CHAPTER I ...................................................................................................................................................2 GOVERNMENT AND POLITCS. POLITICAL DELIMITATION. HOW COULD ONE DEFINE POLITICS?.....................................................................................................................................................2 THE POLITICAL EXECUTIVE .................................................................................................................10 POLITICAL PARTIES ................................................................................................................................20 CHAPTER IV ..............................................................................................................................................23 DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNMENT IN THE UK. HISTORIC BACKGROUND; THE FIRST SIGNS OF THE PRESENT PARLIAMENT............................................................................................................23 CONCLUSIONS: ....................................................................................................................................28 BIBLIOGRAPHY: ..........................................................................................................................................29

GOVERNMENT AND POLITCS. POLITICAL DELIMITATION. HOW COULD ONE DEFINE POLITICS? When trying to define the meaning of “politics” we most usually face two major problems. Many people may see clearly that subjects like economics, geography, history and biology are simply academic subjects, but when it comes to politics people perceives it with preconceptions. Many, for this reason see it as hard to give an objective definition in an impartial and dispassionate manner. The first thing about politics that comes to people’s mind it is that of trouble making, of disorder, corruption or manipulation; in fact if we go back to 1775, Samuel Johnson described politics as “the means of rising in the world”. Politics, in its broader sense is in fact the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live. Politics is thus inextricably linked to the phenomena of conflict and cooperation. Major concepts remain at the forefront discussion in a way that does not normally apply to more scientific disciplines. Political analyse is far more than pure opinion; yet even so it is hard to provide a more strictly only scientifically approach of the topic. It is therefore hard to provide definitions, it is rather more a matter of providing contrasting perspectives on the subject. Political science through its main functions- such as the explicative, interpretative, evaluative, prospective- give solutions and interpretations as much on theoretically as practically. Politological research’s main concern is to explain and interpret the phenomena and the political procedures. The state, its institutions, the individual and collective actors, the elections, the political decisions, revolutions, ideologies etc. are being analysed, analytically and synthetically, theoretically and empirically. On the fundament of these analyses though, on the political and moral set of values followed, the politologues are making evaluations, predictions and recommendations regarding the improvement of the local and central government, the development of the political processes etc. The scientifically objectivity, the subjective partition and the self engagement are interconnected; they should favour the epistemological objectivity, the inter-conditioning of the social systems and the historical development tendencies. It is in this way that the political science may give realistic goals and, in the same time, cognitive instruments efficient enough for the political interaction.


Politics might most probably be described as the activity through which different groups get together and try to take collective decisions by seeking common solutions within the group and for the interest of the group. Most commonly it may be defined as “who gets what, when, why and how”. Politics is the process whereby a group of people, whose opinions or interests are initially divergent, come to a generally accepted decision which finally is enforced as common policy. So, could one establish the boundaries of politics? Would one consider the fact of invading another country as a matter of politics? Would countries invade one other if they were to dispose of indefinite resources? Is politics strictly reserved to the government or does it interact to the people’s lives, families or even analogous groups? It is therefore noteworthy the fact that politics arises from the necessity that people have for a shared life. People need to make collective decisions about sharing resources, relating to other groups or making plans for the future. From the members of the family trying to decide over where to take a vacation to the decisions on the top political level concerning a possible war or relating to the climate’s warmth or other major political decisions we always relate to politics. So, the more we try to define it the harder it is to see through it and to try to define it. It is merely impossible to set boundaries to such a complex and nuanced thing as "politics". Perhaps the closest we could come with the definition of politics is: the process through which groups try to reach collective decisions by seeking in the same time to find and reconcile with the members within the group. It is probably also one major point of the politics: people not always agree; in fact were we all to agree all the time, politics should be redundant! The way to come to an end is through persuasion and discussion. The Greek philosopher, Aristotle (384-322) considered that “man is by nature a political animal”. In other words, he meant by this that man is not just unavoidable but that he is the essential human activity; political engagement is by far what separates us from other species! He argues that man can only express their meaning by participating in the political life and eventually be able to come to consensus through participation and involvement. Aristotle considered politics as the “master science”, the activity through which people agree and try to improve their lives and create the Good Society. Politics is most of all a social activity, a dialogue through which people agree and disagree but it is never a monologue.


Defining government. Traditional systems of classification “That government is best which governs not at all.” Henry David Thoreau Civil Disobedience (1849) Fist of all, how can one define “government” and what would be the difference between the “political systems” or “regimes” and “a government”? Usually when referring to “government” we speak about collective and binding decisions that are being made by certain official institutions and their constitutional way; as a result when defining the government we not only refer to the institutions of the state but also to the process through which they interact with the society.

Who rules? Rulers One person Who benefits? All

the few

the many

Fig. 1.1 Aristotle’s six forms of government

A political system is, in effect, a subsystem of the larger social system. It is a “system” in that there are interrelationships within a complex whole, and “political” in that these interrelationships relate to the distribution of power, wealth and resources in society. Political regimes can thus be characterized as effectively by the organization of economic life as they are by the governmental processes through which they operate. A regime is therefore a “system of rules” that endures despite the fact that governments come and go. Whereas governments can be changed by elections, through dynastic succession, as a result of coups d’etat, and so on, regimes can be changed only by military intervention from without or by some kind of revolutionary upheaval from within. As a result, one may say that the solving of people’s decision making is a matter of government; in order to come to this end people join different groups and most countries develop some kind of collective work. Groups must not only reach decisions on their common affairs, they must also work out how such decisions are to be reached. The question of who decides raises the question of government. Nearly all large societies develop some kind of institutions for making and enforcing collective decisions. These bodies are the government.


Whether the government is elected, appointed inherited or imposed, may be a matter of a brief or geographical significance but it usually provides the framework within which the activity of politics takes place. Generally while referring to “the government”, one most often speaks about the highest echelon of political appointments: such as the presidents or the department heads, prime ministers or cabinet members. But in a broader way one refers to all those organizations charged with the task of decision making within a community. So, as a result, the definition of the government would be that it consists of institutions responsible for making collective decisions for society. In a more narrow sense, government refers to the top political level within such institutions. Yet, nowadays, our perceptions of the political institutions governing states are changing. Phenomena such as globalised economic competition, the expanding role of the world financial markets, the growing importance of Multinational Corporation, the activities of transnational social movements, and regional co-operation across national borders, European integration and the growing importance of the international organizations appear to undermine the power of nation-states and national governments. In addition to such challenges from the supra-national level the nation state and national governments are challenged by the growing demands of actors at the sub national level such as particular regions or linguistic or ethnic communities. New social movements have challenged the monopoly of “conventional” politics and politicians. National political institutions are increasingly locked into the role of one actor amongst many in a number of networks made up of interest-groups representatives and bureaucrats. Elected governments seem to be no longer fully “in charge”. Their role often seems to be no other than that of a coordinator in a multitude of overlapping networks. Federal states and sovereign states Governing always has a territorial dimension. Rulers need to extract resources from the willingness of the population to remain within the orbit of the state. To achieve this ends, the modern state consists of an intricate network of organizations including the central government, its field officers in cities, villages and towns, and subnational governments such as elected regional and local authorities. These bodies engage in a continuous effort to extract resources from, provide services to, and maintain the support of the population they both serve and control. My paperwork will therefore hereafter take up and examine two basic solutions to the territorial organization of power – federal and unitary government.


Unitary/sovereign states The majority of the world’s countries are organised as sovereign and unitary states which means that sovereignty lies within the central government. Subnational authorities, whether regional or local, may make policy as well as implement it but they do so with the permission of the centre. In theory, the national government could abolish lower levels if it wished so. In most unitary states, the legislature has only one chamber since there is no need for an upper or states” house. After the complexities of federalism, a unitary structure may seem straight-forward and efficient. In unitary states, the standard pattern now is to have three levels of subnational government – regional, provincial and local – such as France and Italy. There are three ways in which unitary states may disperse power from the centre:  Deconcentration: it is more a matter of a purely administrative organization; it refers to the location of central government employees away from the capital. The case for a deconcentrated structure is that it spreads the work around, enabling field offices to benefit from local knowledge and freeing central departments to focus on policy-making.  Decentralisation: delegating policy execution to subnational bodies, traditional local authorities but also (and increasingly) a range of other agencies.  Devolution: is also a form of power dispersal which occurs when the centre grants decision-making autonomy (including some legislative power) to lower levels. The principle of separation of powers complies with the fact that all the political power is centred; about 70 % of the world’s states are sovereign states. Federalism: characteristics and origins The distinctive feature of federalism is that legal sovereignty is shared between the federal government and the constituent “states” (the name given to provinces in a federation). A federal constitution creates two layers of government, with specific function allocated to each. The centre takes charge of external relations – defence, foreign affairs and immigration – and some common domestic functions such as the currency. The functions of the state vary but typically include education and law enforcement. According to a classic theory the state is an organization which has a total monopoly within a territory. In order to be able to speak about a “state”, there must be real geographical delimitations where there should be a force which shall have legislative power so much over the internal security as for the external military security. All these together - territory, power, legitimacy

– as with the diplomatically recognition of the state, are important criterion of the prerequisite of the state as such. Just because the state is sovereign within its own territory, it does not mean that all the national territorial organizations look the same in all countries. In most of the countries the power of the state is practically applied directly from the top to the local level. But there are also the cases in which the central power is spread to regional level, countries like Switzerland, who confer power to local or territorial authorities which then decide astronomically. In a federation, the existence and functions of the state are entrenched; they can only be modified by amending the constitution. It is this protected position of the states, not the extent of the powers, which distinguishes federations (such as the USA and Canada) from unitary governments (such as UK or France). Multiple levels of governance are integral to a federation whereas in a unitary system sovereignty resides solely within the centre. Furthermore, in nearly all federations the states have a guaranteed voice in national politicalmaking through an upper chamber of the assembly, in which each state normally receives equal representation. In most unitary states, by contrast, the legislature consists of only one chamber. The federal states are though usually taking this measure in cases in which there are cultural or ethnic differences or whether there is a problem in size. A basic condition for the state to be a federal state is that it should be administrated on small territory divisions. Generally it ought to be difficult to change its constitution; the easier it is the weaker the federalism. Federal states are relatively few among world’s states; examples for federal states are: in Europe, countries like Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Yugoslavia, Russia, Switzerland or Germany; in America: Argentina, Canada, USA or Mexico, in Asia: India, Malaysia or Pakistan. Federalism is different from country to country; Spain for instance can barely be named as federal state, although important parts of its territory (Catalonia, the Basks, Andalusia or Galicia) have a considerable autonomy. The Spanish constitution from 1978 gives the regions the possibility to conserve their autonomy, but so far, they have partly implemented this statute. For Belgium, on the other side, who got its constitution as a federal state in 1993, the situation is about the opposite. The territories are on one hand, divided according to geographical delimitation: Wallon, the Flemish and the region of Bruxelles. But on the other hand there is the language delimitation: with the French, Flemish and German languages. Both delimitations make an entity, yet the two are a complicated and hard to define “whole”.

The normal condition for the federal state is that they should provide the same power to all the countries within the federation. However, asymmetric federalism comes also from the fact that there are countries in which the states within a federation are being given more power to some than to others. One should describe the federal state with the following characteristics:  Federal states should be democracies  They should have a written constitution  The Parliament should have two chambers  Should have two different independent courts which shall decide over the federal laws  They should have a High Court As a result, the main description of the federal state would be: 1. The separation of the main part of the territory into self-governed regions. With certain exceptions from the role, the regional autonomy should be the main principle for the delimitation of the territory. 2. The separation of powers between the central and the regional level. Usually there are one or more basic decision levels. 3. Equality between central and regional level. There should be though some control over the delegated regional authority which ought to be stipulated in the written constitution but mainly it may be the result of an established tradition. Size has most often two important dimensions which most often go hand in hand: territory and a dense population. These factors taken each one separately are problems for which federalism can offer solutions. A big territory would also mean large distances between different provinces, between the centre and the periphery. If the territory is too large it would imply that the power of decision of the country is centralised far from the citizens and that the contact between the people and the decisional power, between the electors and the elected ones, disappears. Long distances would also involve significantly long railways and communication systems. A result of a decentralised system is most welcomed as a solution for the administration of big and otherwise weak territories. In such cases regional organisation was often the best solution. It is therefore easy to understand why most states which have such problems, also choose this solution. In post-Franco Spain, for instance, Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia were regarded as “historic communities” which entitled them to an earlier and wider grant of autonomy then was awarded to other regions. In post-communist Russia for instance, 21 of 89 territorial units are “republic” authorised to adopt their own constitution, elect their own presidents and choose their own law-making assemblies. In Canada, Quebec nationalists have long thrived for their own French-speaking province.

Asymmetric federalism is a natural response to differences in power between the regions of a federation, but they ruin the risk of creating instability as the less favoured states thrive after advantages accorded to the more privileged autonomous provinces. As a conclusion, a society which is both culturally and ethnically heterogeneous could actually accept federalism as a complete natural solution, a most trustworthy one if the different regions are relatively strong concentrated. Through federal solution one may choose to give the reaction to the exact problem which would concern that particular group. There are also a few other factors which should be named as potential reasons for the “segmentation” of the country: like language or religious related matters. These matters might have more or less importance for maybe the same particular group, yet the closer the groups feel the stronger the solidarity for the foreign affairs politics. The economic wealth is also a very important part for the well-being of the federal state. Federalism is by far the most common solution for the distribution of powers on the territorial level. Federations must though be distinguished not only from unitary states but also from confederations. While a federation is more like a state where the sovereignty is shared between the centre and the state, the confederation is based on the principle that states within the confederation are organised separately and they retain their separate statehood. The decisions from the centre are applied rather directly to the states and not to the citizens.


THE POLITICAL EXECUTIVE “The political executive” is the heart of the government; it refers to the political leaders from the political parties ruling the country: presidents and ministers, the prime ministers and cabinets; although it is possible to rule without an assembly it is virtually impossible to preside over the country without the political executive. The political executive is the regime’s energizing force, setting priorities, taking decisions and seeing after how they are carried out. But the executive is nothing but organizations which make policies; the putting into practice is, though up to the bureaucratic authorities. In liberal democracies, executives fall into three groups: presidential, parliamentary and semi-presidential. In presidential governments, where we can point out USA as a foremost example, the chief executive is elected independently of the assembly and for a fixed period of time. Presidents are elected and remain loyal to the electorate. The parliamentary governments, as most of the parliaments in Europe are, where the head of the government leads a council of ministers which emerges from the assembly and continues in office just as long as it has the support of the legislature. An elected president or monarch serves as the head of the state and it only has a “ceremonial role”. Semi-presidential governments mix the two of them. In such cases, the prime minister coexists with the prime minister and they are accountable to the assembly. Presidential government Most generally one says that the countries that don’t have a monarch have a president as a head of state. While the monarch has most often limited power the president is generally the head of the state and has ceremonial and representative responsibilities with no virtual political power. The most important role is that of the head of the government; he is the one appointing the government’s members. Presidential system of government: Is a system of government which has a president as the head of the government of the Republic; he has the executive powers. As head of the state, the president also has the decisive power and general responsibility for government’s work. He guides and leads government’s affairs. He is the sole political responsible to the electors for the government’s joint decisions. In fact, the principle of “separation of powers” in state implies the fact that the president is responsible to the electors.


As a general rule all organised societies have chosen legislative and executive functions separately from each-other. This means that different people or administrative bodies are responsible for making the rules which should rule over the society and their implementation. The highest political decisional organisation is the government. According to the tradition from each country it is named: administration, commission, government or committee. In theory, the difference between the legislative and the executive is much thinner than in practice. The government influences especially the law making process mostly for those matters which are directly accountable to the parliament. So, in principle, the parliament is mainly responsible for those law proposals which are within the parliament’s authority. Without the parliament’s approval, no laws can be issued. The state’s structure may be classified from the following points of view:  Legislative and executive power  Who is the head of the government and to whom is he responsible  The legislative versus executive is represented through a monistic or dualistic representation.  This means that people elect their representatives for the legislature and these, in their turn they choose the parliament. Both the parliament and the executive obtain their legitimacy out of the same reason: people will reflect through the elections. Parliamentary system Fundamentally, parliamentary system is the opposite of the presidential system. In the presidential system the executive and the legislative administrative organs and people’s legitimacy is represented in parliamentarism as a fusion of powers; where the government is directly responsible to the parliament (parliament’s majority). How the government is elected or appointed is a matter which depends from country to country, the general rule is though that it may be dissolved with parliament’s majority. Parliamentary system of government: The head of state are selected from within the assembly and govern through a majority within the assembly. Generally speaking it refers to all systems of governments ruled by popularly elected parliaments. Rules applied to the government are also valid for their leader. This former one is responsible to the parliament. The head of the government is not also the head of the state. The political power is that of the head of the government when important political matters are being discussed. Parliamentary system doesn’t mean that in practice is the parliament who has the “decisional power”, most often though it is exactly the opposite:

the parliament has the most powerful political “tools” at his disposal. The system works as long as the government has the parliament’s majority and vice-versa. Parliamentary government has three major features: The governing parties emerge from the assembly, Government ministers are drawn from and remain members of the legislature The head of government (most often named Prime Minister, Premier, and Chancellor) and the council of ministers (the cabinet) can be dismissed from office through a vote of no confidence by parliament. Prime Minister’s post is usually other than that of the head of state. The executive is collegial, taking the form of a cabinet in which the Prime Minister is just one among members with equal rights. Party system and parliamentary government The main influence of the operation of parliamentary government is the party system. Where one single party holds the power and the majority in the assembly, the government is stable and decisive. In most of the European countries, no single party wins the majority in the legislature which makes the leading parties to form coalitions which take longer time to form and have it harder to resist. Single party government3 The most relevant example for such a government is Great Britain where the governing party holds the majority in both the cabinet as the assembly. The tradition is that the executive should dominate over the assembly: it should control its agenda. On the other hand, the cabinet is the top committee, but in the same time, all the party leaders are represented here; they have the control over the House of Commons for as long as they remain faithful to the backbenchers (ordinary MPs who sit behind the front benches). In fact, in the House the government seats are on side of the speaker and the seats of the opposition party are on the other side. The two front benches are occupied by government ministers and the opposite ministers are on the opposite side as well. The main idea in a strong political party system is that it should be difficult for a single man to gain as much power as to get to the top on his own, to build a career on his own. Coalition party government Proportional electoral party systems are most popular among European countries; political parties share seats within the parliament and a majority party rule is most unknown if not inexistent. The government is therefore formed from coalition parties and they; its formation becomes consensual and cautious. The normal procedure of asset is that once a party coalition is agreed upon, there is the vote of the legislature which demonstrates their support for

See Annexe 2 12

the new government. In cases when one of the parties of the coalition disintegrates, the other parties form the new government from the remaining members and only in cases when this is impossible should they go for new elections. As a general rule, this type of governments” works best if: The participating parties have the majority or at least a common ideology The coalition is based on a small number of parties The economy is strong The government is popular in the country Monarhies with a parliamentary regime may be mentioned; such as Great Britain, Spain, Denmark, Sweden. In such states there are Courts and Constitutional Law-courts who aside from their normal attributions also see to a constitutionality control of the laws. As a result, parliamentary system is a system where the government, inclusively the head of the government is directly responsible to the parliament. The head of the government is also the head of state. Semi-presidentialism angajarea răspunderii guvernului în faţa parlamentului alegerea de către popor a parlamentului şi a şefului de stat şeful de stat are atribuţii relativ largi dar întotdeauna mai reduse ca cele a unui preşedinte în regim prezidenţial are atribuţii foarte largi in domeniul politicii externe şi în domeniul apărării Preşedintele nu are drept de iniţiativă legislativa, însă are dreptul de a refuza promulgarea legilor în acest sens având două modalitaţi de acţiune: retrimiterea legii spre rediscutare la parlament si sesizarea Curţii sau Trib.constituţional în vederea realizării controlului de constituţionalitate al legilor.Preţedintele poate numi pe primul-ministru şi îl poate revoca şi la propunerea acestuia, îi poate numi pe ceilalţi membrii ai guvernului (ex.Franţa). Guvernul- exercită în principal atribuţii executive alături de şefii de stat.Primul-ministru este desemnat de către şeful de stat şi el trebuie să aibă susţinerea majorităţii din parlament. Parlamentul – poate fi bicameral sau unicameral. Este unicameral in Filanda (unde parlamentul se numeşte Camera Reprezentanţilor – 4 ani) şi în Portugalia (parlamentul – Adunarea Republicii Portugeze – 4 ani). Ex.bicamerale sunt: Franţa – constituit din Adunarea Naţională (5 ani) ales de popor şi Senat (9 ani)- colectivitîţi administrative. Austria : Consiliul Naţional (Camera Populară – ales pe o durată de 4 ani) şi Consiliul Federal. Iranda : Parlamentul bicameral - Camera reprezentanţilor pe o anumită durată ( 4 ani) si Senat.

Cele mai importante competenţe exercită funcţie legilativă importantă funcţie de control şi anume un control foarte eficient asupra guvernului prin întrebări, interpelări , adoptarea unei moţiuni de cenzură sau prin angajarea răspunderii guvernului în faţa parlamentului. Parlamentul poate pune sub acuzare pe şeful de stat. Există Curţi şi Tribunale ce realizează controlul de constituţionalitate a legii. Şi anume: Curte Constituţionale în Austria, Consiliul Constituţional în Franţa, Tribunal Constituţional în Portugalia. Aceste Curti sau Tribunale au pe lângă control de constituţionalitate a legii şi alte atribuţii. If presidentialism basic principle is the preservation of powers, parliamentarism reflects the fusion of powers; semipresidentialism or dual government is in fact a mixture of presidentialism and parliamentarism together; it is a balance between the two. There is both an elected parliament and president. The president is thereafter the one appointing the ministers and he is also the one, most often, ruling over the government’s work. The main rule is that the president can not be removed from power by a vote of no confidence4. Government and, eventually, as a result, the president as well, may be overthrown by the parliament which means that the parliament may interfere with the executive’s affairs. But in the same time, the president has the same powers as the parliament; in case he is not content with theirs work he may abolish it and convoke new elections. Semipresidentialism is trying to avoid both the risks of both the presidential and parliamentarian systems. Semi-presidential government: is an amalgamation between the elected president and the prime minister who leads over a cabinet accountable to a parliament. As a general rule, prime minister is elected by the president; his main responsibilities are the relations with the assembly while, the president, on the other hand has an oversight role, is responsible for the foreign affairs and sometimes takes emergency powers.


For more informations please see Annexe 2 14

3. Political Ideologies Venturing into the world of politics is very slippery; we are all different and most of us have different views and this is why we see the world with different eyes. We all have presumptions and theories or assumptions about the surrounding world but when it comes to the study of politics we need to start from the political traditional theories or definitions which most often are named as “political ideologies”5. Terms like liberalism, socialism, conservatism, feminism, fascism, and so on they all present different views over the political life. Approaches to the study of politics The origins of political analysis date back to Ancient Greece and as tradition it is usually referred to as “political philosophy”. This involved a preoccupation with essentially ethical, prescriptive or normative questions, reflecting a concern with what “ought” or “must” be brought about, rather than with what “is”. Plato and Aristotle are usually identified as the founding fathers of this tradition. Their ideas resurfaced in the writings of medieval theorists such as Augustine (354-430) and Aquinas (1225-74). The central theme of Plato’s work, for instance, was an attempt to describe the nature of the ideal society, which in his view took the form of a benign dictatorship dominated by a class of philosopher kings. Such writings have formed the basis of what is called the “traditional” approach to politics. This involves the analytical study of ideas and doctrines that have been central to political thought. Most commonly, it has taken the form of a history of political thought that focuses on a collection of “major” thinkers (that spans, for instance, Plato to Marx) and a canon of “classic” texts. Concepts, models and theories Concepts, models and theories are the tools of political analysis. A concept is a general idea about something, usually expressed in a single word or a short phrase. A concept is more than a proper noun or the name of a thing. There is, for example, a difference between talking about a cat (a particular and unique cat) and having a concept of a “cat” (the idea of a cat). The concept of a cat is not a “thing” but an “idea”, an idea composed of the various attributes that give a cat its distinctive character: “a furry mammal”, “small”, “domesticated”, “catches rats and mice”, and so on. The concept of “equality” is thus a principle or ideal. This is different from using the term to say that a runner has “equalled” a world record, or that an inheritance is to be shared “equally” between two brothers. In the same way, the concept of “presidency” refers not to any specific president, but rather to a set of ideas about the organization of executive power.

For a comprehensive ideology worksheet please see Annexe 3 15

What, then, is the value of concepts? Concepts are the tools with which we think, criticize, argue, explain and analyse. Merely perceiving the external world does not in itself give us knowledge about it. In order to make sense of the world we must, in a sense, impose meaning upon it, and this we do through the construction of concepts. Quite simply, to treat a cat as a cat, we must first have a concept of what it is. Concepts also help us to classify objects by recognizing that they have similar forms or similar properties. A cat, for instance, is a member of the class of “cats”. Concepts are therefore “general”: they can relate to a number of objects, indeed to any object that complies with the characteristics of the general idea itself. It is no exaggeration to say that our knowledge of the political world is built up through developing and refining concepts that help us make sense of that world. Concepts, in that sense, are the building blocks of human knowledge. Nevertheless, concepts can also be slippery customers. In the first place, the political reality we seek to understand is constantly shifting and is highly complex. There is always the danger that concepts such as “democracy”, “human rights” and “capitalism” will be more rounded and coherent than the unhappily realities they seek to describe. Max Weber tried to overcome this problem by recognizing particular concepts as “ideal types”. This view implies that the concepts we use are constructed by singling out certain basic or central features of the phenomenon in question, which means that other features are downgraded or ignored altogether. The concept of “revolution” can be regarded as an ideal type in this sense, in that it draws attention to a process of fundamental and usually violent political change. It thus helps us make sense of, say, the 1789 French Revolution and the eastern European revolutions of 1989-91 by highlighting important parallels between them. The concept must nevertheless be used with care because it can also conceal vital differences, and thereby distort understanding - in this case, for example, about the ideological and social character of revolution. For this reason, it is better to think of concepts or ideal types not as being “true” or “false”, but merely as more or less “useful”. A further problem is that political concepts are often the subject of deep ideological controversy. Politics is, in part, a struggle over the legitimate meaning of terms and concepts. Enemies may argue, fight and even go to war, all claiming to be “defending freedom”, “upholding democracy” or “having justice on their side”. The problem is that words such as “freedom”, “democracy” and “justice” have different meanings to different people. How can we establish what is “true” democracy, “true” freedom or “true” justice? The simple answer is that we cannot. Just as with the attempt to define “politics” above, we have to accept that there are competing versions of many political concepts. Such concepts are best regarded as “essentially contested” concepts (Gallie, 1955/56), in that controversy about them runs so deep that no neutral or settled definition can ever be developed. In effect, a single term

can represent a number of rival concepts, none of which can be accepted as its “true” meaning. For example, it is equally legitimate to define politics as what concerns the state, as the conduct of public life, as debate and conciliation, and as the distribution of power and resources. Models and theories are broader than concepts; they comprise a range of ideas rather than a single idea. A model is usually thought of as a representation of something, usually on a smaller scale, as in the case of a doll’s house or a toy aeroplane. In this sense, the purpose of the model is to resemble the original object as faithfully as possible. However, conceptual models need not in any way resemble an object. It would be absurd, for instance, to insist that a computer model of the economy should bear a physical resemblance to the economy itself. Rather, conceptual models are analytical tools; their value is that they are devices through which meaning can be imposed upon what would otherwise be a bewildering and disorganized collection of facts. The simple point is that facts do not speak for themselves: they must be interpreted, and they must be organized. Models assist in the accomplishment of this task because they include a network of relationships that highlight the meaning and significance of relevant empirical data. The best way of understanding this is through an example. One of the most influential models in political analysis is the model of the political system developed by David Easton (1979, 1981). The terms theory and model are often used interchangeably in politics. Theories and models are both conceptual constructs used as tools of political analysis. However, strictly speaking, a theory is a proposition. It offers a systematic explanation of a body of empirical data. In contrast, a model is merely an explanatory device; it is more like a hypothesis that has yet to be tested. In that sense, in politics, while theories can be said to be more or less “true”, models can only be said to be more or less “useful”. Clearly, however, theories and models are often interlinked: broad political theories may be explained in terms of a series of models. For example, the theory of pluralism encompasses a model of the state, a model of electoral competition, a model of group politics, and so on. However, virtually all conceptual devices, theories and models contain hidden values or implicit assumptions. This is why it is difficult to construct theories that are purely empirical; values and normative beliefs invariably intrude. In the case of concepts, this is demonstrated by people’s tendency to use terms as either “hurrah! Words” (for example “democracy”, “freedom” and “justice”) or “boo! Words” (for example “conflict”, “anarchy”, “ideology”, and even “politics”. Models and theories are also “loaded” in the sense that they contain a range of biases. It is difficult, for example, to accept the claim that rational-choice theories (examined above) are value-neutral. As they are based on the assumption that human beings are basically egoistical and self-regarding, it is perhaps not

surprising that they have often pointed to policy conclusions that are politically conservative. In the same way, class theories of politics, advanced by Marxists, are based on broader theories about What is political ideology? Generally speaking, an ideology is “a sum of ideas, beliefs and doctrines representatives for a period of time, society or a class” (Le Petit Robert, 1993:1122). One of the most representative ideologies is that of Marx and Engels who, in one of their early works, The German Ideology took up the idea of the “ruling class” which with other words was considering the maintaining of the class system and the perpetuate exploitation. Their basic idea was that ideas of the ruling party at the time are also ideas ruling the society. The idea is that the class which has the mental production at its disposal also has the control over the means of Mental production. (Marx and Engels, [1846] 1970:64) The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way. The material conditions existing at a given time period Marx refers to as the means of production. Any given time period’s ideology is most clearly revealed by uncovering the material conditions of production: the means of production, as well as the relations of production (the ways the society structures the relations between individuals, particularly through the division of labour), which together make up the mode of production: "life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself". For Marx, it is the materiality of human production that directly influences ideology: "Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life". As Marx and Engel explain further in The German Ideology, Empirical observation must in each separate instance bring out empirically, and without any mystification and speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with production. The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of the lifeprocess of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may appear in their own or other people’s imagination, but as they really are; i.e. as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will. This belief that one can directly access the real conditions of history (sometimes referred to as "reflection theory" or "vulgar Marxism") is questioned by neo-Marxists, particularly in the wake of Althusser”s Lacanian rethinking of ideology. Marx is, in fact, more complicated on this issue,

however, since at other times he suggests that some aspects of ideology (for example, literature) can have a semi-autonomous existence; that is, that such cultural products can exert an influence that is at odds with the dominant mode of production Summary  Government is any mechanism through which ordered rule is maintained, its central feature being its ability to make collective decisions and enforce them. A political system, or regime, however, encompasses not only the mechanisms of government and institutions of the state, but also the structures and processes through which these interact with the larger society.  The classification of political systems serves two purposes. First, it aids understanding by making comparison possible and helping to highlight similarities and differences between otherwise shapeless collections of facts. Second, it helps us to evaluate the effectiveness or success of different political systems.  Regimes have been classified on a variety of bases. “Classical” typologies, stemming from Aristotle, concentrated on constitutional arrangements and institutional structures, while the “three worlds” approach highlighted material and ideological


POLITICAL PARTIES Democracy is a blender of self-governing processes, both social and official in nature. They are visible not just as participation in public life (for example, advocacy, voting, assembly, contributing time and money to groups) but also in the form of state, political, and social institutions (constitutions and the bodies they establish, credible rights, a free press, electoral and judicial processes, shared values, and social organizations) that both sustain participation and restrain its excesses. Links and balance between participation and institutions are essential: Participation without institutions is chaotic, ineffective, and likely to serve the few at the expense of the many. Institutions without participation are an empty exercise at best—and more often, at worst, tools of control from above. People are most likely to participate politically in vigorous, sustained ways when they have a stake in the outcomes The twentieth century seemed to be the century of parties. While in the Western Europe, lots of political parties struggled for more electorate, in communist and fascist states the ruling parties monopolizes the power in their attempt to control the country in order to organize the society and to obtain results over a large number of citizens. In most of the cases it was a matter of people dealing with elections for the first time and most surely it was a matter of uncertainty, manipulation and creation of new ideologies or orientations. The main “role” of a political party may be as such:  Political party’s role is that of giving directions to the government and see to the orientation of it for the best interest of the people  Political parties work best as elite recruitment; they should elect and prepare people for future public representation  Parties act like interest aggregation they choose, “compress” or combine interests. They are a bridge between the people and the state  Political parties are a way of interpretation for the contemporary world, they are a point of reference Political parties are permanent organisations competing most often for positions within the government. Unlike interest groups whose mission is mainly to influence the government, political parties try to stabilise the state. The European system of parties reflects the way parties are organized; membership is to be paid, parties ought to have a strong ideology and strong ideology. By contrast, in America parties are weak; the political parties barely exist except elections. Party presidents hardly impose themselves from within a party they most often come from the outside and seek to gain support on different procedures. Parties and democracy

Paradoxically, while democracy is a public good, self-interest is critical to its vitality. Open, competitive, and fair participation within a framework of legitimate, credible institutions enables citizens and groups to defend their interests, to act on issues they care about, and to hold officials accountable for their decisions. Institutions enlivened by contention among socially rooted interests can moderate conflict; aggregate demands into public policy backed by a working consensus, and earn legitimacy. Political parties are among the most crucial institutions in these processes. Parties embody both participation and institutions, and they are essential to negotiating a balance between them. In their many forms, they do not just contest elections, but also mobilize and organize the social forces that energize democracy, on a continuing basis. Even the most determined democrats require a lasting organizational base, a pool of resources, and legal standing in the political process. Parties connect leaders to followers and simplify political choices, framing them in terms of citizens” own interests. In many societies, parties provide a range of non-political benefits as well, including social activities, recognition and status for people and groups (consider the old ethnic “balanced ticket”), and a sense of security, connectedness, and efficacy. Parties also perform critical moderating and commitment functions identified long ago by E.E. Schattschneider but frequently overlooked today.10 Simply put, where parties are strong, interest groups need them more than they need interest groups. Party leaders can, and usually must, be brokers, working out compromises and seeing that these are honoured. Strong parties emphasize points of commonality and discourage excess—not in the name of civic virtue, but in the name of winning elections. Parties by themselves do not preclude people seeking power through arms, bribery, the power of a charismatic leader, or the strength of the mob, and parties themselves are open to a range of abuses. But without them, citizens and societies have few genuinely democratic alternatives. PARTIES, POLITICAL CONTENTION Competition Parties, and the party systems they collectively embody, should offer realistic chances at influence to a diverse array of interests and candidates. Ideally, that means an opportunity to win elections, but sometimes losing contenders can shift the terms of debate, too. Competition requires that the rights to vote and run for office be protected for all, and that electoral procedures be honest and open to public scrutiny. The ability to contribute funds likewise enhances competition, both directly, by providing key resources, and indirectly, by giving parties incentives to build their connections with popular constituencies. Competition works best when it is orderly—two or three alternatives are preferable to 40—and decisive, with clear mandates and winners. Real opportunities to compete for power, as well as for votes and contributions on a broad social scale, create incentives for parties to contend

on issues, and in ways that reflect popular values. They also are good reasons for losers to accept the results of one election while preparing aggressively to win the next. Organization Sound parties give effective voice to popular discontents and aspirations, providing a continuing structure for mass politics. They organize legislatures and their staffs, executives (at times including civil servants, though therein lie risks), and affiliates such as foundations, think tanks, charities, social clubs, labour and trade organizations, and mass media. Loyalty and, at the elite level, discipline are maintained through diverse appeals ranging from policy commitments, popular leaders, and social activities to political patronage and the dislike of competitors. Strong parties also build a base of volunteers motivated by the party’s long-term goals. Poorly organized parties may resort to whipping up ethnic, class, and ideological discontents; worse yet—because they cannot motivate voluntary efforts through credible political promises—they become dependent upon paid political workers, worsening their resource problems and leaving their structures and agendas hostage to the short-term interests of political mercenaries.


DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNMENT IN THE UK. HISTORIC BACKGROUND; THE FIRST SIGNS OF THE PRESENT PARLIAMENT Nowadays United Kingdom is a unitary state including the Geat Britain (England, Scotland and Walles) and North Ireland. The founding acts were the 1536 law which unified Wales with England; the Act of Union (1706) and later the Union with Scotland Act (1707) which unified Scotland and England and the Act of Union (1801) which unified Ireland to the United Kingdom. Although Scotland, and partly Ireland as wellhave maintained their juridic powers, the legislative power still remained in the hands of the souvereign Parliament of Westminster.

Along the history English kings enjoyed an authority and power which could be envied at any time by the French monarchs. The crown represented the unity of England. The crowning ceremony was underlining the semi Devine powers of the king. Yet, even though the king had been had consultant or advisors along time, it is still difficult to give a certain date for the foundation of the English Parliament. The royal administration – which dealt with the implementation of the legal decisions, with the decision making and the establishing of the fares and taxes – was spreading to the extremities of the British Islands and towards all directions. King’s administration implied cooperation. In every committee, the sheriffs and the new peace judges worked better if they had the help of the noblemen whose interests were closely related to the king’s interests. In fact this former one was the representative of the only source of wealth and power from the contiguous. The Parliament and its representatives from the House of Communes were to play an important role in the governing in the late medieval epoch. Under a monarchical system of government, monarchs needed to seek consultation on the decisions they take, otherwise nobody will obey the monarchs, or their decisions. The English Parliament evolved at a time when the monarchy lacked a police force or a standing army to enforce their laws. Therefore subjects who held any degree of power in the kingdom had to enforce them. The monarchy had agents in every part of the country. However under the feudal system that evolved in England following the Norman invasion of 1066, the laws of the Crown could not have been upheld without the support of the nobility and the clergy. The former had economic and “military” power bases of their own through major ownership of land and feudal obligations, and the Church - then still part of the Roman Catholic

church and so owing ultimate loyalty to Rome - was virtually a law unto itself in this period as it had its own system of religious law courts. The English Parliament, unique among the Medieval European Parliaments, was involved as much in important matters as in some minor matters advised by the members. It was in fact a standpoint for the taxes monopoly; they were voting new law projects and modify the old ones. In time, even the members of the House of Commons have earned privileges such as the right to free opinion, or immunity which made impossible their arrest as long as they were employees of the Parliament. The Parliament remained in essence a governing instrument at the kings’ clearance, yet it was still the Parliament the one allowed to address critics to the royal politics and to the ministers, even though it wouldn’t allow itself to address critics to the monarch himself. The king, the court and the ministers were residing mostly in Westminster, London and Windsor. The altar of the English Parliament was the Westminster Abbey so that the meetings usually took place at Westminster. Gradually the meetings were also taking place at London which became one of the most populated and wealthy town; later on in the medieval eve, the city will become the main British city and the English capital. In the 12th Century, the Great Council, as the Parliament used to be called, would consist out of archbishops, bishops, abbots, barons and earls; which werw the pillars of the feudal system. These Great Councils were loosely based on the structure and concept of the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemot, although the importance of the latter institution to the later development of parliament can be over exaggerated. In order for the nobility and clergy to be willing to participate in enforcing the rule of law as laid down by the king, they had to be in agreement with what he was doing. Therefore, post-1066 English monarchs formed Great Councils consisting of the entire nobility and senior members of the clergy from whom they sought consultation and consent when taking major decisions. In fact the British parliament established since the medieval time survived in this form up to the Act of Union from 1707 when the bases of the Parliament of the Great Britain were set out and which will later become, the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The modern Parliament of the United Kingdom is one of the oldest legislative bodies in the world, supposing the oldest, and for this reason it is sometimes referred to as the "Mother of all Parliaments". This parliament will later include Ireland, as a result of the Act of Union from the 1800. Today’s parliament is bicameral, whith an upper house, the House of Lords, and a lower house, the House of Commons. The Queen is the third component of the Parliament. The House of Lords includes two different types of constituencies: the Lords Spiritual (the senior bishops of the Church of England) and the Lords Temporal (members of the Peerage); its members are not elected by the population at large but are appointed by past or current

governments. The House of Commons is a democratically elected chamber with elections to it held at least every 5 years. The two Houses meet in separate chambers in the Palace of Westminster (commonly known as the "Houses of Parliament"), in the City of Westminster in London. By constitutional convention, all government ministers, including the Prime Minister, are members of the House of Commons or, less often, the House of Lords, and are thereby accountable to the respective branches of the legislature. The English Parliament traces its origins to the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemot. A thousand years ago, before the Norman Conquest in 1066, decisions were taken only after consulting with the Great Council which was an assembly of “representatives” of people from each district. In 1066, William of Normandy brought a feudal system, where he sought the advice of a council of tenants-in-chief and ecclesiastics before making laws. After the Norman Conquest to 1215 the king ruled by himself and took decisions on his own; after this date he was forced to sign Magna Carta6 which took away some of his powers. The Constituency of the Commune Chamber representing the consequence of an historical evolution linked especially to the necessity of the solutioning in a constructive way of the state matters related to the taxes or national charges7. The so-called "Model Parliament" was adopted by King Edward I in 1295. By the reign of Edward II, Parliament had been separated into two Houses: one including the nobility and higher clergy, the other including the knights and burgesses, and no law could be made, nor any tax levied, without the consent of both Houses as well as of the Sovereign. The Great British Parliament would contain all the representatives that were entitled to be part of the parliament. The Laws in Wales Acts of 1535–42 annexed Wales as part of England and brought Welsh representatives to Parliament. The parliament was still subordinated to the king up to the XIV century, when it was to be separated into two chambers and because from 1351 these two groups used to have separate meetings, they start meeting in separate buildings as well, the Chamber of Lords and the Chamber of the Communes. But at this time the institutions did not have yet the attributions of a legislative power. It was in the XV century, that the parliament receives new attributions: so that one of the chambers receives the law project and than send it to the other chamber for approval and than afterwards it was to be sent for signature to the king; whether approved, it was to become regulation. It was during this period of time that the parliament was to become more powerfull. So that in 1399, King Richard the IInd was to be overthrown by the parliament.
6 7

See Annexe 1 Benone Puşcă, Andy Puşca – Drept constituţional Comparat 25

When Elizabeth I was succeeded in 1603 by the Scottish King James VI, (thus becoming James I of England), the countries both came under his rule but each retained its own Parliament. James I's successor, Charles I, quarrelled with the English Parliament and, after he provoked the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, their dispute developed into the English Civil War. Charles was executed in 1649 and under Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth of England the House of Lords was abolished, and the House of Commons made subordinate to Cromwell. After Cromwell's death, the Restoration of 1660 restored the monarchy and the House of Lords. Amidst fears of a Roman Catholic succession, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 deposed James II (James VII of Scotland) in favour of the joint rule of Mary II and William III, whose agreement to the English Bill of Rights introduced a constitutional monarchy, though the supremacy of the Crown remained. For the third time, a Convention Parliament, i.e., one not summoned by the king, was required to determine the succession. A meeting in 1295 became known as the Model Parliament because it set the pattern for later Parliaments. In 1307, Edward I agreed not to collect certain taxes without consent of the realm. He also enlarged the court system.The first English Parliament was formed during the reign of King Henry III in the 13th century. In 1265, Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester, who was in rebellion against Henry III, summoned a parliament of his supporters without any or prior royal authorisation. The archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and barons were summoned, as were two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough. Knights had been summoned to previous councils, but the representation of the boroughs was unprecedented. De Montfort's scheme was formally adopted by Edward I in the so-called "Model Parliament" of 1295. William of Normandy brought to England the feudal system of his native Normandy, and sought the advice of the curia regis, before making laws. This body is the germ from which Parliament, the higher courts of law, and the Privy Council and Cabinet have sprung. Of these, the legislature is formally the High Court of Parliament; judges sit in the Supreme Court of Judicature; and only the executive government is no longer conducted in a royal court. Estate debated independently; by the reign of Edward III, however, the Parliament had been separated into two Houses and was assuming recognisability in its modern form. A characteristic of the United Kingdom is that the kingdom does not have a constitution; in fact the relationship between the major institutions of the state is based on different historical documents – such as Magna Carta (1215), Bill of Rights (1688), Act of Union (1707) and Parliament Acts (1911 and 1949); these documents do not have the status of a written constitution nor that of a supreme law. Therefore the British constitution is formed number of flexible laws, the Court of Justice decisions, conventions; customs and traditions. The concept of the queen’s parliamentary souvereignity through

which the Queen would have ilimited powers in the Parliament, had remained the fundament of the constitution over a number of years and had embraced a dualist comprehension between the national and international legislature. Type Bicameral Houses House of Lords, House of Commons Members 1,384 (646 MPs, 738 Peers) Political groups Labour Party, Conservative Party, Liberal Democrats, Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, Democratic Unionist Party, Sinn Féin, Social Democratic and Labour Party, United Kingdom Independence Party, Ulster Unionist Party, Respect – The Unity Coalition Last elections May 5, 2005 Meeting place Palace of Westminster, Westminster, London, UK Web site


Résumé des principaux résultats, exposé des limites théoriques et méthodologiques. Discussion des résultats en relation avec les résultats connus dans la littérature sur le sujet, conclusion.


Bondel, J. (2002), “Party Government, Patronage, and Party Decline in Western Europe”, in Gunther, J.R.Montero & J.J. Linz , Political Parties: Old concepts and New Challenges, Oxford: Oxford University Press, PDF format Deac Livia, Nicolescu Adrian British life and Civilization Editura Didactica Si Pedagogica Bucuresti 1983 Puşcă Benone, Andy Puşca – Drept constituţional Comparat, Ed. Evrika, Braila, 1998. Clark Alistair Parties and political linkage: towards a comprehensive framework for analysis, Dep. Of Politics and International relations, University of Aberdeen, 2003, PDF format. De La Boetie Etienne The Politics of obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, 1975, Canada by Black Rose Books, Montreal, The Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama Genoveva Vrabie, Les Regimes Politiques des pays de l’UE et de la Roumanie Regia Autonoma Monitorul Oficial, Bucuresti 2002 Johnston Michael, Political parties and democracy in theoretical and practical perspectives National Democratic Institute for International Affairs Political Finance Policy, Parties, And Democratic Development, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, 2005 Nicolescu Corneliu, Anglia si spiritul englez de la celti la imperiu, Pro Vita, 2005 Maurois Andre, Istoria Angliei, Ist volume, Editura Politica, Bucuresti – 1970 Maurois Andre, Istoria Angliei, IInd volume, Editura Politica, Bucuresti – 1970 Richard Musman and D’Arcy Adrian-Vallance, Britain today Longman House, Burnt Mill, Harlow, Essex, England, 1989, printed in Romania, 1993, Coresi SRL, Bucharest Political Parties, Classroom Law Writing Project /Croatia, Delaware, Maryland and Oregon, Rod Hague and Martin Harrop, Comparative Government and Politics 7th Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, Revised and updated, may 2007


Internet links:


ANNEXES Annexe 1. Magna Carta

Magna Carta cum statutis angliae, page 1 of manuscript, fourteenth century


Annexe 2 In all the parliamentary systems, the head of state may be a hereditary monarch, a directly or indirectly elected president. The position is however hereditary or it has very little executive or ceremonial authority.

Figure 2.1 Parliamentary Governments *


Annexe 3:


Annexe 4: Ideology Worksheet. What is your ideology? An ideology is a systematic set of values that enables a person to view public policy issues in a consistent way. Your answers to these questions will indicate if your political values lean toward the liberal or conservative ideologies. Answer “T” for true or “F” for false in response to the following questions. ____ 1. The federal government places too many restrictions on the way corporations conduct their business. ____ 2. Unions reduce productivity by discouraging workers from performing tasks not agreed to in a labour management contract. ____ 3. High government taxes discourage citizens from working hard. ____ 4. Most people on welfare would prefer a real job. ____ 5. Government should create programs that will reduce America’s large number of poor people. ____ 6. The best way to help the poor is to set policies that help businesses earn a profit so they can hire the underprivileged. ____ 7. Taxes should be used to redistribute income by taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor. ____ 8. The government has a special responsibility to protect and assist disadvantaged minorities. ____9. Government programs on behalf of the disadvantaged discourage people from helping themselves. ____ 10. America’s high crime rate is directly traceable to the persistence of poverty and discrimination. ____ 11. America’s high crime rate is due to courts being too lenient with criminals. ____12. Crime, unemployment and poverty will be reduced if Americans return to the traditional values of hard work, self-discipline and belief in God. ____13. Government should censor or restrict films and publications that undermine the nation’s moral fibber. ____ 14. The First Amendment should protect pornography from government censorship. Adults must be free to think and speak as they wish. ____ 15. Most Third World unrest can be traced to Soviet attempts to inspire anti-Western revolutions in these areas. ____ 16. Most Third World unrest is caused by weak governments and economics, poverty, famine and internal conflicts – a legacy of Western political and economic imperialism. ____ 17. Gays should be allowed to serve in the US Armed Forces. ____ 18. Jobs and the economy are more important than saving endangered species.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful