It can be argued that it is impossible to separate facts and values, since all statements imply that a relationship exists, and relationships suggest that values exist within facts. Thus, behaviouralists – a school of empirical theorists who claim to be scientific and value-free – argue that when people don’t vote, this enables experts to make decisions for society. The link between apathy and democracy is deemed
‘functional’, but this contention necessarily implies that apathy is a good thing.
When apparently value-free linguistic philosophers define the word democracy in parliamentary terms, they are taking a stand on the debate between representative and participatory democracy that is certainly evaluative or normative in character.
One meaning of the term ideology is thought that is normative, but this, we would suggest, is unsatisfactory for at least two reasons. First, it naively assumes that ideas
168 Part 2 Classical ideologies
can be non-evaluative or purely factual in character; second, it fails to see that ideology can be transcended, not by avoiding morality in politics, but by moving beyond the state.
Why should the state be linked to ideology? In our view, the state is best defined as an institution claiming a monopoly of legitimate force – a claim that is contradictory and implausible. In claiming a monopoly of legitimacy, supporters have to denigrate those who challenge this monopoly, presenting their own values as an exclusive system. Inevitably, a statist focus distorts realities. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the state not only claims a monopoly of legitimacy, but a monopoly of force, and the use of force to tackle conflicts of interest acts to polarise society into friends and enemies, those who are respectable and those (an inexplicably violent minority) who are beyond the pale. This gives ideas an absolutist twist that is characteristic of ideologies, and explains why ideologies are problematic in character. This is unavoidable where the objective of a movement is to win (or retain) state power. The Movement for Democratic Freedom seeks to unite conservatives, liberals and socialists against the tyrannical rule of Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party, and it cannot avoid an ideological character. In the same way, gay rights activists who organise to protect their interests and call upon the state to implement appropriate policies are acting ideologically.
However, movements are not purely ideological, where they seek not only to transform the state, but to move beyond it altogether. Take feminists for example.
Feminists do not normally believe that punishing aggressive men through the courts will solve the problem of male domination, although they may support it as a short-term expedient. In the longer short-term, they would argue that we need to change our culture so that force is seen as an unacceptable way of tackling conflicts of interest, and that we must resolve conflicts in what we have called a governmental way – i.e. through negotiation and arbitration and not through force. This longer-term aim is non-ideological because it rests upon trying to understand why violence arises and how we can move beyond it. It involves a politics beyond the state and, in seeking to face reality in all its complexities, it is moving beyond ideology as well.
The notion of monopoly and the use of force that are inevitable when the state is involved, limit the realism of ideas and make them ideological.
References
Crick, B. (1982) In Defence of Politics 2nd edn, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Giddens, A. (1994) Beyond Left and Right Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gray, J. (2002) Straw Dogs London: Granta.
McLellan, D. (1995) Ideology 2nd edn, Buckingham: Open University.
Mannheim, K. (1936) Ideology and Utopia, English translation, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Partridge, P. (1967) ‘Politics, Philosophy and Ideology’ in A. Quinton (ed.) Political Philosophy Oxford: Oxford University Press, 32–52.
What is ideology? 169
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 8
Liberalism
Introduction
Liberalism has emerged as the world’s dominant ideology, and much of the political debate of ‘liberal democratic’ societies takes place within liberalism.
Because of its dominance liberalism can be a difficult ideology to pin down, and there are several quite distinct streams of thought within it. Liberals take individual freedom – or liberty – as a fundamental value, and although an individual’s freedom can be limited – because it clashes with the freedom of others or with other values – what defines liberalism is the presumption that freedom is a good thing, meaning that limitations on freedom must be justified.
A less obvious aspect of liberalism is its emphasis on equality, and again the presumption is that people are equal. Although this appears to generate a major contradiction at the heart of liberalism – after all, the exercise of freedom will often lead to inequality – the two can be reconciled if we assume people are naturally equal. Natural, or ‘moral’, equality may be compatible with material, or social, inequality. To say people are naturally equal amounts to the claim that political institutions must be justified to each individual, and each individual counts equally.
Chapter map
In this chapter we will:
• Explore the historical roots of liberalism.
• Identify the fundamental philosophical core of liberal thought.
• Recognise the distinct streams of liberal thought, and the tensions between them.
• Analyse political practice in liberal democracies and apply the insights gained to that practice.