Government by Oligarchy and Corruption - Assignment Example

Government by oligarchy and corruption - Is this a fair of politics under Walpole? Walpole’s political era is very often charged with immense corruption within the parliamentary system. However, whether politics under Walpole can be described only as ‘Government by oligarchy and corruption’ is an issue of debate. It is very much true that corruption had been in the core of the politics under Walpole, but along with it, it is also necessary to analyze how far this corruption had been detrimental to the country’s progress. Walpole started his political career in Great Britain as a Whig in 1701. He came to be known as the First Lord of the Treasury during 1721. After the retirement of Lord Townshend, he turned into the only undisputed leader of Cabinet. Although Walpole is charges with turning corruption into a public company with a systematic rottenness, it was under his reign when the country was able to manage the financial crisis in a systematic way. Walpole’s reign continued to 17421. First of all, let us concentrate on the issue of oligarchy and corruption that the political era of Walpole was charged with. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to look at what oligarchy actually refers to. Oligarchy can be described as a government which is governed only by a few. During the mid of seventeenth century, when the parliament won the contest for power with monarch, the lawyer-politicians were very much prominent in the political arena of Great Britain. It can therefore be said that at the start of eighteenth century there existed two great power blocks – politics and the law, and the interesting thing to be noted was that the cartel straddled both. During eighteenth century, England was being reined by the Whig oligarchs. The interesting feature of the government ran by Whig oligarchs was that they started to use the method of an all-encompassing corruption. To be more specific, the politicians used to buy their seats and sell their votes in parliament. The Whigs therefore introduced corruption in parliament, and Walpole, being a Whig, followed this tradition and took it forward to an intense level. Walpole’s era of Whig oligarchy ran from 1721 to 1742. It is found that during the last 10 years of his reign, he paid bribes of around 50,000 pound to newspaper proprietors. In this context, there is one thing worth mentioning. Although, parliamentary corruption took a very bad shape during the period of Walpole, it would not be right to say that corruption finds its origin in this period only. To trace the origin of corruption one needs to look far back. Parliamentary corruption is usually considered to be a weed of modern growth, but it could also be traced in the earliest centuries of the political history of Great Britain. In the earliest periods of England’s history, bribes were given to the king. But as supreme power passed from kings to the oligarchs, the bribes were started to be paid to oligarchs. In the earlier days, however, the no one could have thought of purchasing a seat in parliament, because at that time parliamentary attendance was regarded as a burden, not as a privilege. At this time, the boroughs and counties were compelled to pay their representative wages. During Tudor times, however, it became a fashion for the rich to come to London, and at this time a seat in Parliament became a privilege, instead of a burden. The situation became such that the gentlemen who aspired for a seat in the Parliament, instead of expecting any wage, were very much ready to pay for the seat. As a result the payment system was gradually discontinued and the process of bribery of electors started to begin. Gradually the art of government started to become synonymous with the art of corruption. This art of corruption took a huge and dangerous shape during the period of Whig’s oligarchy, to be more specific, during the political era under Walpole2. One of the important features of Walpole’s political era was that, for the powers, Walpole basically relied on favor of the King, instead of on the support of the House of Commons. His immense political power originated from his personal influence rather than from the influence of his own office. Here comes the issue of corruption. He used secret funds for bribing. Using the method of immense bribing, he created the most defined period of oligarchic rule in Great Britain. The oligarchy under Walpole’s rule created a strong and dangerous division in the country. The Tories were kept from office year after year. This created huge unhappiness among the Tories. With such exclusion, the Tories started to seek for extra parliamentary power. Under such circumstances political tranquility could not very easy to obtain. But Walpole managed to have a stable continuation of parliamentary system. To preserve stability, Walpole would have to steer a course that would permit his opponents to reconcile their unhappiness, under such exclusion, with continued tolerance of his administration. The Walpole was extremely good in allowing this to occur. Walpole was good enough to make himself endearing to two successive Kings. He used the process of clever political manipulation of contacts within the royal family to keep himself intact in his power. He embedded himself in the court. One of the main feature of eighteenth century politics of Great Britain that during this period no one could hope to obtain any vital post and maintain office without having royal support, and here Walpole was very much capable enough to make large strides. He was able to use the royal patronage he enjoyed, although by means of corruption, to help ensure his exceptionally long tenure. The Tories found it very difficult to think of extra-parliamentary opposition to Walpole as he was so evidently supported by the King. Tories, being ideologically committed to provide their support to the King, they could not think of using unparliamentary measures to attack Walpole. Not only that, the policy that Walpole adopted towards foreign policy was also ideologically close to the Tories, for he too favoured peace over war. Walpoles emphasis on peace is a necessary feature of prosperity. But, there remains no doubt that Walpole also made himself a rather poor hate-figure because of the method of corruption that he adopted to continue his rule. His name became synonymous with corruption and many of his opponents severely disliked him and charged his reign for mere oligarchy and corruption3. But here comes some important points to be discussed to see whether the politics under Walpole can be termed only as Government by oligarchy and corruption. Although Walpole followed the path of corruption and made it a public company with lot of rottenness within it, his actions can not be considered as those of sin crimes that hampered political, economic, as well as social stability of the country. Due to his long experience and renowned career, noticeable by his incandescent handling of the South Sea bubble crisis, together with his verbal mastery in the House, made it quite difficult for opponents to portray him as a serious and immediate threat to the nation. What is more interesting is that Walpoles infamous nepotism and favoritism actually served to assist the stability of his administration. Walpole was not at all afraid to ditch his friends when time demanded such actions, but interestingly he was also very loyal to many of his supporters. In some occasions his actions in protecting his friends were politically ill-advised, but at the same time such support did foster a sense of loyalty and unity amidst his allies4. During this period, with the rich becoming richer, the local control of small constituencies by the wealthy people increased immensely, and along with it the volatility of the electorate was curtailed and the independence of MPs reduced. By our modern standards this feature was really worrying, but at that point of time this phenomenon was actually required to assist the growth of stability. Walpole himself assisted this corrupt growth in stability by continuing the development of a modus vivendi between the executive and legislature through brilliant management and careful use of patronage. He also helped in giving rise to a strong Court and Treasury Party that was capable enough, for the first time in the history of British politics, to largely control the House of Commons. This effort actually resulted in the setting up of something like a modern system of government supported by a majority in parliament, a developing cabinet system and an increasing role for the Prime Minister. These structural shifts occurred under Walpole’s guidance were of the paramount importance in the formation of a durable British constitution which was quite able to withstand the enormous blasts of party politics and hold them within Parliament5. In spite of favoring nepotisms, Walpole’s also helped England to come out of financial crisis. At the beginning of Walpole’s era, England was going through severe economical crisis. There was huge shortage of funds. Under the brilliant guidance of Walpole, Parliament undertook several efforts to deal with the financial crisis. The estates of the directors of the company were started to be used to relieve the suffering of the victims of the crisis, and the efforts were undergone to divide the stock of the South Sea Company between the Bank of England and East India Company to control damage from the financial crisis. The financial crisis had damaged the credibility of the King and of the Whig Party to a large extent, but Walpole’s skilful oratory in the House of Commons brilliantly defended both6. Walpole’s another achievement had been keeping Great Britain at peace during his rule. He emphasized on maintaining peace rather than involving in wars. His strategy of keeping peace contributed largely to the countrys great prosperity. Walpole managed in a beautiful way to secure the position of the Hanoverian Dynasty, and along with in an effective way he countervailed Jacobitism. The Jacobites had been posing great threats to the government since long. Walpole was successful in ending the Jacobite threat effectively. It was the policy of avoiding wars which actually helped Walpole in securing huge support from the people as well as from the House of Commons, despite having huge opposition from a large section of people of the country, particularly from the Tories. The policy of avoiding war which earned him huge support, also allowed him to impose low taxes. Walpole also influenced George II and thus prevented him from entering into a European conflict in the year 1733. In this year, the War of the Polish Succession began7. According to Caesar, a widespread reform was essential to preserve the interests of the oligarchy and the Roman republic may be converted into an imperial state8. Therefore, one prominent feature of Walpolean oligarchy was that although politics under his reign was immensely indulged in corruption, it was Walpole himself who brought about so many affirmative changes in the political and economical spheres of life. So judging his reign only from the angle of corrupted oligarchy does not bring the entire picture of social, political and economic life under his reign. Mikhail Friedman, Alexander Smolensky, Mikhael Khodorkovsky and Vladimir Potanin are instances of oligarchs9 - “As oligarchs are the only currently feasible counterweight to the predatory and corrupt Russian bureaucracy, they are a unique constituency that is both willing and able to lobby for development of market institutions”10 Although the critics of Walpole always blamed him for fostering a corrupted government, Walpoles ability to use secret service funds and other aspects of government patronage only ensured that he was under great pressure to do so. In fact the prevailing situation compelled him to foster corrupter activities under his governance. One cannot readily separate Corruption and patronage, and another important thing to be taken under consideration is that patronage was an integral part of the social system, instead of simply being a political mechanism. The opposition of the eighteenth century complained regarding political corruption and trick. The complaints were n the context of existing social norms and pressures. Possibly the present day situation is far more serious. This is because to a large extent, as a result of administrative, political and cultural changes in the nineteenth and twentieth century, not least the rise of merit as both means and goal, there are several norms of political behavior and governmental integrity that have been continuously violated by New Labor. Apart from this, the complaints of the critics of Walpole against his political era, very often rests on their inability in properly understanding the practice of politics prior to Walpoles ascendancy as well as the extent to which he had been able to apply his great skill in order to help in securing the Revolution Settlement of 1688-89 in a measure of economic and political stability. He had been successful in achieving this stability under his reign not so much by indulging himself and his government in corruption, but by following the politics of compromise. Whereas the previous Whig ministry- for example, that of Stanhope and Sunderland - which Walpole actually opposed, had been very polarizing, with having its adherent legislation in favor of religious nonconformity, its aggressive foreign policy and its high taxation, Walpole was very much keen on keeping a monopoly of power for the Whigs along with willing to embrace policies attractive to Tories also. The policy of avoiding war, maintaining peace, imposing low taxes, and the end of further measures in favor of Nonconformity actually were in line with what Tories preferred to have1112. Walpoles willingness to follow the path of the politics of compromise off course had a venal side, one that have been pointed by many, but one can also not deny the fact that it was the policies that helped in ensuring a measure of stability. In fact the interesting thing worth mentioning here is that, in contrast, after Walpole fell the period of 1740s saw failure in war, a Jacobite revival and a widespread sense of national anxiety. Walpole, through his perception of the situation, assists in refuting the charge that his vision was "low". Personal integrity and political perception need not always go together. So, at the end of the discussion, it can be concluded that no one can deny the fact that the politics under Walpole was that of a corrupted oligarchy which foster parliamentary corruption. Walpole himself was indulged in immense corruption by following the method of giving bribes which made him immensely unpopular in a large section of the then England’s society. Many people considered him as a criminal. But one can not deny his influence in the political arena of eighteenth century Great Britain, and his brilliant capacity to bring stability in the economic and political life of the country. His probity and enormous skill helped to prosper the country to a large extent. Therefore, the description of the politics under Walpole as ‘Government by oligarchy and corruption is not fair enough, it is actually overshadowed the achievements under his ruling and only captures the negativity of his governance. References 1. Black, J. 2001. Walpole in Power. Stroud: Sutton Publishing 2. Wood, E. M. 1989. Wood "Oligarchic "democracy."". Monthly Review. July-August. Available at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n3_v41/ai_7768441 (accesd on February 11, 2009) 3. Guriev, S. and Rachinsky, A. 2005. The Role of Oligarchs in Russian Capitalism, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 19, Number 1, Winter, Pages 131–150 4. Holmes, G.S. 1986. Politics, Religion, and Society in England, 1679-1742. London: Hambledon. 5. Pearce, E. 2007. The Great Man: The Life and Times of Sir Robert Walpole. London: Jonathan Cape. 6. “Russias new oligarchs”, 2000, BBC News, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/692297.stm (accessed on February 11, 2009) 7. Walpole, S. 2008. The Electorate and the Legislature. London : Macmillan and Co. 8. Whitton, E. 1998. The cartel: lawyers and their nine magic tricks . Sydney : Herwick. 9. Wootton, D. 1994. Republicanism, Liberty, and Commercial Society 1649-1776. Stanford: CA. Read More