Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Huntington Social and Institutional

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Rosas Chávez
    19 views23 pages

    Original Title

    Huntington-Social-and-institutional

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    19 views23 pages

    Huntington Social and Institutional

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Rosas Chávez

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 23
    Social and Institutional Dynamics of One-Party Systems || Samuel P. Huntington Authoritarian Polities and Modern Society ‘The events of the 1930s Jed many people to.question the future of demo- cratic government. In somewhat similar fashion, the events of the 1960s Ted_many people. f6-question. the-vigbility-of. authoritarian. governments, ‘The communist dictatorship governing the world’s largest country collapsed into chaos. In East Europe the Yugoslav and Czech regimes moved signifi- cantly toward greater liberalization and democratization, Throughout the communist world there seemed to be a conflict between the forces of the future reflecting economic rationality and political liberty and those of a disowned but still real Stalinist past. The Soviet system,.one.-scholar argued, faced a choice, between degeneration and. fundamental transforma- tion. In a similar vein, a Yugoslav observer held that the communist sys- ‘ems “will either have to relinquish power voluntarily as the result of frce elections or try to retain their power by imposing open police dic- tatorships. . . .”2 At the other end of Europe, the dictatorships in Spain ‘and Portugal faced increasing opposition and dissent which heightened the prospect that they would not long survive their aging lenders, The fate of the revolutionary Cuban regime without Castro seemed as uncertain as that of the militaristic Taiwan regime without Chiang. While democratic systems of government clearly faced many problems, the very survivability ' of many authoritarian systems seemed to be in doubt. Beneath these more immediate and specific premonitions of collapse was the more general feeling that authoritarian government could well be in- compatible with a complex, highly developed, industrialized, modern so- ciety. Most rich countries are, democratic countries. Is it not probable, even 3 | 4 | Social and Institutional Dynamics of One-Party Systems inevitable, as societies become economically well off and socially complex. that their political systemsvwill also have to become more open, participant, responsive? A fow years earlier, as Raymond Aron pointed ovt, social sck- tntists had pondered the question, How monopolistic can-a monopolistic party be? More recently they were asking: How non-monopoliti ean such aaverty become? At times the pessimistic view ofthe future of authositari trfam became a simple optimistic view of the inevitability of democracy * ‘fall versions of Communism are becoming decadent. They must inevitably change into a democratic society.” The theory of “convergence” popula mong pundits and scholars in the early 1960s posited that: (1) societies Mth similar economic. and social systems have similar political systems; Wha (2) conipten, moder, industrialized societies have democratic political Systema! Authoritarian polite, in sor, 56 ncompauble. with, modern, <0 ety. ‘The primary purpose of this chapter—and, indeed, ofthis volume—is to examine these assumptions. snd propositions more conertely.and-systeat {Fall Authoritarian systems obviously have existed throughout history and Fave acoumed a variety of forms, Clearly also the political institutions of ovety hive some relationship to the level of development that soit Trccems reasonable to assume that the more traditional and simple forms of authoritarian rule (like the more simple and traditional forms of demo- cratic rule) are impossible ina highly complex, modern society. Such socie- {ies are not likely to be governed effetively—or even governed at all—by absolute monarchs, personalistc dictatorships, or military juntas, These tra- ditional and relatively simple types of politcal systems have recurred again find again chroughout history. Substantial evidence plus common sense. Sus fess that such political syste cannot indefiniely survive the moderniza- ) Fear of their societies. The more important and interesini, question. £m om not the fate ofthese. poificalaysioms But rather that of the principal > modern form of authositarianism: the one-party system. One party systems exist in great number and variety. Whatever their form, however, they are themselves the product of modernization, Theit roots, a8 Clement Moore shov's, éan be traced to the Puritans and Jaeo- bins, While they first emerged in the nineteenth century, they are prem ently a twentieth century political phenomenon, products of the convul- [sve processes of socal, economic, and political change ofthat century: 9° i cat revolution, svorld war, nationalist srugge! The one-party system Js the vineipal modern. form of authoritarian. goverment Quite clearly, how- Ber, a one-party system can cease (0 be a one-party system witho Ling to be authoritarian) (by “reverting” to a moe traditional, mits Personalise form of authoritarianism), and conceivably a one-party 535 Pen ean eease to be authoritarian without ceasing to be a one-party system (G possibilty which is examined more closely in the last section of this ‘Shapter). But in general the fate of authoritarianism in. modern society de fends upon the viability of the one-party system i modern society. I in- Samuel P, Huntington | 5 ereasing complexity, affluence, differentiation, and industrialization disinte- gate one-party systems, they also shatter the future of authortasianism— funless politcal innovators should develop new and more adaptable forms of authoritarian rule. “The issue is thus the viability in modern societies of the most modern form of authoritarianism. What are the dynamics of one-party systems? ‘Under what conditions do they arise? Under what conditions do they sur- vive? To what extent is it possible to distinguish among different types of systems and to discover different patterns of evolution in these systems? Wit can hel evolon nthe ps el ws about their prospects for the fu- ture? Political Authority: Strong and_Weak_One-Party. Systems Party systems are commonly classified by the aumber of parties in them. In hee term, «on arty sem can presumaty be sigs fom 2 no-party system and a pluralistic party system, A no-party system is typi CP's alitonl system Pars are te product of adem plies and ‘more particulary the, extension, of soil mobilization, expansion of Political consciousness, and the growth, of. mass, political participation. Par} {ies steucture mass participation in poliis..They. did, not exist anywhere beter mocratic revolion, of the lasthalt. ofthe. cighteenth. century, snd they do not exist oday in many, places where poliieal modernization js sili early phases,[At some point inthis process factions and cliques ‘Become more stable, regularized organizations which engage in a continu- ous struggle for control over government, In the classic pattern, parties femerge out of legislative factions whose members find that they have to es- tablish organizations in their constituencies in order to stay in office, The politics of factions and legislative cliques is, ina sense, multi-party polities in embryo. Different types_of social. structures and_ cleavages. give, rite to different, types of plufalistic, party, systems.-These, ysicms, may_be_ do wo-pary, orsmullicpasy.systems,.and their parties may be c Télogical parties of integration or loose, pragmatic partes of representation In a one-party system, in contrast othor-parties. may exist, indeed, din Poland, China-and. Mexico—bat.they hay litle effect on. te ‘Stevens. They are like the minor partcs in a two-party system/A ‘ae pasty syatom thus dirs from a dominant party system, where, thee i ne majorparty. capable oT gave ie SAVE Siillee.paies. which the Tiajor party cannot ignore in its political calelations./The line between the Bic catot Be PIGCRETY dened, but in tho 1950s it precumably lay somewhere between Mexico and India, The Congress Party was the domi- nant party in India, bt it could not govern in toll disregard of what went ‘on outside its ranks./The smaller parties served, in Rajni Kothari’s phrase, | fs “parties of pressure” dnd, like pressure groups in a two-party system, 6 |, Social and Instinaional Dynamics of One-Party Systems they at times exercised significant influence on decisions on policy and lead- toehip within the Congsess Party In Mexico, on.the, ther hand, the: Par~ fide. Revolucionario.Institaeional- (PRY). could: and, did, vstally. ignore the ‘other parties, Simeone who, wished. to. protest in. ‘Mexico. might. join.a Finer pany, buy someone. who, wished, to, exer” pressite.ould-operte ithe BR He sgl pry stm nets re arise witin. te iparly; in a dominant-party system they. are. agticulated, both. within, the dom- Trariyand tbreush the sinalex partici The diference between the (wo poten ws wll Feflected in the distibution of votes. In Mexico the PRI teat never got less than 80 per cent of the vote in a national election; in Hate the Congress never got more than SO per cent of the vote in a na- tional election. ‘ue-party systems can thus be distinguished from no-party and plurals cie;pary syntems, To call a polity a one-party system, however, does not ‘aly talus very much apart from that, The diferences between any to Tau-pasty systems could conceivably be just as great as those between early Siahenth gentury England and the late twentieth century United States, Herat which, it has been alleged, were two-party systems/ One-pary. 833: om like other types of party systems, have (be, distinguished. in terms. o the Pale ot the parts ia the total polica system, Every political system Coase nat Om OF Parise Bul ao of other institutions and groups: Pach Gumerieal type of party system can itself be subdivided according to the Talatve importance of the parties in the poiical sytem as a whole, What isthe role, power, authority of the party or parties compared to legisla. tures, exceative, bureaucracies, interest groups, and other politcal actors? /Suong party systems can, be, dsiagushed rom, 3eak. pasty. systems: Ys Songer things, the extent co which the parlor, parties monopolize (iy ies leltination ot the palidel system; (2) the reeritmeat7o politcal [edaeiahp; and” (3). interest aggreeation’ andl ponkcyataking/ludged by TWheSe criteria, the America tWoeparty System, for instance, is weaker than |tne Bash two-party system, More general its posible to make a rough cjesifiction of party systems along numerical and power dimensions as in Table 1-1! TABLE 1-1 Types of Party Systems Seenath oF ae Parties ian ‘ne a trength of the party vs-i-vs other institutions and. grou 1 ia nepal Ta pluralistic party sjstems, fange is in lege part mediated through the party system isl. The evolu- tion of the society. is mirrored in the fortunes of the partes in the system: Samuel P. Huntington | 7 their origin and deshise and the changing balance of power among them/Ia fv one-party system, however, change isin part xelctedin.the,shifling role, SOF groups-withti-tie-partj, But i is even more reflected in.she changing Balance DeTweeA The s-anst groups. Rellecting Scores OF fotalitarianis write 6fiea assume that in one-party systems the party isthe only significant actor/‘They assume, in effet, thatthe scope ff the politcal system is limited to that of the party system, This is far from the case/In strong one-party systems the, party. may.t9.a.lage, exten perform-all-three fanctiots” mentioned ahove,.but.it.néyer.monapolizss them coinpleicly, Tn weak one-party systems, there. may_wel.be, only one. pry but that party ay ao play only a minor sole.jn.he political system. Ev a-whole. Most signifeandy, t8e importance. of the party itself may change as te. sysfem_ evolves, and 8 rSlA8Ne importance, ok, tie. other sources of power and authority which, can challenge. itzmay also change, "The ‘ier principal actors who may play role in single-party political systems eairbe Toosely grouped into five categories; personalsic actor “such 28 the. charismatic poilcal: Teer traditional ators, aieh a8. the sthurch or the, monareby; bureaucratic, tors, lke the sate, administration, the police, and the military, parliamentary. acors, such, as,national, assem bie, Toeat government bodies, and-assosiations; and functional, social nomic groups, such a8 peasins, worker, manages, technical specials, ‘auf -TheNEGiuals.4n some systems the key non-party groups will be tradi- tional; in others bureaucratic; in others parliamentary. In some one-party systems one or more of these groups may play dominant roles, eclipsing tat of the party, In others there may be an uneasy balance of power be- tween party and non-party groups. In sill thers the party may be the dom: ing institution onthe political scene. "The evolution of a one-party system can, in some measure, be trace in| the shifting roles of these other actors and forces that contest with the) party for supremacy in the system. At any one time, a siixture of tradi tional, personalistic, bureaucrat, and parliamentary actors andl associated | social-economic groups may coexist with the party. Ia general, however, | Inodefnization ii societies with one-party Svatéms produces changes in the at. significa HOMILY” agfors, The power of the traditional actors, TT they“aie’‘ndt completely overthrown by the revolutionary effort which brings the system into existence, tends to decrease Personas leadeshi particularly of the charismatic type, often plays a major rote in the inaug {ation of one-party systems, but then destnes as the operations of the sys- tem become formalized and jasttutionslized. Bureaucratic groups similarly pose challenges in the initial phases and either displace the party as the Gominant foree or arrive af an accommodation which usually means ac- cepting a secondary role. Finally, while modernization in iy first phase promotes the centralization of powei aid t8ep the expansion of powers jk bien eyeiualy Teads to the dapersion, of power /The problem then be- Contes reconciling parliamentary bodies with the continued primacy of the 8 | Social and Institutional Dynamics of One-Party Systems single party and providing for the representation of functional social- ‘lois, Bit’no one seriously claimed that, the, Revolution-had.an. ideology or ‘tried-x0-WEVelop one, Ip Tunisia, Bourguibism was the local fabel for prag- imatisin‘aid'@ synonym for gradualism. The more stable communist one- party systems may also be those in which ideology receives the shortest shrift, In the 1960s Yugoslavia was probably the least ideological of the communist states. Yet was it not also probably the most stable? Renewed stress on ideology, as in China, in contrast, is usually a portent of social tension and political conflict. Except in the special, limited sense in which Karl Mannheim used the term,deology almost always implies a critique ofthe existing situation and of existing institutions.’ new system of political institutions may well be legitimated in ideological terms. In due course, however, this becomes in- creasingly difcult, Existing institutions may be rationalized and defended in terms of a conservative ideology, but they cannot be effectively justified by an “ideational” ideology, whether socialist, Marxist, or liberal. The jus- tifleation of the political system comes increasingly to rest on its institu tional rather than its ideological characteristics. Indeed, as Carl Beck sug- ‘sts, as with the American system, sheer “historical givenness” may well ‘become the most persuasive legtimation ofthe system. ‘At some point in the consoldation of a one-party system, ideology ceases to be a way of achieving consensus and instead becomes @ threat to consensus. In Poland in the late 1960s, for instance, various ideological stoups played significant roles. These included orthodox Marxist-Len- inist-Gomulksists, Stalinists, Maoists, “iberal” Marxists, non-Marxist s0-

    You might also like