), No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty First Century, Google Books, Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uXn6UYh9JUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false,
Schmid. A P (1993) Western Response to Terrorism, London: Frank Cass Publishers.
Whittaker. D J (2001) The Terrorism Reader, New York: Routledge Ltd.
Web Articles
CNN World (2010), Blair: No ‘covert’ deal with Bush over Iraq, available at: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-29/world/england.iraq.blair.inquiry_1_john-chilcot-tony-blair-iraq?_s=PM:WORLD,
One India News (2010), July 7 2005 London bombing inquests to begin, available at: http://news.oneindia.in/2010/10/11/july7-2005-london-bombing-inquests-to-begin.html,
Journals
Cooper H. 2001, ‘The Problem of Definition Revisited’, Terrorism, pp.881-892.
Hoffman B. 2009, A Counterterrorism Strategy for the Obama Administration, Terrorism and Political Violence, 21 (3), p. 359, [online]. Available from: Taylor Francis Online. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09546550902950316,
Field A. 2009, ‘The ‘New Terrorism’: Revolution or Evolution?’, Politics Studies Review, 7, pp.195-207.
Luis de la Calle, 2011, ‘What We Talk About When We Talk About Terrorism’, Politics and Society, 39 (3), pp.451-472.
Schmid A P. 2004, ‘Frameworks for Conceptualising Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 16 (2), pp.197-221.
Weinber L, 2004, ‘The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 16 (4), pp.777-794.
This was my first piece of written work at degree level and is still something in which I take great pride.
Which of the theories of decision-making within the policy-making process is the most persuasive?
Decision-making in politics is a highly controversial issue. There are four important methods within the policy-making field which all have positive and negative aspects, these are; rational actor model, incremental model, bureaucratic organisational model and belief system model. The basic policy process however is also split up into four main stages; initiation, formulation, implementation and evaluation. Although all the theories of decision making are distinct, all follow this simple pattern when various decisions are made on policy. Deciding which of the four theories of decision-making is most persuasive is simply a matter of opinion. In order to come up with a ‘rational’ answer, all the political and moral aspects will have to be considered before coming to a definitive conclusion.
The policy-making process includes four basic stages of operation before a government, or policy makers, can claim to have developed a feasible policy for which a party can follow. However, the process is not as simple as it might look to the public or press. Heywood states: “Policy process not only involves clusters of decisions, in the sense of a number of related decisions concerning a particular policy area, but also different kinds of decisions.” (Heywood, 2002, p.404). The ‘decision to make a decision’ is a first and crucial part of the process which leads to the first of the four main stages of the policy-making process, the ‘policy initiation’. This is where an issue first arises and becomes part of a policy agenda (Heywood, 2002). An issue could either come from a public disagreement or a press or media concern, indeed usually both. This is known as a concern arising from ‘below’, whereas an issue concerning a politician or a government agency would come from ‘above’. The ‘policy formulation’ stage is all about defining specifically the policy a party wishes to implement. Policy-makers have to take a step back and look at both the short and long-term consequences of their actions. This relates to the theory of ‘forecasting’ and to the idea that policies at this stage are easily reinterpreted by peers. The main concern for a public body at this stage, which may have raised the issue in the first place, would be whether the government has fully understood their point of view and actions they feel need to be taken. Of course particularly when taking into account recent controversy over politician’s expenses, the public and press are currently unlikely to fully trust any government be it considered ‘open’ or not. Their main fear would be that a government will simply implement a policy to benefit themselves. Heywood argues: “Although public opinion and the concerns of bodies such as the media, political parties and interest groups are likely to influence objective setting, there is of course, no guarantee that the priorities identified by priority formulators will be the same as those advanced by policy initiators.” (Heywood, 2002, p.406). The third stage, the implementing of policy, follows the idea of the ‘perfect’ implementation. It has been argued that in order to achieve this goal a policy needs; perfect obedience or perfect control, perfect information, perfect communication and perfect coordination (Hood, 1976). The final point of the policy-making process is the evaluation stage. As with all the four stages, it is relatively self-explanatory but the main issue is the idea of appropriate feedback. After considering ‘policy feedback’ a policy-making body may choose to go back to the formulation stage in order to finalise some amendments. Heywood’s thoughts on the evaluation process also include, “decisions being made about the maintenance, succession or termination of the policy in question.” (Heywood, 2002, p.409).
In accordance to the policy-making process there are, as mentioned, four decision-making models which operate within it. The first of the four, the rational actor model is just that, rational and more logical than any of its alternatives. This stems from the concept of utilitarianism and the notion of the ‘economic man’, which draws on the idea that people are self-interested, deciding which option would most likely maximise their pleasure and minimise pain. Another reason the rational actor model could be seen as more logical is because it sets out its goals and aims first, which means more radical or bold decisions have to be made in order to achieve them. The means of then achieving a goal or objective are evaluated in terms of their reliability, costs and effectiveness before coming to a decision. The rational actor model has, along with other models, been analysed deeply by Graham T. Allison who uses the case study of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. After President Kennedy did not back up the ‘Bay of Pigs Invasion’ the soviets were on the front foot. According to Graham T. Allison’s study, ‘Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis’, it is thought that Kennedy and his advisors used a version of the rational actor model to plot there next move. After considering a range of options, in the end they decided on a blockade of Cuba to force the next move on the soviets. This was a bold move but one which brought, according to Heywood, a decision made through a selection of the means most likely to secure the desired end (Heywood, 2002). Perhaps the most persuasive factor of this model to a policy-making body is that it is how the percentage of people feels decisions should be made in politics and indeed in other walks of life. However, this argument is often countered by those who claim that while the model is clearly rational; perhaps the people making the decision are not i.e. politicians, currently not the most trustworthy group of professionals.
The incremental approach to decision making is widely regarded as being more realistic, both in terms of the idea itself but also of what actually goes on in politics today. It is considered by many as a Conservative method as befits their stereotypical ideological stance that is resistant to change. Of course this is not entirely true, the Conservative party has been known to change its stance, particularly today with regards to David Cameron’s more modern outlook. As was with Barack Obama, he is campaigning on a need specifically for ‘change’. Despite this thought, the traditional Conservative ideology can accept change and it does so with a certain degree of caution; thus fitting the incremental model perfectly. Heywood states that the Conservatives had, “accepted change, or change in order to conserve.” (Heywood, 2004, p.138). Furthermore the incremental model, instead of making big brash policy decisions (like the rational actor model), would keep with the previous policy but perhaps with a few amendments or ‘adjustments’ depending on circumstance. This is seen as safer, more realistically logical and ultimately conservative. Although recently there has been evidence that the Labour party has adopted this method of decision-making on its drug policy when, in January 2009, they upgraded cannabis to class B. Professor David Nutt was then sacked after stating that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol, further evidence to suggest that small adjustments to policy can have a big impact whether it be positive or negative. The benefits of adopting this theory of decision-making are that it is, particularly in a pluralist democracy, clearly more flexible and responsive according to the theory of ‘muddling through’ (Lindblom 1959). Critics of the system claim it is based too securely around a Conservative form of government, which to many is a criticism in itself and also that it lacks innovation with regards to policy solutions. Other, less partisan, criticisms centre on the fact that the model is inherently a short term solution to decision-making without looking at the long-term consequences in the future. Also, small policy changes implies that the decision being taken is small and insignificant thus raising issues that decisions within a policy-making process could be ill-informed with individuals lacking the adequate information required.
The bureaucratic organization model differs from the previous two decision making models in that it is more aware of the need to have a solid policy-making structure in order for it to be successful. Both the incremental and rational actor models pay no attention to this point. The bureaucratic organizational models dwell on the impact made upon large organizations as a result of a policy changing decision. Impact such as those on basic ideological values, assumptions and regular patterns of behaviour which exist in any large organization (Heywood, 2002). Instead this decision-making model states that decisions in policy making should be made to reflect the core values of an organization, not conflict against them. Furthermore any policy changes should be done so with the appropriate degree of appreciation for the internal organizational factors. While this model may operate in accordance to the majority of personnel in an organization, it also has a number of drawbacks. Chief among which is the fact that political leadership becomes almost obsolete, or not needed, in the sense that it would be the consensus of an organization which in the end would ultimately make a decision. Without leadership ‘from above’, critical decisions could become few and far between. Furthermore, the model goes against national interest in favour of departmental interest, something which would not appeal to the electorate. Again, in accordance to Graham T. Allison’s theory, President Kennedy’s actions in the Cuban Missile Crisis could have been interpreted differently by applying the bureaucratic organization model as opposed to the rational actor. Instead of looking at an array of options before making a decision, Kennedy would have chosen the first idea which was considered adequate as opposed to waiting for the optimal solution, in the name of saving time.
The belief system model draws on the ideological values of a policy-making body or indeed, of an individual. The model sets out three levels of ideological strength. The first being ‘deep core ideological values’ which are our fundamental moral principles, the second being our ‘near core values’ which indicate our policy preferences and finally our ‘secondary beliefs’, which influence our views on policy implementation. An example of when ideological values matter most is perhaps during Prime Minister’s question time. As the two major parties battle for the supremacy of the house through jeering and shouting, perhaps the only thing separating them is their ideological values. Under the belief system model, ideological values are seen as the ‘glue’ of political decision-making. Though this theory of decision-making would make policy easy to decipher, it is not a feasible or commonly used method on which to formulate policy. Its level of persuasiveness is low to say the least, particularly to a highly political policy-making body. An advocator of the belief system model would counter that argument by involving political culture as opposed to an individual’s ideology. Moran claims that political culture, “consists of more than attitudes to political authority or beliefs about the purpose of government; it encompasses the political practices and ceremonials of a community” (Moran, 1989, p.34).
Within the policy-making process, political decisions are hugely important if a government wishes to be successful. Deciding upon which is the best or the most persuasive is a difficult question. If a government were to decide upon the use of one of the four theories, it would like to evaluate all of them for their strengths, weaknesses and the reality of implementing such a model into the party line. The first to be brushed aside would be the belief system model as it is too simplistic to suggest that ideology is all that matters, particularly in decision making. The idea that politics is making progress, in appealing to all in society, would be lost thus deeming the belief system model a backward step. The bureaucratic organization model would also falter. While few want to see the return of a dictatorship, this model seems to satisfy only the interests of those on the inside, the public voters would not approve. In my opinion, were a government to be persuaded by just one of the decision making models, it would be the incremental model. A bold decision taken in light of using the rational actor model could be seen as the right way forward to many, particularly those who place themselves on the left of the ideological spectrum. However, a bold decision implies that there is a certain element of risk involved. Taking a wrong turn because of an irrational thought or political leaning, especially in today’s economic climate, could result in disaster.
Bibliography
Andrew Heywood, (2002), Politics, Second Edition, Hampshire: Palgrave Foundations.
Andrew Heywood, (2004), Political Theory An Introduction, Third Edition, Hampshire: Palgrave Foundations.
Michael Moran, (1989), Politics and Society in Britain an Introduction, Second Edition, London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
C Hood, (1976), The Limits of Administration, London: John Wiley.
C Lindblom, (1959), ‘The Science of Muddling Through’, Public Administration Review, vol. 19, pp. 79-88.
Graham T. Allison, (1999), Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Second Edition, Longman.
A critical analysis of Plato’s elitist challenge to democracy.
Elitism is arguably the most effective and logical threat to democracy. This essay will begin by providing an introduction to elitist thought by comparing and contrasting the views of Platonic elitism to those of more modern elitist thinkers such as Schumpeter. It will become clear in the first of the essay that elitist thought is not only of one kind and that the Platonic variation was only the beginning. The essay will then attempt to unpick the main features of Plato’s ideal form of society and in doing so, show how a Platonic society could have effectively challenged the democracy of the time. This is before offering a critique of Plato’s arguments through the use of readings from other philosophers such as Aristotle and Popper. These critiques will be questioned on grounds of their legitimacy before concluding that Plato’s view of truth, the core of his philosophical argument, is somewhat speculative.
Part 1 – An Introduction to Elitism.
Elitist thought has become apparent many times within philosophical and political history and is of paramount importance when attempting to critique democracy. Elitism is a political standpoint which prioritises a certain group in society above those of others on the simple basis that they are superior. Even in contemporary society, elitism can be seen to have a certain significance, as Anthony Holiday attempts to justify, “It is no accident that the epithet ‘elitist’ has enjoyed such currency, both in the emergent and in the established democracies of our times. Its popularity reflects our disillusionment with the way power is distributed in contemporary democratic practice…” (Holiday, 1998, p. 243). Elitism, in the context of this essay, emphasises the belief that there are those in society of who command greater stature in the governing of the populace. This could be in terms of their intellect, political wisdom or indeed any attribute which raises their position in society above that of the ordinary citizen. It is this sense of hierarchy that has led elitists and those who believe in the concept, to believe that they should be the ones who control most power in a society and in some cases also, to be the ones who govern. This is the point which Plato picks up on with regards to the notion of philosopher kings; the wise rulers who he believes would be best suited to the job of governance. However, Plato was not the only elitist philosopher and although there are seldom few in contemporary society who may be convinced by such argument, elitist principles were plentiful throughout the history of political philosophy. Thinkers such as Joseph Schumpeter and Max Weber have, far more recently than Plato, showed support for an elitist form of government. Held outlines a Schumpeterian position, “In Schumpeter’s democratic system, the only full participants are the members of political elites in parties and in public offices” (Held, 2006, p. 156). Both from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Weber and Schumpeter were advocates of a system of competitive elitism. Competitive elitism outlines the idea that the best society can hope for is to have strong individual leaders. Schumpeter goes on to argue that political decisions should not be made by the populace as they do not have the required credentials to govern, Held says of Schumpeterian democracy, “The role of ordinary citizens is not highly delimited, but it is frequently portrayed as an unwanted infringement on the smooth functioning of ‘public’ decision-making” (Held, 2006, p. 156). The Schumpeterian argument suggests that the populace should have only one decision to make, that being which of two competing elites they would prefer to govern. Using competitive elitism as an example, it is easy to see where elitist thought stems from as both of these core principles share similarities to a Platonic style of government. Crucially however, it does have a significantly different take on what elitism is especially when contrasted to Plato. This is because Plato believes that rulers were the only members of society who could seek a truth in politics and because of this, were the only individuals capable of governance. Nevertheless, it is still interesting to see that elitist thought and the criticism of democracy still lives strong over two thousand years after Plato’s death. Plato, along with his mentor Socrates, is believed to be the most significant of all early political philosophers and is often credited with being the first to truly challenge democracy.
Born in Athens, around 429bc, Plato was brought up by a family who were deeply involved in the politics of the time. It was imagined that Plato himself would follow his father’s path, in order to participate in Athenian democracy. Much changed however, as Plato developed his own ideas and opinions on what Athenian democracy was and what he believed the alternative model should be. As with any human being, life experiences shape who that person becomes and certainly there were particular events in Plato’s life which may have changed the way he viewed the world. Chief among which was the death of his mentor Socrates, this devastated Plato and ever since appeared to determined to revolutionise the political system and create sound foundations for the future (Boucher, 2009). Socrates, despite his apparent influence on Plato, never once wrote a single piece of literature. Nevertheless, Plato bases much of his democratic argument on the teachings of Socrates which were made all the more powerful and relevant when he was put to death at the hands of the Athenian political system. Boucher says of Socrates, “His ideas, especially those depicting in the so-called Socratic dialogues of Plato, raise crucial questions concerning ethics and politics which have become the abiding themes of political theory from more than two thousand years” (Boucher, 2009, p. 48). Socrates was killed because of an accusation that he was corrupting youths; Plato strongly disagreed with this verdict and thus developed a hatred for the democratic system that had executed his mentor. Many of Socrates’ actions were intent on inspiring the established order and rising above the government, although this did often mean combating many who opposed him (Tarrant, 1993). Tarrant comments, “Socrates was an outstanding Athenian, and he paid the price for being one” (Tarrant, 1993, p. 30). So instead of following the predicted path into Athenian politics, Plato turned to philosophy where Socrates’ death taught Plato two things. Firstly, he believed that the citizens of Athens did not have the ability to govern and secondly that philosophers should govern instead; these two factors then become the centre piece of a Platonic society, his ideal form of democracy.
Part 2 – Plato’s critique of Athenian democracy and his ideal form of society.
This section will demonstrate Plato’s opposition to Athenian democracy before outlining the main aspects of Plato’s alternative system of government. The section will also show how radical Plato’s philosophy must have been, especially when contrasting his position to that of the system in place at the time. Athenian democracy is, although heavily criticised by Plato, of paramount importance when explaining his alternative model of government. This is because many of the features of a Platonic society come from Plato’s critiques of the Athenian form of a direct democracy. Athenian democracy was based around the idea of citizenship and ensured that all judicial or political decisions were made by the citizens of Athens, although citizenship itself was extremely limited to just a select few in society. In order to become a citizen at this time, you had to be born in Athens, be over twenty years of age, male and have plenty of spare leisure time to enact your duties. Such was the citizens’ domination of governing process, Held describes it as, “The legendary democracy was intimately connected to what one might call the ‘tyranny of citizens” (Held, 2006, p. 19). That is to say that the citizens were the dominant entity in society and fully controlled the democratic system especially in decision making, such were the properties of this form of direct democracy. Political power at this time truly was spread around the populace. Plato disagreed with this rule by citizenship as he believed that the ordinary citizens did not have the correct credentials to govern, this being just one critique that Plato later uses to form part of his ideal form of society. Kaplan argues a point that, “…the polis itself can be understood as a system regulating the expression of such passions by citizens, not by suppression but through the elaborate choreography of anger and pity in arenas of collective decision.” (Kaplan, 2002, p. 452). This point expands on the issue of the tyranny of citizens as it emphasises that the system in place did not suppress the desires of the citizens, rather it encouraged their decision making through any means possible. Athenian democracy demanded unity and solidarity from its member citizens however, whilst also seeking participation and public deliberation in its decision making. Speaking from the position of a typical Greek citizen, Dahl says, “…so that all citizens can meet together in the assembly and thus act as rulers of the city, but also in order that all citizens may know one another. To seek the good of all, citizens must be able to apprehend the good of each and thus be capable of understanding the common good…” (Dahl, 1989, p. 16). Together with this sense of inclusion and collectiveness of the governing citizens, women, immigrants and slaves were excluded along with many others from Athenian citizenship, meaning that they could take no part in the governing of the populace. Plato challenges this divided society, claiming that no one should be excluded from governing given the correct depth of knowledge, Phillips says, “The ancient Greeks did not see democracy as promising a more general human equality, and it is interesting, in this context, that it was the anti-democratic Plato who queried the exclusion of women from politics, and considered them as legitimate candidates for his elite of Guardians.” (Phillips, 1993, p. 125). Plato instead criticised the citizens whose job it was to govern at that time, Dahl says, “…claiming to represent Socrates, about how silly it is to expect ordinary people to rule wisely and how much better Athens would be if it were governed by wise philosophers…” (Dahl, 1989, p. 15). Plato believed that figures known to him as the Philosopher Kings should instead govern as they were in many ways different to ordinary members of the populace.
According to Plato, people were split into three categories according to their most dominant desires. Whether having appetitive, spirited or rational desires, all had significance when distributing power across the just city (Boucher, 2009). An appetitive desire would be the simple things in life or basic necessities such as wealth, food, drink and sex with the typical occupation being a worker or farmer. Plato argued that everyone in society had these kinds of desires, and indeed all three types, but it was those who prioritised their rational desires that should be considered the most important in this context. Someone who prioritised spirited desires would most likely be a soldier or police and would aspire to succeed, be victorious, whilst also taking great care of their reputation (Boucher, 2009). Someone who prioritised their rational desires however, as Plato argues, would care little for these more personal of victories and were more likely to emphasise the bigger picture in their quest for a truth. As Boucher argues, “Without rational order, then, there would be no truth, and so no knowledge.” (Boucher, 2009, p. 67). Indeed, according to Plato, it was only those who valued rational desires who could find the truth in politics and thus it should be only the philosopher kings who are allowed to govern. Plato says in his work ‘The Republic, “Anyone who is going to be a truly good guardian of our community, then, will have a philosophers love of knowledge, and will be passionate, quick on his feet, and strong” (Plato, 1993, p. 69). This epitomises Plato’s craft analogy which in fact originates from the teachings of Socrates. It is based around the idea that only those who are skilful in their work or craft have the capacity to realize a truth. Socrates, in a more liberal fashion, argues that these positions are open to anyone in society, whereas Plato argues that only political elite should rule (Plato, 1993). Plato’s idea of the noble lie also helps to explain the need for this sense of hierarchy; it does this by attempting to justify the positioning of the people in Plato’s ideal society. Plato says of the purpose of the noble lie, “so that with a single noble lie we can indoctrinate the rulers…” (Plato, 1993, p. 118). The noble lie would be expressed by the rulers of society and states that somebody’s status in a Platonic society, determined by their desire, was out of their control and is not due to their upbringing or depth of education. Instead, the noble lie claims that these positions were determined by god and that only god can distinguish between the people. Plato says, “God included gold in the mixture when he was forming those of you who have what it takes to be rulers, silver when he was forming the auxiliaries, and iron and copper when he was forming the farmers…” (Plato, 1993, p. 119). Plato believes the noble lie to be deeply necessary and that it would have to continue in order to keep the peace in his perfect society, or the Kallipolis.
This then, brings in the notion of the state as the individual writ large. Plato believed that the most important people in society were those that valued reason and as such, it should be this impulse that governs all internally. The analogy of the cave is a good explanation of this. It depicts a group of slaves who have been tied down to one position in a cave for their entire lives and left to stare only at a blank, back-lit wall. Through the use of fire and random objects, the prisoner’s captors could portray a form of life to the prisoners by using the shadows on the wall. Without ever being able to move, the prisoners would believe this to be the real world. As Barnes argues, “Plato appears, then, to oscillate between two thoughts: the puppets are truer than the shadows, or the puppets are closer to the truth than the shadows” (Barnes, 2011, p. 82). What distinguishes a philosopher king, according to Plato, is that they would always seek the truth from whatever world they found themselves in. As the analogy continues, one of the prisoners one day is released from his capture and leaves the cave to discover the real world; leaving the rest of the prisoners behind as he slowly begins to believe in the real world. Plato also knew however, that not everyone was capable of achieving this and here brings about the divisions he sees in society. Nevertheless, Plato still believed that it should be the impulse to find a truth or an individual’s rational desires that should govern the individual internally. Therefore, those who did value this should also be the ones governing in society in order to achieve effective government. Plato believed that more people needed to start thinking in this way and the way in which to achieve this would be through education, a large factor in Plato’s ideal society. Indeed it is believed that all member citizens were to receive some form of education, otherwise producers such as farmers would never learn how to farm (Barrow, 1975). Barrow goes on, “All we can safely say is that Plato chooses to concentrate on outlining the education of the Guardians…” (Barrow, 1975, p. 22). The young in society were of particular importance to Plato as they are more easily influenced and could potentially adapt to more rational thoughts, all of which could help them to eventually reach the status of a philosopher king. As Benson explains, “The young guardians who will be responsible for the city’s well-being must receive an education that properly forms their characters. In Plato’s view the young soul is impressionable and capable of being molded by any material that comes its way.” (Benson, 2006, p. 389). Another reason for targeting young people was that Plato was afraid of them developing new revolutionary ideas for themselves and causing rebellion. The job of governance under a Platonic style of government would therefore, for the time being, be kept well away from the young for this very reason.
Plato’s ideal form of society would follow a reasonably strict structure, according mostly to an individual’s appetitive, spirited or rational desires. According to Plato, although this point is much disputed, philosopher kings would never govern in the name of themselves. Instead they would act for the good of the city, with Plato claiming that the idea of justice would have a massive impact upon their decisions, as White explains, “But it turns out that he does not think that there is no other motivation working in favour of justice. Indeed, he thinks that being just can involve clear-cut sacrifice of one’s own good” (White, 1979, p. 103). Consequently, the lives of the philosopher kings would be severely compromised such is the cost of wielding power. In order to become a philosopher king in a Platonic society, one must not have any possessions and be able to accept an almost communist lifestyle. A philosopher king would not be allowed to have family or own a property or indeed anything which could influence their decisions as a ruler. Dahl summarises the nature of the philosopher kings, “… be completely devoted to the search for truth and, like true philosophers, discern more clearly than all others what is best for the community, but they must also be wholly dedicated to achieving that end and therefore must possess no interests of their own inconsistent with the good of the polis.” (Dahl, 1989, p. 53). A Platonic style of government would have been a big departure from what was currently in place at the time and as such, these measures would have been necessary at the time in order to avoid any complications. Plato’s suggested form of society plays heavily on his belief that there is a truth to be found in every aspect of life and especially politics. Plato argues that in order for something to exist as an object, or idea, there must an ideal form of it. This brings around Plato’s theory of the forms and the form of the good, White explains the forms in relation to the philosopher kings and their responsibilities, “Understanding of the forms is said to be necessary for the rulers to know the Good and to perform their task of ruling properly” (White, 1979, p. 30). That is to say that Plato believes that there is a right and correct way to govern, he prophesises about an ideal form of government but also many false versions of government. As white explains, “… Plato is willing to say that in a certain manner sensibles are copies or imitations of Forms, suggesting that they have a resemblance to the Forms but that they fall short of perfect likeness” (White, 1979, p. 37). Plato argues that the only wise philosophers can distinguish between a correct and incorrect form of government. Therefore the ideal form of government would be controlled by those who could seek a truth and were internally governed as such, the philosopher kings. As Plato argues, “…if we can show that some people are made to practice philosophy and to be political leaders, while others shouldn’t engage in philosophy and should follow a leader” (Plato, 1993, p. 193). This area of the essay has examined how an Athenian democracy conflicts with the ideas behind Plato’s ideal form of society, with Plato laying out an extensive argument as to why he believes the Athenian system is wrong.
Part 3 – The Critiques of Plato
This part of the essay will now examine some critiques of Plato’s philosophy, put forward by other thinkers such as Popper, Foucault and Aristotle. 
Aristotle, a student of Plato’s until his death, criticised some of Plato’s philosophy. Even though his own work ‘Politics’ shares more than a passing resemblance to Plato’s work ‘The Republic’ (Davis, 1905). Aristotle takes opposition to Plato’s theory that there can only be one true form of government, as Aristotle argues that there can be many; such are the liberties of freedom. Aristotle says, “Of democracy and all other forms of government there are many kinds” (Aristotle, 1905, p. 237). Aristotle also rejects Plato’s mentor Socrates and his position on this, “Finally, although there are many forms of oligarchies and democracies, Socrates speaks of their revolutions as though there were only one form of them” (Aristotle, 1905, p. 236). Unlike Plato then, who claims that Philosopher Kings are the only controllers of society, Aristotle speaks of a possible revolution against the state. He argues that should man be wronged or deprived of honours, they are likely to cause revolution; revolution which could change the form of government (Aristotle, 1905). Therefore implying that there cannot be a true form of government as Plato depicts, as such a system may be subject to change. Foucault also has objections to there being an idea of one single truth in politics. 
Foucault argues that there are truths to be found within the systems of society, surrounding the issues of power, but that there is no universal truth that could govern society or the individual internally as Plato claims. Foucault understands truth as, “…a system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation and operation of statements.” (Foucault, 1980, p.131). This leads onto Foucault’s claims about a regime of truth, which claims that our visions of truth may change with the progression of society. That is to say that what could be viewed as true today might not be in years to come. Foucault also says, “Truth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint.” (Foucault, 1980, p. 131). Thus meaning that, according to Foucault, truth as a concept is limited by society rather than society being limited by truth; the notion which shapes Plato’s philosophy. There are many critiques of Plato scouring political philosophy, with opposition attacking most aspects of his ideal form of society. However, it is Karl Popper who offers up perhaps the most substantial critiques of Plato in his book ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’. 
Rather than having a specific objection to Plato’s usage of the word truth, Popper claims simply that Plato’s philosophy is untrue for a number of reasons. Firstly, Popper has much objection to the governance of the philosopher kings, claiming that this regime is totalitarian, “In spite of such arguments I believe that Plato’s political programme, far from being morally superior to totalitarianism, is fundamentally identical with it” (Popper, 1945, p. 87). Furthermore, Popper claims that the philosopher kings would, despite the idealistic view of Plato, eventually govern in the name of themselves. Popper also indirectly critiques Plato on the notion of the noble lie, claiming that someone who values truth so much could not also include a lie in his philosophy, without ulterior motives. In turn Popper believes that Plato’s whole philosophy, including his ideal form of society, is nothing more than propaganda or a manifesto for himself. Popper says, “To me the only likely reply seems to be that he wanted to make propaganda for his totalitarian state by persuading the people that it was the ‘just’ state” (Popper, 1945, p. 92). Of the many critiques that Popper labels Plato with, it is this one which suggests that Plato’s work ‘The Republic’ is simply a personal step towards power which is the most significant. It could be viewed however, that such is the difference between ancient Greek society and that of today, that more modern critiques from such as Foucault or Popper may lack credibility due to the fact that they were formed long since the relevant context. It is Aristotle then who has the greatest platform on which to critique Plato but seeing as, rather ironically, that his teachings bear much resemblance to those of Plato, his standpoint lacks a little authenticity also. Nevertheless, this part of the essay has outlined a small number of many critiques levelled at Plato, all of which are significant and could be used to legitimately critique Plato’s ideal form of society.
This essay has analysed elitist thought at different stages throughout philosophical and political history. Schumpeter’s more modern preference towards a system of competitive elitism could be viewed as taking inspiration from a Platonic style of elitism. Plato offers up a distinct and measured approach in his elitist critique of democracy. His view that philosopher kings should rule along with the interesting sociological theories such as the craft analogy and noble lie provide, what could be seen as, an effective alternative to ancient Athenian democracy. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the ancient Athenian democracy of which Plato speaks of was somewhat flawed in its democratic outlook due to the level of inequality in its citizenship. There have been nevertheless, many critiques levelled at Plato from differing era’s and philosophical perspectives; all of which offer substantial literature in their undermining of Plato’s view of an ideal form of society. To conclude, although Plato outlines an extensive alternative to what he viewed as unfair Athenian society, it is my opinion that his fixation with certain elites discovering a truth is somewhat idealistic in his hatred of Athenian democracy.
Bibliography
Books
Aristotle. (1905), Politics, London: Oxford University Press.
Aristotle. (1959), Politics, London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
Boucher D (2009), Political Thinkers From Socrates to the Present, Second Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cartledge P. (2009), Ancient Greek Political Thought in Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dahl R. (1989), Democracy and Its Critics, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Foucault M. (1980), Power/Knowledge, New York: Pantheon Books.
Held D. (2006), Models of Democracy, Third Edition, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Phillips A. (1993), Democracy and Difference, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania University Press.
Plato. (1993), Republic, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Plato and Tarrant H. (1993), The Last Days of Socrates, Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.
Popper K. R. (1945), The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 The Spell of Plato, Fifth Edition, London: Routledge & Keegan Paul Ltd.
White N. (1979), A Companion to Plato’s Republic, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc.
Zakopoulos A. (1975), Plato on Man, New York: Philosophical Library Inc.
Journals
Holiday H. (1998), ‘Political Education and Platonic Elitism’, Studies in Philosophy and Education, Vol 17, pp. 243 – 250.
Kaplan M. (2002), ‘Rethinking Athenian Democracy’, Political Theory, Vol 30, No. 3, pp. 449 – 453.
Online
Barnes J. (2011), Method and Metaphysics, Google Books [online], Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=28h6x7HQosgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=method+and+metaphysics&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Jd2eT5yIJMSq0QXPp6jjDg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=method%20and%20metaphysics&f=false
Barrow R. (1975), Plato, utilitarianism and education, Google Books [online], Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Kdo9AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=plato+utilitarianism+and+education&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2d2eT_fCIaX80QXM0O2WDw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=plato%20utilitarianism%20and%20education&f=false
Benson H. (2006), A Companion to Plato, Google Books [online], Available at : http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4ppmQoLfvhUC&dq=A+Companion+to+Plato+benson+2006&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WuKeT4j6JuO10QWd-9jwDg&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA
Is having competing elites the best that we can hope for in a democracy?
The views of Joseph Schumpeter offer an interesting perspective on democracy. He is of elitist thought and believes that only elites in society should govern. Schumpeter sets out a credible argument as to why he believes this, looking at the role of the citizen and the way a democracy should be run. Schumpeter believes that the only purpose of democracy in society is to aid in decision making. In many ways, the democratic theory set out by Schumpeter can be likened to the model that is representative democracy. This is because the representative view sees one individual being allowed to represent many in a political system, the individual being the elite as in Schumpeter’s ideals. It will also be important to offer the contrasting views of philosophers such as Burke and crucially Rousseau, a proponent of direct democracy. This essay will attempt to balance the argument between Schumpeterian elitism and the more direct approach to democracy but also to examine how closely related representative democracy is to Schumpeter’s ideals.
The Austrian Joseph Schumpeter worked and lived for most of his life in the USA and is considered as one of the major political thinkers in the twentieth century, with regards to economics and most prominently democracy. His most famous work written in 1942, ‘Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy’ debates how socialism and democracy could coexist but also outlines his theory on democracy or as he claims the ‘theory of competitive leadership’ (Swedberg, 1991). Schumpeter therefore lays claim to being an elitist; that is to say he favours the rule of knowledgeable elites in society. He shares this view with Max Weber who determined a system of ‘competitive elitism’, the model that Schumpeter’s theory on democracy is closely aligned to (Held, 1987). It would be inaccurate however to brandish all elitists as one and the same as elitist thought has come about at many different points in history, where the meaning of elitism might be slightly different given the relevant contexts. Schumpeter also claims to be a realist in outlook, a point that cannot be contested given that all his opinions are based on fact. Wedberg adds, “… but he also took a certain pride in not letting his prejudices interfere with his better judgement” (Swedberg, 1991, p. 141).
Representative democracy is the core foundation for Schumpeter’s theory on democracy and is still present today in varied forms all around the world. It is often seen as a response to a more direct system of democracy as Held states, “Representative government overcomes the excesses of pure democracy because elections themselves force a clarification of public issues…” (Held, 1987, p. 64). The ideal behind representative democracy is that one person or politician should be able to represent many people in an institution such as a parliament. It could be suggested that these people are similar to the elites of which Schumpeter speaks of and could enact any of the three main underpinnings of representative democracy as single entities. These are the mandate to govern, the ability and power to speak on behalf of others and the literal representation of people like themselves, this could be racial or gender specific for example. In contemporary society, constituents rely on mandated representatives to bring their views and specific topics to Parliament. Although as Phillips says, “Democracy as we know it emerged through a dual shift – from direct to representative democracy, and from a politics of the common good to a politics of individual protection” (Phillips, 1993, p. 124). Many of today’s mp’s are influenced by greater powers such as their party and the opinion of the general public. Just because a topic may be important to a particular constituency doesn’t mean it is to the rest of the country or that the issue is in accordance to the party line. This is so often a critique of singular rulers and so can be applied to a Schumpeterian argument. Pitkin explains that, “The representative must act independently; his action must involve discretion and judgement; he must be the one who acts” (Pitkin, 1967, p. 209). The ultimate decision on whether to raise an issue to parliament is left down to one single individual who may have an alternative opinion on the matter and therefore does not fairly represent the majority. Edmund Burke, seen as an elitist and as one of the founding fathers of conservative thought, picks up on this critique of mandated representatives. Pitkin states, “For Burke, political representation is the representation of interest, and interest has an objective, impersonal, unattached reality” (Pitkin, 1967, p. 168). Burke, who despite being known to show a disregard for public opinion, claims that this system would create a parliamentary battleground where nothing gets done, which in turn could prove problematic for the interests and unity of a country. Despite this view, the representative argument still remains strong especially when taking into account contemporary politics. As a nation we appear broadly happy with the level of democracy that we currently have. It also allows the electorate a certain platform on which to scrutinise the government. This is mostly through media outlets and question sessions for which representatives of each major party can display their party policies. Thus, a Schumpeterian argument that claims that elitist rule is the best we can hope for, certainly does have contemporary relevance and can be likened towards today’s society.
Schumpeter’s argument does well to build on the basic underpinnings of representative democracy despite certain critiques on the core foundations of the system. For Schumpeter, democracy is simply a method or a way in which to arrive at a political decision. At his time of living, Schumpeter thought that political was too normative and did not represent the reality of what was going on in society. Wedberg says, “Schumpeter, as we know, develops his own theory of democracy in contrast to what he called ‘the classical doctrine of democracy’” (Swedberg, 1991, p. 162). He also claims that democracy should be fought out between just two political entities. That is to say two political parties and its leaders or, as Schumpeter would argue, political elites. Schumpeter’s view on the role of the citizen in a democratic society is what is often thought to set him apart. Similarly to Burke, Schumpeter believes that citizens do not have credible enough opinions to allow them access to directly influence democracy. Instead, the role of the citizen is simply to choose which one of the two available candidates they prefer and give them a mandate to govern. According to Schumpeter, “Democracy does not mean and cannot mean that the people actually rule in any obvious sense of terms ‘people’ and ‘rule’. Democracy means only that the people have the opportunity of accepting or refusing the men who are to rule them.… Now one aspect of this may be expressed by saying that democracy is the rule of the politician.” (Schumpeter, 1942, pp. 284-5). As such, Schumpeterian democracy avoids any left wing ideals that would prefer more public participation. Instead the elites in a Schumpeterian society would govern on behalf of the people, as in representative democracy, where, as Schumpeter claims ‘democracy is the rule of the politician’ (Held, 1987). That is to say that the populace should have no fear of an elitist society and that Schumpeterian democracy will always avoid tyrannical leaders as the public vote will always have the initial choice between two candidates. Held states, “The development of competing parties irreversibly changes the nature of parliamentary politics. Party machines sweep aside traditional affiliations and establish themselves as centres of loyalty, displacing others as the key basis of national politics” (Held, 1987, p. 156). Schumpeter argues that once this choice is made, politicians or the elites left in charge should be allowed to govern as they see fit. This view could be likened to Plato and his theory of the philosopher kings as Schumpeter believes that future decisions should be left to those who know best and have the greatest knowledge. Held comments on Plato, “Plato’s position, in brief, is that the problems of the world cannot be resolved until philosophers rule; for only they, when fully educated and trained, have the capacity to harmonize all elements of human life under ‘the rule of wisdom’” (Held, 1987, p. 31). Although Schumpeter does not claim that elites have a god given right of power in the same way Plato claims, Schumpeter does claim though that an elitist form of democracy is the best we can hope for. He argues this not simply because it favours those seen as greatest in society but because democracy does not imply that people should have direct access to power, just that they can choose who has it. It should be important to the people thereafter that society is run effectively and thus, those who have the most knowledge should govern to ensure success.
The alternative to a representative form of government such as Schumpeter’s would be to involve more people in politics and increase participation. This brings the theories on democracy back to Schumpeter’s rather specific critique on what democracy is and what he believes the alternative should be. Nevertheless, direct democracy is a well known and credible model of democracy and can be used to further critique Schumpeter and representative democracy. As Dahl argues, “These institutions of representative democracy removed government so far from the direct reach of the demos that one could reasonably wonder, as some critics have, whether the new system was entitled to call itself by the venerable name of democracy” (Dahl, 1989, p. 30). Direct democracy offers up a form of democracy in its purest form and allows for a completely fair society. In a direct democracy, political participation would be of vital importance in order to come to decisions which could affect the lives of the populace. This is in stark contrast to today’s society which offers little in the way of participation for the ordinary member of the community. Furthermore as Rousseau argues, there would be increased deliberation to ensure the safe passage of changes to constitutional law; a power which would be vested in the people. Medding argues, “Democracy, it is claimed, demands the direct participation of all citizens in decision making, with issues being decided after careful reasoned, informed, and widespread public discussion” (Medding, 1969, p. 642). Issues of importance would be weighted in accordance to the amount of support showed for it by the people. Boucher says of Rousseau, “He argued against the principle of deputies, or representatives, ridiculing the British system in being free only at the time of elections. He argued that sovereignty cannot be represented…” (Boucher, 2009, p. 275). Above all a direct democracy would introduce at least a sense of equality which would allow everyone in a society to be heard. The Schumpeterian argument would take issue with allowing such political freedom to the people, as he believes only those with knowledge on issues should be allowed to take action regarding them.
To conclude, Schumpeter makes a compelling argument that competing elites are the best we can hope for in a democracy. Schumpeter is perfectly justified in making this claim, as he believes that this is the better compromise in order to achieve an effective form of government. Schumpeter’s model of democracy shows similarities towards a Platonic style of government, Max Weber’s vision of competitive elitism but mostly toward representative democracy, the model on which it is based. Schumpeter believes that a democracy is simply a method toward decision and that the populace should be happy to choose who they want to make such decisions, without having to make them themselves. Schumpeter’s theory therefore would be opposed by proponents of direct democracy such as Rousseau and would be criticised for not offering enough public participation. Although it is difficult to apply a theory like Schumpeter’s to contemporary society because of the relative contexts, it is easy to take the view that we are currently living in a similar system or at least one where we are represented by individuals. Although the elites in society are not so pre-determined, the electorate is still often left with a choice between just two realistic candidates for election. Despite this, representative democracy still lives strong today and does give the electorate a well exercised platform on which to scrutinise a government. On the whole we have very little problems with the current level of democracy, with governments remaining strong and decisive. According to Boucher, “Given what we know about human nature and its ability to exploit the institutional opportunities of government, a representative democracy with the appropriate liberal constitutional structure is the only appropriate way for the greatest happiness to emerge” (Boucher, 2009, p. 358). In my opinion a Schumpeterian theory is perhaps too extreme for today’s society and as such a representative form of democracy, from which Schumpeter’s theory stemmed, is probably the best we can hope for considering the repercussions of an alternative system.
Bibliography
Books
Boucher D. & Kelly P., (2009), Political Thinkers From Socrates to the Present, Second Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dahl R., (1989), Democracy and its Critics, London: Yale University Press.
Held D., (1987), Models of Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Phillips, (1993), Democracy and Difference, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Pitkin H., (1967), The Concept of Representation, London: University of California Press.
Saward M., (2007), Democracy, London: Routledge.
Schumpeter J., (1943), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Google Books [online], Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6eM6YrMj46sC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Swedberg R., (1991), Joseph A. Schumpeter His Life and Work, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Journals
Cunningham S., (2010), ‘Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, socialism, and democracy’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 20-22.
Medding P., (1969), ‘Elitist Democracy: An Unsuccessful Critique of a Misunderstood Theory’, The Journal of Politics, Volume 31, No. 3, pp. 641-654.
Medearis J., (2002), ‘Joseph Schumpeter’s Two Theories of Democracy’, American Political Science Review, Volume 96, Issue 04, pp. 805-806.
Websites
J S. Mill, (1861), Representative Government, [online] Available at: http://www.constitution.org/jsm/rep_gov.htm.
Where does the power lie in today’s global order?
There are vast amounts of power held by many sectors of today’s global order. It can easily be argued that States are the key players, although one must also consider the power of which individual world leaders have and that of multinational corporations also. These major players all have power on the world stage but crucially, in different areas. Before looking into where power lies in today’s global order, it is important to first reflect upon what power is and which description of it best fits those with the greatest influences. Power in a global sense could be economic, military or political. Central to the argument is to consider which form has the most significance and in turn, who possesses it. In the present global climate, it will be important to look into the notions of global governance and state intervention and how therefore this could affect the perceptions of States and their power. It will also be vital to look into globalisation as a whole, as this could influence the way in which power is distributed. There is perhaps most prominently the military power of states to consider too, as many conflicts both in the past and present have revealed this to be a crucial factor. In order to assess where power lies within today’s global order, it is crucial then to consider firstly what power is but then which sector wields the most before coming to a definitive conclusion.
Before asking where power lies, it is perhaps first important to determine what power is or at least, what it could be described as. There are many differing perceptions on this and what it could mean for our global order. As Hoge states, “The transfer of power from west to east is gathering pace and soon will dramatically change the context for dealing with international challenges – as well as the challenges themselves.” (Hoge, 2007, p. 3). Power then, could be described as economic, political, military or even technological. The most common definition comes when looking at the economy and how this affects the global hierarchy. This issue is particularly prominent today especially considering the world wide recession and economic downturn. This has meant that many nations have lost significant amounts of power on the global scene and therefore many world industries are taking a turn for the worse. Looking at the UK, what became obvious, a little time after the hysteria surrounding the credit crunch, was that the motor industry was becoming less and less profitable. People had stopped buying new cars due partly to many companies cutting back on expenses but also private buyers becoming wary of what the recession could mean for their job security. Many commentators believe that the recession was hyped up by the media which became half the problem itself. Nevertheless, the Labour government introduced a scheme in which to help get the motor industry back up and running and, despite scepticism, the scrappage scheme seemed on the most part to be successful. Macalister writes, “The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said the scheme was “a great success”, boosting commerce and meeting environmental criteria by being concentrated around smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles” (Macalister, 2009). Any car over ten years old was to be given a minimum of two thousand pounds worth of scrappage allowance when part exchanging at a dealership for a new car. This meant that for people who owned a car worth less than two thousand pounds and were in the market for a new car, the system was financially beneficial. Although the scheme achieved further success for the motorist and for the economy as a whole as this was incentive enough for people, who were not in the market for a new car before, to become tempted. Subsequently, car dealerships often became tempted to add their own deals on top of the scrappage scheme for buyers to become even more tempted by a new car. If a country’s economy is thriving, it can have a hugely influential effect on global markets and therefore establishing its power on the global scene. Although measures like these have helped the UK economy, today the UK is still not in the strongest position and has much inferior economic power compared with other world nations. In terms of economic power and how the global hierarchy sits at the moment, it is China who are making the largest strides. An idea presented by Hoge also, “Today, China is the most obvious power on the rise. But it is not alone: India and other Asian states now boast growth rates that could outstrip those of major Western countries for decades to come” (Hoge, 2007, p. 3). Soon it is expected for China to overtake even the USA as the world’s greatest superpower but for now they are second, recently surpassing Japan with a GDP of $5.8786tn, compared with Japan’s $5.4742tn (McCurry, 2010).
Political power and the power of world leaders, is an area which concerns both domestic and international issues. Political power in many states can internally be described as the power the leadership has or maybe the power with which the electorate can hold them to account. Another area could be in individual constituencies as in the UK, or indeed States in the US. Although, it is the leadership which controls the country and thus is expected to have the most power, it is not necessarily the case especially in the US as I believe. The President of the United States is restricted massively by his Congress in all decisions he makes due to the way in which the constitution is written. Watts argues, “The President needs congressional support, and in the more assertive mood of Congress in recent years’ incumbents have found this difficult to achieve even with their own party in control” (Watts, 2005, p.82). Due to the doctrine of the separation of powers, the leader of the executive, or indeed any member of the executive for that matter, is not allowed to sit in on legislative proceedings in the House of Representatives or the Senate. The President can of course choose to override any proceedings with the power of veto, though even this action can be overridden by a two thirds majority in congress. A President can even be impeached or removed from office. In comparison, the UK Prime Minister David Cameron has no such troubles and although he can be removed through a vote of no confidence, his powers are not quite so limited as is the nature of a fusion of powers. Seymour-Ure states, “Some of the Prime Minister’s formal tasks get called ‘powers’ precisely because there is no challenge to the Prime Minister’s right to perform them, although he obviously has to follow correct procedures” (Seymour-ure, 2003, p.16). Also, whilst it is the constitution that is sovereign in the US, it is Parliament which is sovereign in the UK, thus giving the UK Prime Minister more authority. In addition to this fact, the UK constitution in comparison is uncodified as opposed to the codified in the US, thus allowing for amendments to be made far easier. This is something which can be quite advantageous particularly when combined with the influence with which can be had in the Judiciary. Despite this, due to the economic positions of world states, it is the US President who is seen to have the greatest power on the global front even if his position domestically is somewhat limited. This trail of thought is apparent because, at the moment, it is the US state which wields the most economic power and is therefore seen to have the most influence. Though as Ferguson states, “The United States may boast a massive economy and whopping defence budget, but wielding true global power takes more than just greenbacks and green berets.” (Ferguson, 2003, p. 18). Nevertheless Barack Obama is looked upon as being the individual who has the most power at his disposal. Whether this is true or not is debateable and even if he does hold this title, it does not necessarily mean it is of any greater significance than the other factors considered.
There are of course other ways in which we can determine what global power is. Many consider military power to be the most generic answer, particularly in the post-war period where military power was everything. Ferguson argues, “Yes, but military dominance depends on other factors. The German thinker Max Weber once characterized the modern state as claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Although such a monopoly is impossible in the global arena, international power sometimes seems to depend on monopolizing the most sophisticated means of perpetrating violence” (Ferguson, 2003, p. 18). In the lead up to the Second World War there was an arms race which eventually led to war. Due to dramatic losses of life in the First World War, both Britain and France were reluctant to go to war again and therefore proceeded to perform a process of appeasement with Germany which should have guaranteed peace. This delay in action only allowed Adolf Hitler to rebuild Germany’s defences and military power, enough for it to become a significant threat to Europe and indeed, the world. Today the greatest military power belongs, according to studies, again to the USA. This is decided upon by recent activity and this could be in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite many perceptions being that the war is indeed, unwinnable. Or maybe the recent happenings in Libya and the support of rebel forces allows for this conclusion. The idea of state intervention is also a critical factor when examining global power. Rozeff says, “The U.N. is intervening to take down the Gaddafi administration and replace it by another, of undetermined nature. This means that the U.N. places its power over that of the Libyan state. The U.N. makes itself the Supreme Governor in the sense that it decides on a critical feature of a State, namely, who has “consent,” or who is entitled to rule that State when protests against the existing rule emerge” (Rozeff, 2011). This power of intervention is in the hands of states only and does lead to thoughts that without common sense prevailing in cases such as Libya, the world could be a much darker place. It is no secret however, that despite these thoughts, China must again be considered as the country making the biggest strides in terms of military power. They are leading the way on new technologies and as such, have the most nuclear power plants planned for future development. China can manage such feats because of the finances they have to fall back on, as Burn summarises, “Because of the inherent difficulties and the dangers involved, the development – still in important aspects incomplete – has been very long and very costly” (Burn, 1978, p. 1). Leading on from this point is that many new technological advances are also coming from China. Technology in and of itself can wield great power on the global scene, as many industries are crying out for new ideas, thus creating prosperous economies. Microsoft and Apple are leading the way when it comes to introducing new popular innovations. Whereas we might not think that this a direct control of world power or that they necessarily do anything with it, it is becoming increasingly obvious that many domestic industries and thus economies are becoming dependent upon new easy to sell products. Furthermore, in order for an industry to thrive, the machinery, the workers and the investment must come together as one or risk losing their place in the market. As Sawyer explains, “The withdrawal of resources from the industry under consideration is assumed to lead to the use of those resources elsewhere in the economy.” (Sawyer, 2005, p. 164). We are beginning to see a trend as to where power may lie specifically in the global order or where it certainly may in the future. China is quickly becoming the world’s most powerful state.
However, although there are differing interpretations as to what global power is, all these factors concern States and their impact. In order to determine where power lies in the global order, it is important to note that state power is simply one of many entities controlling power in the global order. In contrast to state power and their influences, it is becoming increasingly hard to ignore the advancements being made by huge multi-national corporations. Whereas states may influence where power is distributed, particularly in an economic sense, it is arguably the corporations who use it and have little or no political boundaries to abstain to. Shah states, “Today we know that corporations, for good or bad, are major influences on our lives. For example, of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations while only 49 are countries. In this era of globalization, marginalized people are becoming especially angry at the motives of multinational corporations, and corporate-led globalization is being met with increasing protest and resistance” (Shah, 2002). Climate change is vastly becoming the most prevalent issue in today’s society and it is corporations such as Shell and BP who can take advantage of this. With ever increasing worry over whether we have reached the notion of ‘peak oil’, oil companies can seemingly charge whatever they like, as society continues to believe that oil is becoming harder to come by in the middle east. Although it is true that politicians can use this methodology also, to increase fuel duty taxes. Though this is just the literal power with which corporations have, what must also be viewed are the staggering amounts of money being turned over by some of these businesses. Indeed, some smaller country’s have less GDP than some of the larger corporations and arguably even less global influence. In turn, a corporation usually specialises in only one area and therefore can concentrate its efforts in making the most money from this area and therefore commanding the most influence. Whereas states must take an overview over all global issues and try to find compromise and this, if they want a booming economy, hands power back to the corporations. Indeed, Dawson explains, “An open economy engages in a wide range of transactions with the rest of the world, with a wide range of different factors affecting them” (Dawson, 2006, p. 458).Although, this argument is easily contested as many larger states have the authority to create laws which can limit the activities of corporations. The market potential which the larger states hold is very attractive to the multi-national corporations such as Shell and therefore growth within it is vital. It can therefore easily be argued that corporations need states, more than states need the corporations. Though even if this argument can be flipped, especially from the point of view of smaller nations who may need the economic growth benefits.
In order to contrast together the two arguments of where power lies in the global order, it is important to apply theory from contrasting ideological perspectives as to whether these clashes of power are leading us to cooperation or conflict. There are many differing theories surrounding global governance but the four most prominent are, Realism, Liberal Institutionalism, Neo-liberalism and Marxism. Two of these theories believe that states control power in the global order; with the other two believe that it is non-state actors which are key. Realists believe that states are the building blocks of international society because they have national interests at heart. Due to these desires, a realist would believe that they only way forward for states is to push them through at all costs which is thus believed to lead to conflict between states. As Smith argues, “World politics represents a struggle for power between states each trying to maximise their own interests” (Baylis & Smith, 1997, p.4). Such is the competitive nature of domestic economies or indeed, world leaders. Indeed, when treaties are signed, they are done so with only consideration for the national interest and therefore, from a Realist’s perspective, they must have some benefit for the domestic market or politics. Interestingly, Realists also take the view that there is no absolute global order and that the international system is in a state of anarchy. In contrast, a Liberal Institutionalist perspective argues that although states are key to the global order, they can interact without the need for there to be conflicts. Indeed, without cooperation no treaties or negotiations would ever succeed thus affecting a country’s economy and trade markets. The relationship between different states is one that is built on compromise, as is politics in general and as such, as the theory of liberal institutionalism would suggest, is vital for the stability of a global order. Though Realists are unconvinced by this argument, as Roggeveen explains, “…Ikenberry’s liberalism is ambitious and utopian, and only encourages the kind of neo-conservative adventurism that got the US into so much trouble in the Bush era” (Roggeveen, 2009). In stark contrast to both these views however, a Neo-Liberal would argue that non-state actors are the most important part of an international system. This is an argument which stems from the perceived power which multi-national corporations are looking increasingly likely to have. Furthermore, a capitalist global order would, according to Neo-Liberalism, provide jobs in both rich and poor countries as people will always move to find work which is best suited to them. Therefore, in essence, the state becomes partly irrelevant as it is the world’s companies and businesses which provide the money for families. So whereas in the previous two theories, it is the idea that the state is concerned only with its domestic issues, this particular theory takes this a step further as here it is the individual who looks after his own interest at the expense of the state’s preferences for its economy. A Neo-Liberal trail of thought also believes that cooperation, like the Liberal Institutionalist perspective, is the way forward. Indeed the argument is clear, states which interact with each other regularly on a trade or political basis, rarely go to war thus creating an international society which can be mutually beneficial. Although as Burchill states, “Neo-liberalism is largely concerned with the critique of liberal approaches” (Burchill & Linklater, 2005, p. 25). The remaining theory is that of Marxism. Originating from the ideas of Karl Marx, Marxism is an ideology which is often made reference to in contemporary politics. Gamble argues, “The areas in which Marxists have shown most interest are also subject to change. At different times history, political economy, philosophy, political science or sociology have commanded most attention (Gamble, 1999, p. 6). It does indeed have a stance on the way in which the global order is being run and agrees with Neo-Liberals that it is non-state actors which are key but yet still argues for sure, that cooperation is unlikely. A Marxist would say that multi-national organisations exploit the less fortunate in order to generate its finances. Indeed, it is class struggle with which Marxist theory is centred and here it could be argued that it is the workers in today’s society’s that are taken advantage of. Marxism points to capitalism as the main blame for this exploitation but does accept that states are not redundant in the global order, as capitalists need state action to support international trade. Indeed, Capps explains, “In this sense, globalisation represents the crisis of state capitalism on a world scale” (Capps & Panayiotopoulos, 2001, p. 211). Although these theories do overlap at times, they do all provide coherent arguments as to which way the global order could be heading.
There are many differing opinions on where the power lies in the global order. There are of course many contrasting ideas as to what power is, or rather, which type has more significance in contemporary society. It was easy in the past to point to political power and the power of leaders, as they seemed to control more of what a specific country’s ideological position was on the world stage. This in particular concerns both world wars and what this meant for each country involved. Today however political leaders, such as the UK Prime Minister and the US President, struggle to have maximum influence over their own country, leave alone any influence on the global scene. Such is the nature of modern governmental systems and in turn, checks and balances on power. Leading on from the same vein as this is military power and its effect and although we are seeing military action in the Middle East, this concerns mostly the US and is therefore difficult to judge a comparison between states in this area. What is more prominent today are the new technologies being developed, this is where China leads the way. In contemporary society however, it is my opinion that economic power is what is most important, particularly concerning the recent economic downturn. The comparisons between world states and multi-national corporations are difficult to finalise. It could be argued that multi-national corporations, due to their massive GDP’s and more specific influences on the global market, hold the most world power. In my opinion however it is the power of states which hold the most power in this area, as they can dictate the actions of corporations through the introduction of new laws and trade restrictions such is the benefit of having political power also. To conclude, it is states that have what in my opinion are the four greatest examples of world power; the power in politics and economics in addition to military and technological advancements.
Bibliography
John Baylis & Steve Smith, (1997), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scott Burchill, (2005), Theories of International Relations, Third Edition, Hampshire: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.
Duncan Burn (1978) Nuclear Power and the Energy Crisis: Politics and the Atomic Industry, London: MACMILLAN PRESS LTD.
Prodromos Panayiotopoulos & Gavin Capps, (2001), World Development: An Introduction, London: Pluto Books.
Graham Dawson, (2006), Economics and Economic Change: Macroeconomics, Second Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Andrew Gamble, (1999), Marxism and Social Science, London: MACMILLAN PRESS LTD.
James F. Hoge, Jr. (2007) World Politics: A Global Power Shift in the Making, 27th Edition, Dubuque: The McGraw-Hill Company.
Macalister T. (2009) ‘Scrappage Scheme sells 50,000 new cars’ The Guardian12th June 2009 [online] available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/12/uk-car-scrappage-success
McCurry, J. (2011) ‘China overtakes Japan as world’s second-largest economy’ The Guardian 14th February 2011. [online] available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/14/china-second-largest-economy
Roggeveen S. (2009) Liberal Institutionalism and its Critics [online] Available at: http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2009/05/12/Liberal-institutionalism-and-its-critics.aspx
Rozeff M S. (2011) On UN Intervention in Libya and World Government [online] Available at: http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/03/on-un-intervention-in-libya-and-world-government/
Malcom Sawyer, (2005), The UK Economy, 16th Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seymour-Ure (2003) Prime ministers and the media: issues of power and control Google Books [online] available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=bjB31HKtiSwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=prime+minister+power&hl=en&ei=9T-0TYb8KYSi8QOU7eyVDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=prime%20minister%20power&f=false
Shah A. (2002) The Rise of Corporations [online] Available at: http://www.globalissues.org/article/234/the-rise-of-corporations
Duncan Watts, (2005), Understanding American Government and Politics, Second Edition, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Journals
Ferguson N. (2003) ‘Power’ Military Dominance makes the United States the world’s greatest power p. 18
Written in 2012, this piece was and still is highly relevant to the controversial role that Britain plays in Europe today.
‘The Lisbon Treaty marks the end of the process of European Union integration.’
European integration has often been seen as the corner stone of many debates surrounding the EU and its member states. The current crisis has cast doubt on whether a European Union is viable, with claims that it is time to either stand by the idea of European integration or to remove it. Looking to the past, recent actions could be described as inevitable in particular following the conditions of the Lisbon treaty. It will be interesting to analyse the Lisbon treaty with regards to its effects on European integration and discover whether or not it can be held responsible for effectively bringing it to an end. The contrary view argues that European integration is not dead and that certain aspects can be salvaged given the correct actions. By combining the use of theory and real world events and positions, this essay will show what the future could potentially hold for Europe by debating whether the end of European integration is truly upon us. Both sides of the argument will have to be fully assessed before coming to a definitive conclusion.
It is easy to see why the idea of European integration is becoming less and less attractive. The theory of Intergovernmentalism depicts a structure of government processes that would appeal to those supporting of the national interest. Goodin explains, “The EU can plausibly be characterized as an intergovernmental organization of an advanced kind, a nascent federation of states and a new form of post-national, post-state entity” (Goodin, 2006, p. 257). The core claim of Intergovernmentalism is that the actions taken between states are of most importance and only with the cooperation of states can the pace of integration be controlled. Furthermore, it is seen that the roles of supranational institutions such as the European Commission are irrelevant according to the theory of Intergovernmentalism. A proponent of Intergovernmentalism therefore, would see the national interest as the most important factor when bargaining for negotiations. As Chryssochoou argues, “…a state centric theory of Intergovernmentalism, describes the Union as a regime that makes interstate bargaining more efficient, whilst enhancing the autonomy of national leaders…” (Chryssochoou, 2001, p. 18). Politicians in Europe then, are simply national actors and look only for benefits for their own country when debating law and policy. David Cameron’s recent decision to pull the UK out of European Union negotiations could be thought of as being in line with the idea of Intergovernmentalism. The whole justifications for the UK’s veto at the EU summit were arguably based around the national interests even if many, including Labour Party leader Ed Miliband, felt it was detrimental. Nevertheless there were cries from sections of the public, the media and certainly from the Conservative party for David Cameron to do what he did, thereby adhering to national goals. BBC News website summaries the Prime Minister’s actions, “David Cameron has said he ‘genuinely looked to reach an agreement’ at the EU summit but vetoed treaty change because it was not in the national interest” (anon, 2011). The example of David Cameron’s pullout from Europe shows the strength of a nation and as such, the Intergovernmentalism theory. Indeed, what Europe has been left with is a much talked about theory of a two speed Europe, with the countries on the inside integrating and functioning at a different rate from the UK who are now somewhat detached from Europe. Gaynor says, “…two tier systems all point to the acceptance that not only do members differ in their economic performance and structures, but that this difference must allow them different speeds of adjustment” (Gaynor, 1997, p. 34). This is not necessarily a problem for either tier but could potentially add to complications in future decision making especially if other nations decide to join the UK on similar grounds.
The main problem facing UK Prime Minister David Cameron and all European nation leaders is that a binding constitution will never be collectively signed. One of the reasons for this is because although there are many pro-European politicians within their respective governments, they are often outweighed by anti-European thoughts and public scepticism. Public scepticism of Europe is clearly present in today’s society due mainly to the reason that many members of the public do not truly feel like a European citizen. Although passports say otherwise, many UK citizens in particular feel at least a little detached from Europe even before considering the geographical issues. People feel this way due mostly to their feeling of national identity and to embrace a European citizenship of sorts would be to undermine their nationalistic values. When listing reasons for an apparent lack of a true European citizenship, Meeham explains, “…European citizenship would have to involve a transfer of legal and political powers from the national to the EC level…” (Meeham, 1993, p. 3). Consequently, British people find it difficult to really believe that they have a place in that society especially when they do not know about European politics and its potential impacts upon the national system. To make a comparison to America, which is a federal system, there are fifty separate states that may all have slightly different politics and yet all adhere to one central government and President. This is not the case in Europe, although it is in fact what many may want. As El-Agraa commented, “…the ‘founding fathers’ had the formation of a United States of Western (hopefully all) Europe as the ultimate goal…” (El-Agraa, 2004, p. 19). Indeed Winston Churchill once called for a United States of Europe but with the underlying public scepticism, which derives from national citizenship rights and laws; this is unlikely ever to happen.
Although the example of David Cameron’s recent pullout from Europe shows a direct reluctance to integrate, it could be argued that it was the Lisbon Treaty of 2007 that went much of the way in introducing the scepticism of integration we see today. This is because the Lisbon Treaty in and of itself shows a reluctance towards integration due to the fact that it was simply a compromise brought about by a failed proposal for an European Union constitution. The original plans for it were rejected and thus the Lisbon Treaty was little more than a half hearted effort to patch up any differences that the confiding nations may have had. Schubert outlines the main reasons for the Treaty’s rejection; “the incomprehensibility of the Treaty, too much concentration of power in Brussels with the consequence of a loss of democracy or participation, as much as the fear of further Eastern European expansion” (Schubert, 2008, p. 23). The main initiatives of the Lisbon Treaty were the change in voting system from unanimity to qualified majority voting, which means that decisions need not be unanimous. The treaty also gave further power to the European Parliament and amended some prominent positions such as the President of the European council of whom, is now to serve a longer term. Many of the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty were designed to improve the efficiency of the institution, giving the European Union more power and enhancing its legitimacy. Despite many of these initiatives however, the simple fact remains that a truly binding constitution of Europe was never signed. Thus it is thought that the Lisbon Treaty has affected European integration both literally and impressionably due to the perceptions it gave to the public and politicians.
Contrary views argue that European integration is not dead and that we have seen much since the Lisbon Treaty and are highly likely to see more in the future. Bobica explains the original purpose of the European Union, “The creation of the European Union began as a process of sectorial economic, the main objective at that time being ensuring peace on the European continent that had been already devastated by the two world wars” (Bobica, 2010, p. 212). In opposition to Intergovernmentalism, Neofunctionalism assumes the decline of nationalism and the nation state but also that the individual ideological positions of the respective member states are diminishing in favour of a more collective approach. This leads on to supranationalism which, as a key theoretical factor with regards to a pro-integration position, depicts a Europe that thrives on centralisation and disregards the importance of the nation state. Indeed, just because a constitution was never signed does not mean that integration can never happen and does not happen. Throughout the past decades, there have been many examples of cooperation between states that could be described as effective integration that has brought about significant change. Perhaps the main achievement of Europe in recent years is the introduction of the Euro currency which, despite recent criticisms, has proven on the whole to be strong. The common currency provides Europe with a collective identity and eases trading between states, so to be competitive on the global front as a single continent. Mirrow argues, “The euro’s increasingly important role brings stability, something that is never more important than in times of upheaval” (Mirrow, 2009, pp. 42-43). With regards to the current Euro crisis, the theory of spillover could offer some justification as to why European integration could be the best way forward. If recent issues surrounding Europe had been resolved more effectively, perhaps this is where spillover could have occurred. As Agraa states, “Some of the benefits of EU regional policy are in the form of non-economic spillover gains. Reduced regional disparities can help in achieving greater social and political cohesion in Europe.” (Agraa, 2004, p. 403). The theory of spillover argues that integration in one area often leads to greater integration in another. The argument being that there is still a place for effective integration within the European Union, contrary to the recent actions of the UK.
Moreover, the ever growing feeling of general globalisation shows just why European integration is not dead and that the Lisbon Treaty and its impact could be viewed in a different light. Some of the actions of the Lisbon treaty could be viewed, despite the initial disappointment, as a good step in the right direction towards integration. Schubert explains, “With respect to the adaptation of institutions to an expanded Europe and in relation to an improvement of democratic structures (inclusive of fundamental rights protection), the Treaty undeniably, provides the means whereby progress can be achieved” (Schubert, 2008, p. 28). Indeed, even in the difficult time of the current EU crisis and moreover with the UK pullout, all of the other twenty six member countries continue in an attempt to resolve the issues surrounding the Eurozone. Looking to the future, cooperation between states will be vital in order to achieve growth across world markets; as it always has been. Although it may seem unlikely at the moment, considering the current crisis, many countries in the future may want to join the European Union and indeed the Eurozone should it survive. Independent states could feel that there are benefits to being a member of an institution such us the EU, as many countries do presently, due in many parts to the benefits of having more solid trade routes. However, there is a big difference between European integration and what could be described as simply European expansion. Whilst the vision for Europe to accommodate more countries in the future may still proceed, it is perhaps more vital for the current crop of EU member states to cooperate and integrate through treaty’s such as that of Lisbon if we are to see real progress in Europe.
To conclude, it could be argued that European integration is currently in a receding state and that it was the Lisbon Treaty and its subsequent effects that marked that the start of this process. The whole reason the treaty was devised was due to an initial demonstration of anti-integrationist thoughts, when the European constitution failed to be signed. Therefore it is easy to see, that since this instance and up to the present day, why there may well be a certain degree of public scepticism towards Europe. It would also seem that many countries in Europe, and particularly the UK, adhere to the theory of Intergovernmentalism that prioritises the national interest over those of the supranational. The contrary argument suggests though, that there have been many examples of European cooperation since the signing of the Lisbon Treaty and certainly when considering the future and the ever increasing sense of globalisation, the integration of European states will be vital for trade and thus economic growth. However, even when considering the current Euro crisis, there has been a clear indication of cooperation between states in an attempt to resolve pressing issues despite the recent withdrawal of the UK. What Europe has been left with is the theory of a two speed Europe being realised and although this does give Euro-sceptics opportunity for criticism, it is not necessarily a bad thing for Europe. This situation could serve even to add to the opportunity for countries to become, or remain, integrated in Europe even if the strength of the European Union is not able to be enhanced much beyond the improvements laid out by the Lisbon Treaty.
Bibliography
Books
Chryssochoou, D. N. (2001), Theorizing European Integration, DawsonEra [online], Available at: http://www.dawsonera.com.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S9780203946107
Denton, G. R. (1969), Economic Integration in Europe, University of Reading: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Dryzek, J. S. (2006), The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
El-Agraa, A. M. (2004), The European Union, 7th Edition, Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
Gaynor, K. B. (1997), Economic Convergence in a Multispeed Europe, Hampshire: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Meeham, E. (1993), Citizenship and the European Community, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Roche, M. (1997), European Citizenship and Social Exclusion, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Journals
Bobica, D. (2010), ‘European Integration and Globalization’, European Integration – Realities and Perspectives, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp. 210-215.
d’Artis, K. (2010), ‘European Integration and Labour Migration’, European Integration online papers, Volume 14, article 16, pp. 1-24.
Hansen, R. (1998), ‘A European citizenship or a Europe of citizens? Third country nationals in the EU.’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Volume 24, Number 4, pp. 1-12.
Hefeker, C (2002), ‘European Integration Under Pressure’, Intereconomics, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp. 122-123.
Mirrow, T. (2009), ‘European Integration, RIP?’, The International Economy, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp. 42-43.
Schubert, J. M. (2008), ‘Lisbon – The End of European Integration?’, European Law, Volume 4, Number 1, pp. 23-32.
Online
Anon, (2011), EU veto: Cameron says he negotiated in ‘good faith’ [online], Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16134496
The Word Stable 
