THE CLASS ANALYSIS APPROACH - Social Sciences



THE CLASS ANALYSIS APPROACH

Barrington Moore, Jr.

A. Brief Biography

1. Early Work: Russia

2. Methodology: Historical Materialism

3. 4 Core Suppositions

a) “No bourgeois, no democracy”

b) Eliminate the peasantry      [  Relevant quotations from Marx ]

c) Commercialization of the countryside- did it promote the independence of the Aristocracy?

d) Political balance between Aristocracy & Bourgeoisie

B. Class Analysis of Britain and France

|CONDITION |BRITAIN |FRANCE |

|1. “No bourgeoisie, no democracy.” |YES |NO |

|2. Eliminate Peasantry |YES |NO |

|3. Commercialize countryside independent of Aristocracy |YES |NO |

|4. Balance of Aristocracy & Bourgeoisie |YES |N/A |

Summary of Barrington Moore Argument

| |BRITAIN |FRANCE |

|Mode of Production |Wool/Textile |Wine/Grains |

| |International Trade |Markets restricted by monarch |

| |Enclosures… |Labor intensive |

| |Technological innovation |Little innovation |

| |Destruction of peasantry |Preservation of peasantry |

|Politico-Economic |Capitalistic/parliamentary |Royal Absolutism |

|Environment/Outcome |Democracy |(Louis XIV) |

|Bourgeoisie? |Increased influence, merged with upper |Less development because of royal |

| |classes |restrictions |

|Peasantry? |Eliminated before democratic era |Aligned with monarchy; |

| | |Supported royal authority |

|Major Characteristics |Bourgeois Democracy |“No bourgeois, |

| | |no democracy” |

| |Commercialization of countryside |Continued feudal culture |

| |Elimination of Peasantry |Reactionary peasant forces |

| |Aristocracy & Bourgeoisie have balance of |Bourgeoisie is weak; aristocracy aligns |

| |power |with monarchy |

|Political Outcome |Independent Parliament at expense of king. |King kept power. Aristocracy overthrown |

| |Early violence allowed parliamentary |by revolution. Revolution/instability |

| |gradualism | |

II. Moore: Strengths & Weaknesses

C. Strengths

1. Democratic Origination

2. State of Epiphenomenon

3. Critique of ills of Capitalism

D. Weaknesses

1. Dogmatism

2. Lack of Method

3. Area Studies

4. Liquid vs. Fixed Capital --- Critique by Robert Bates

THE FRENCH POITICAL SYSTEM

• Introduction: Constitutional Instability – History of Regimes, 1789 to 1999

• French Regimes, 1789 to Present

• Napoleon's Invasion of Russia

France’s Political Culture

A. Multiple spectrums *

1. Left vs. Right (as in Britain)

2. Constitutional / Anti-Constitutional

3. Presidential vs. Republican

4. Planned Economy vs. Market Economy

B. Instrumental vs. Reverential Culture: Fragmented Attachments **

C. No unifying myth: role of Joan of Arc

D. Incivility – what is “incivisme”?

E. The “Shame Culture” and the Political Pendulum

* Multiple Spectrums Today: The European Union

** Fragmented Attachments in French History

[pic][pic][pic]

THE FIFTH FRENCH REPUBLIC

• Background events

• Gaullist critique of Fourth Republic

• Drafting the constitution

• Political institutions of Fifth Republic

• Presidency

o Prime Minister + Cabinet

• Legislature

o National Assembly

o Senate

• Constitutional Council

REGIME INSTABILITY, 3RD & 4TH REPUBLICS

• 1876 to 1958 = 82 years

o 119 “governments”

o Average life was 8 months

• 1946 to 1958 = 12 years

o 25 “governments’

o Average life was 6 months

✓ All Governments were coalitions. Political cycle was immobilism – crisis leadership- immobilism. Real power devolved to the bureaucracy

6 PRINCIPLE OF INSTITUTIONAL ENGINEERING

1. A Strong President when….?

2. A Strong Prime Minister and Cabinet when….?

3. Weaken the Parliament…. When?

4. Electoral steps toward two-party system

5. Judicial Review

6. Constitutional Ambiguity (flexibility)?

France: The Trend toward Cohabitation

✓ 1958 – 1988: 1st 30 years of 5th Republic, 2 years of cohabitation

✓ 1988 – 2002: next 14 years, 2 periods of cohabitation, a total of 7 years (2+5) or 50% of time

ENGINEERING PRINCIPLE NO.1: EMPOWER THE PRESIDENCY

• Art. 8. Appoints Prime Minister

• Art 12. Dissolution of Parliament

• Art 16. Crisis Power

• Art 5. Constitutional and Foreign Affairs

• Art. 15. Commander of Armed Forces

• Art. 5. + Art. 15. “Reversed Domain”

• Art 11. Referendum Power, “on proposal of Gov.”

• Appointment Powers

ENGINEERING PRINCIPLE NO.2: EMPOWER THE GOVERNMENT

1. Structural: Limitations of Office

2. Human: Limitations/Interests

3. Cultural: The Parliamentary Idea

4. Political: The Increase of Cohabitation and Weaker Presidents

5. Constitutional: Empowerment of Government

• Art. 49. 3 key parts, “laws without votes”

• Art. 23. Rule of Incompatibility

• Art. 20. Cabinet authority to administer government policy, including defense

• Art. 21. Authority for Defense

• Art. 38. Delegated Powers

• Art. 44. The “Blocked” Vote

Can These Be Reconciled?

✓ Reconciliation 1: Multiple Equilibriums: Presidential Majority vs. Governmental Majority

✓ Reconciliation 2: Parliamentary Government vs. Parliamentary Crisis [the “spare tire” theory]

ENGINEERING PRINCIPLE NO.3: WEAKEN PARLIAMENT

1. Relativity of Power

2. Committee System

• Art. 23. Rule of Incompatibility

• Art. 34. Limits on Scope of Parliament’s Authority

• Art. 40. Limits on Budgetary Power

• Art. 38. Delegated Authority

ENGINEERING PRINCIPLE NO.4: USE THE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT TO CREATE A TWO PARTY SYSTEM

• French Parliamentary Elections of 1988 & 1993

| |1988 |1993 | |

|PARTY |% of Vote |# of Seats |% of Vote |# of Seats |Change |

|CP |11.3 |27 |9.1 |24 |-3 |

|SOC |34.8 |274 |19.2 |61 |-213 |

|UDF |18.5 |130 |18.8 |207 |+77 |

|GAULLIST |19.2 |128 |19.7 |242 |+114 |

|NF |9.8* |1 |12.7 |0 |-1 |

|OTHER | |15 |10.9 |37 |+22 |

|e.g. “greens” | | | |(unaff. rt.) | |

| | | | |0 | |

* In the1986 parliamentary election, held under proportional representation, the National Front gained 9.9% on the 1st ballot, but won 35 seats.

French Parliamentary Elections of 1993 & 1997

  

| |1993 | |1997 | | |

|Party |First Ballot |Second Ballot |Number of Seats |First Ballot |Second Ballot |Number of Seats |Gain or Loss |

|Communists |9.2 |4.6 |24 |9.8 |3.6 |38 |+14 |

|Socialists |20.3 |31.6 |61 |25.7 |39.1 |241 |+180 |

|Left | | | |6.7 |5.6 | | |

|U.D.F. |19.1 |25.1 |207 |14.9 |21.2 |108 |-99 |

|Gaullists |20.4 |27.8 |242 |16.5 |23.6 |148 |-94 |

|Rt. Cen Alliance ~ |(39.5 |(52.9) |(449) |(31.4) |(44.8) |(256) |(-193) |

|National Front |12.4 |5.7 |0 |15.2 |5.7 |1 |+1 |

|Others |18.6 |5.2 |43 |11.2 |1.2 |41 |-3 |

|(includes the Greens| | | | | | | |

|and Generation | | | | | | | |

|Ecology) | | | | | | | |

*(in percentages, rounded)

~(combination of U.D.F. and Gaullists)

• French Presidential Election of 2002

|FRANCE: April 21, 2002 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (first round) |

|Registered Voters: |41,193,693 | |

|Votes Cast: |29,497,272 |(71.6% of registered voters) |

|Valid Votes |28,501,773 |96.62% (of votes cast) |

|Invalid Votes: |995,499 |3.37% (of votes cast) |

|CANDIDATES |PARTY |% [OF VOTES] |TOTAL VOTES |

|Jacques CHIRAC |Rally for the Republic |19.88% |5,666,298 |

|Jean-Marie Le PEN |National Front |16.86% |4,805,338 |

|Lionel JOSPIN |Socialist Party (PS) |16.18% |4,610,506 |

|Francois BAYROU |Union for the French Democracy (UDF) |6.84% |1,949,434 |

|Arlette LAGUILLER |Trotskyite Workers’ Struggle |5.72% |1,630,243 |

|Jean-Pierre CHEVENEMENT |Citizens Movement (MdC) |5.33% |1,518,895 |

|Noel MAMERE |Green Party |5.25% |1,495,898 |

|Alain MADELIN |Liberal Democracy (DL) |3.91% |1,113,705 |

|Robert HUE |French Communist Party (PCF) |3.37% |960,753 |

| |

|FRANCE: May 5, 2002 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (second round) |

|Registered Voters: |41,191,169 | |

|Votes Cast: |32,832,295 |79.70% (of registered voters) |

|Valid Votes: |31,062,988 |94.62% (of votes cast) |

|Invalid Votes |1,769,307 |5.38% (of votes cast) |

|CANDIDATES |PARTY |% [OF VALID VOTES] |TOTAL VOTES |

|Jacques CHIRAC |Rally for the Republic |82.21% |25,537,956 |

|Jean-Marie LE PEN |National Front |17.79% |5,525,032 |

French Legislative Election Results, 2002

|Election Information: |Round 1: June 9 |Round 2: June 16 | |

| |40,968,484 |36,783,746 | |

| |Registered Voters=100% |Registered Voters=100% | |

| |26,389,875 |22,186,165 V | |

| |Votes Cast = 64.42% |otes Cast = 60.32% | |

| |14,578,609 |14,597,581 | |

| |Abstentions = 35.58% |Abstentions = 39.68% | |

| |

|Party |Round 1 Results |Round 2 Results |Seats Won |

|LO- Working Fight |1.20% |* |* |

|LCR- Communist Revolution League |1.27% |* |* |

|EG- Extreme Left |0.32% |* |* |

|PCF- Communist Party |4.82% |3.26% |21 |

|PS- Socialist Party |24.11% |35.26% |138 |

|RG- Radical Party of the Left |1.54% |2.15% |7 |

|Various Left |1.09% |1.27% |6 |

|Greens |4.51% |3.19% |3 |

|PR- Republican Pole |1.19% |0.06% |0 |

|Other Ecologists |1.17% |* |* |

|Regionalistic |0.26% |0.14% |1 |

|CPNT- Hunting, Fishing, Nature, & Tradition |1.67% |* |* |

|Others |0.77% |0.06% |1 |

|UMP- Union for Presidential Majority |33.30% |47.26% |309 |

|UDF- Union for French Democracy |4.85% |3.92% |23 |

|DL- Liberal Democratic Party |0.41% |* |* |

|RPF- Rally for France Party |0.37% |0.29% |2 |

|MPF- Movement for France |0.80% |* |* |

|Various Right |3.65% |1.29% |9 |

|FN-National Front |11.34% |1.85% |0 |

|MNR- Movement for National Republic |1.09% |* |* |

|Extreme Right |0.24% |* |* |

Presidential Election of 2007

| |

|Summary of the 22 April and 6 May 2007 French presidential election results |

|Candidates – Parties |1st round |2nd round |

| |

|Votes cast |

France: Legislative Election of 2007.

|France, Legislative Election of 2007 | | | |

|First Round Results | | | |

| |Round 1 |10-Jun | |

|Party |Votes |Percent |Seats |

| | | | |

|Union for a Popular Movement (Union pour un mouvement populaire) |10,289,028 |39.54 |98 |

|New Centre (Nouveau centre) |616,443 |2.37 |7 |

|Miscellaneous right-wing |641,600 |2.47 |2 |

|Movement for France (Mouvement pour la France) |312,587 |1.2 |1 |

|Total "Presidential Majority" (Right) |11,859,658 |45.58 | |

|Socialist Party (Parti socialiste) |6,436,136 |24.73 |1 |

|French Communist Party (Parti communiste français) |1,115, 719 |4.29 |0 |

|Miscellaneous left-wing |513,457 |1.97 |0 |

|Left Radical Party (Parti radical de gauche) |343,580 |1.31 |0 |

|The Greens (Les Verts) |845,884 |3.25 |0 |

|Total "United Left" |9,254,776 |35.55 | |

|Democratic Movement (Mouvement démocrate) |1,981,121 |7.61 |0 |

|Regionalists and separatists |131,585 |0.51 |0 |

|Miscellaneous |267,987 |1.03 |0 |

|National Front (Front national) |1,116,005 |4.29 |0 |

|Other far-left, Revolutionary Communist League and Workers' Struggle |887,887 |3.41 |0 |

|Hunting, Fishing, Nature, Traditions |213,448 |0.82 |0 |

|Other ecologists |208,465 |0.8 |0 |

|Other far-right including National Republican Movement |102,100 |0.39 |0 |

|Total |26,023,052 |100 |110 |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Second Round Results |June 17 | | |

|Union for a Popular Movement (Union pour un mouvement populaire) |9,463,408 |46.37 |313 |

|New Centre (Nouveau centre) |432,921 |2.12 |22 |

|Miscellaneous right-wing |238,585 |1.17 |9 |

|Movement for France (Mouvement pour la France) | | |1 |

|Total "Presidential Majority" (Right) | | |345 |

|Socialist Party (Parti socialiste) |8,622,529 |42.25 |186 |

|French Communist Party (Parti communiste français) |464,739 |2.28 |15 |

|Miscellaneous left-wing |503,674 |2.47 |15 |

|Left Radical Party (Parti radical de gauche) |333,189 |1.63 |7 |

|The Greens (Les Verts) |90,975 |0.45 |4 |

|Total "United Left" | | |227 |

|Democratic Movement (Mouvement démocrate) |100,106 |0.49 |3 |

|Regionalists and separatists |106,459 |0.52 |1 |

|Miscellaneous |33,068 |0.16 |1 |

|National Front (Front national) | | | |

|Other far-left, Revolutionary Communist League and Workers' Struggle | | | |

|Hunting, Fishing, Nature, Traditions | | | |

|Other ecologists | | | |

|Other far-right including National Republican Movement | | | |

|Total |21,130,346 |100 |577 |

CONCLUSION

Is the Single Member District Producing a Stable Two-Party System?

1. The “Yes” Arguments

a. Essentially two large coalitions: a Socialist/Communist Coalition on the Left; a Gaullist/non-Gaullist coalition on the right.

[two round feature encourages coalitions]

b. Decline of anti-constitutional extremes and “true believer” parties

c. Electoral repudiation of extreme right in 2002 Presidential Election

2. Supporting the “Yes” Arguments

a. Since end of World War II, France has become a prosperous industrial society

b. Generous and publicly supported welfare policies including social medicine, family and worker benefits, generous pension plans, public education

c. Political system has become effective

3. The “No” Arguments

a. Large proportion of popular vote, up to 35%, for extreme parties including Communists, Trotskyite parties, National Front and extreme “greens”

b. Large amount of popular unrest in France including public and private sector strikes

c. Rise of unresolved “hot button” issues including race, immigration, unemployment, and globalization

d. Fluidity of the party system

4. Supporting the “No” Arguments

a. High incidence of strikes and demonstrations.

b. Economic un-sustainability of social programs (e.g., pensions)

c. High rate of unemployment

d. Nature of the French middle class… vulnerability to globalization

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download