Political Approaches in Explaining Political Instability - Essay Example

?Political Approaches in Explaining Political Instability Political systems determine whether or not the governance of the regimes will be stable enough to allow society to flourish and for the economy to grow, or if there will be too much lack of unity among various political parties that could possibly prevent the passing of legislatures that benefits the citizens. As such, if there is a lack of trust and a long-standing disunity among the various leaders such as the elite and the elected officials it is expected that there will be an eventual breakdown of the current regime, and giving rise to another (Higley and Burton, 1995). Various regimes in Europe have experienced such political unrest due to conflicts among the nations’ different leaders, giving rise to political instability and eventual economic breakdown, which include France’s Third and Fourth Republic, Germany’s Weimar Republic, and Italy’s Post-World War II government. The rise and fall of such regimes in these countries can be explained through two lines of thought: one is Gabriel Almond’s comparative political systems which differentiate the various kinds of governance in countries according to how the country is run by the government; and another is Giovanni Sartori’s theory of polarised plural systems, which points out the importance of political parties needing to work together and not strongly-opposing one another. By combining these two concepts, it will better explain why political instability plays a major role in governance, both in the past such as in France’s Third and Fourth Republic and Germany’s Weimar Republic, as well as the persistence of this issue in Italian governance for a much longer time. Comparative Political Systems by Gabriel Almond Gabriel Almond published a classification system which compares various kinds of political systems, how each one governs the nation, as well as stating where such kinds of governance are mostly found. According to his paper, he tackles the issue of creating new ways of classifying types of government because the existing classifications consisting of pairings such as democracy-dictatorship, parliamentary-presidential systems and two-way and multi-party systems often do not encompass everything as it is possible that the kind of governance in each country may depend on their internal resources, customs and ideologies, and other factors that may or may not align with the definitions of the extant classification systems (Almond, 1956). Thus Almond proposes other kinds of political systems which are much more defined by the culture where each one is based on: Anglo-American political systems, usually composed of a uniform and secular group of people; Pre-industrial political systems, wherein there is a mixture of political systems due to the proliferation of traditional ideas and culture amidst modernist views; Totalitarian political systems in which leadership is centralised and there is actually no need for an overall consensus due to the dominance of only one party or one leader; and the Continental European political systems, wherein the lack of a unified political culture is due to the persistence of various cultures, both new and old and their wide gaps in terms of growth, development and acceptance among the leaders, various parties, and among the citizens. According to Almond, France, Germany and Italy belong to the Continental European political systems due to high variations between the ruling parties and of differing views within the leadership system (Almond, 1956, p. 406). In explaining the political instability in France during the Third and Fourth Republic, of Germany during the Weimar Republic and of Italy after World War II, their respective politics are included in the Continental European political systems because of the various subcultures that exist within each country that causes disunity within the leadership itself. In the case of France, in both the Third and Fourth Republic issues such as the distrust between the leftists and the rightists were barriers to the establishment of an effective political system, with each side putting full blame on the other for the lack of any visible improvement in the socio-economic conditions of the time (Knapp and Wright, 2006, p. 3). For the Third Republic, the cause for a lack of unified culture stems from the mixed views of the ruling parties in maintaining or removing the monarchy, separation of the church and state, and thoughtless military tactics during the World Wars while in the Fourth Republic the persistence of a weak senate and of the inability to create a strong, unified and functional parliamentary system as a result of trying to revive the Third Republic without assessing what aspects of it rendered it ineffective (Knapp and Wright, 2006; Lijphart, 1969, p. 222). For the German Weimar Republic, its political instability was brought upon by fragmentation due to high levels of associationism or strict association with certain clubs or organisations and the lack of a responsive government, which as a result caused issues in governance such as distrust, lack of empathy and understanding, or simply the fact that the other leaders do not try to belong to a single organisation (Berman, 1997). In the case of post-war Italy the combination of a fascist government and the contesting of the Leftist parties in allowing external pressure such as American hegemony in incorporating their ideas to the country’s economic policies and political systems effectively created discontent, regardless of the rapid economic growth that followed these steps (Carello, 1989). As a result, there came contradicting policies which larger corporations had greater benefits instead of empowering the workers of small and medium businesses. Because the views of the various ruling parties in each regime radically differ from each other, a lack of consensus and a difficulty in making an actual compromise were only some of the major factors that prevents the passing of effective laws that actually benefit the economy and in turn the citizens. Theory of Polarised Plural Systems by Giovanni Sartori While Almond’s Comparative Political Systems may be able to explain the problems that occurred in France’s Third and Fourth Republic, Germany’s Weimar Republic and post-war Italy, another political analyst’s theory can also explain why these regimes were unable to bring unity, political stability and economic growth among these nations. Giovanni Sartori’s theory on Polarised Plural Systems dwells on how anti-system parties such as the presence of two or more strongly-opposing parties could affect legislature and the quality of laws that become enacted as a result (Sartori, 2005). This is because each party needs to have greater control over the outcome of such legislations, or at the very least have a leading role in whatever the outcome of such agreements will be (Capoccia, 2001, p. 444). Such situations are applicable in all kinds of political systems with two or more major opposing or extremist sides, wherein one party tries to be hegemonic in order to maintain control over the others (Pelizzo and Babones, 2007, p. 53). Essentially, Polarised Plural systems consist of competitive parties which may seem two-party but are actually composed of at least five party systems which thrive in the defections between border parties and the formation of various coalitions (Capoccia, 2001; Mair, 2002). The prevalence of such systems creates a lack of compromise among opposing groups, making it harder to govern and to create sound decisions without making one party or another gain advantage or privilege over the rest. However, in comparison with Almond’s comparison of political systems, Sartori’s political systems theory has wider applications because it incorporates public influence on how political systems vary from one area to another, and is not much dwelled on in Almond’s work. Sartori’s theory can better explain the failures of France’s Third and Fourth Republic through the strong opposition of the nationalists (Leftists) to the conservatives (Rightists) in terms of governance, wherein ineffective legislatures became rampant due to the lack of consensus between those who want to uphold the monarchy and those that want to abolish the monarchy and have the church and state separated, which in turn affected the public’s opinion as well (Knapp and Wright, 2006). Similarly in Weimar Germany due to the high rates of fragmentation among parties and their distancing from the masses, this allowed the rise of the Nazi Party as a unifying force that represents everything that the bourgeoisie and nationalistic politicians were unable to provide the public (Berman, 1997). Such issues also persisted in Italy after the World Wars due to the wide variety and volatility of the coalitions between and among the largest and the smallest parties, as well as the fact that there have been long struggles between democratic forces and extremist opposition groups (Capoccia, 2001, p. 454). In turn, there also has been a shortage of effective legislatures that could have helped the masses, which further added to political unrest due to the people experiencing the consequences of having inefficient or ineffective laws. Conclusion The definitions of different types of governments based on Almond’s Comparative Political systems and Sartori’s Polarised Plural systems were able to describe the politics and explain the reasons for political instability in France’s Third and Fourth Republic, Germany’s Weimar Republic and Post-war Italy. While both lines of thought were able to come up with similar conclusions such as the importance of not having strong oppositions in political systems, Sartori’s theory on Polarised Plural Systems was better able to explain why political instability was rampant in these regimes. These were due to the wide gap between the ruling parties, the lack of compromise among groups, the need to show that one is better than the other party, the strong opposition of each groups to one another, and strong associationism within each party and to its public followers, which is harder to establish using Almond’s Comparative Political Systems that base political instability mostly to cultural fragmentation and state leadership. Thus, due to the relatively inclusive nature of Sartori’s theory, this has better applications in terms of explaining other factors outside the realm of politicians and governing parties which contributed to political instability in France’s Third and Fourth Republic, Germany’s Weimar Republic and Post-war Italy. Bibliography Almond, G. A., 1956. Comparative political systems. The Journal of Politics, 18(3), pp. 391-409. Berman, S., 1997. Civil society and the collapse of the Weimar Republic. World Politics, Volume 49, pp. 401-429. Capoccia, G., 2001. Defending democracy: Reactions to political extremism in inter–war Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 39(4), pp. 431-460. Carello, A., 1989. The Northern Question: Italy's Participation in the European Economic Community and the Mezzogiorno's Underdevelopment. London: Associated University Press. Higley, J. & Burton, M. G., 1989. The elite variable in democratic transitions and breakdowns. American Sociological Review, 54(1), pp. 17-32. Knapp, A., & Wright, V. (2006). The government and politics of France. London: Routledge. Lijphart, A., 1969. Consociational democracy. World Politics, 21(2), pp. 207-225. Mair, P. (2002). Comparing party systems. Comparing Democracies, 2, 88-107. Pelizzo, R. & Babones, S., 2007. The political economy of polarized pluralism. Party Politics, 13(1), pp. 53-67. Sartori, G., 2005. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Colchester: European Consortium for Political Research. Read More