Political science, as solid as a rock

What is a party? An ideology? A democracy? Students (as well as others) will now be able to find the answers to these questions in ‘Fondements de science politique’ (The foundations of political science), a handbook co-authored by six lecturers from four French-speaking universities. One of them, Jérôme Jamin, a lecturer at the University of Liège, takes a look at the recent developments in politics, from the emergence of populism to the resurgence of left-right divisions, and the increased search for alternative means of action. All signs of a certain disenchantment among citizens.

A ‘compass to enter into the political jungle’. A ‘decoder’ so we ‘don’t have to remain passive in the face of events ’. The blurb on the cover of the book Fondements de science politique (1) already prepares us for what’s inside. Because it’s true that ‘public affairs’ can seem at first rather obscure to anyone who might take an interest in them. The quest for power, strategic games, the pursuit of popularity, alliances and antagonisms, the whiff of scandal... We could almost forget that the primary mission of our representatives is to master the art helping us to live together.

While a day doesn’t go by without the mention of politics, the role of the political analyst consists of seeing the bigger picture, of rising above this scrum which often resembles a free-for-all. This is exactly what this handbook, recently published by De Boeck, sets out to do: remind us of the fundamental theoretical concepts that will allow us to decipher the stirs caused by world events.      

Yet another work on political science? This book has two particularities. First of all, it has been written by six authors from four Belgian French-speaking universities. Jérôme Jamin for ULg, Nathalie Schiffino, Vincent Legrand and Pierre Baudewyns for UCL, Thierry Balzacq for UNamur and Olivier Paye for Saint-Louis Bruxelles. “Our intent was to create a unique work that would be used in different universities during their introductory classes to political science”, Jérôme Jamin tells us. “A common core that we have elaborated and validated together, and to which everyone will bring their own specificities during classes by choosing examples, and by focusing more on one part rather than another...”. The writing of the chapters was shared between the lecturers, then every text was reread and amended by two or even three other writers, in an effort to reach a consensus. In other words, none of the chapters were written by one author, they were all co-written, which means that everyone had to be in agreement beforehand, hence the idea of ‘foundations’ of political science, i.e. the bases on which six authors have agreed.

Avoiding francocentrism

The book’s second specificity lies in its desire to broaden the horizon: in the French-speaking world, political science is usually considered through the eyes of France. “We didn’t want to adopt the usual, rather ethnocentric Franco-French approach”, the political analyst from Liège emphasises. “We talk about all countries and we don’t favour France. Or Belgium, for that matter”.   

The 440 pages of this handbook – which is mainly aimed at students, though not exclusively – focuses on the main concepts and key theories of the subject. The different approaches of power, the state according to Max Weber, splits, the characteristics and evolutions of ideologies, the birth of democratic and authoritarian regimes, the missions performed by parliaments and governments, the characterisation of the parties,  citizenship, etc.

The book also hints at the main developments in political science. A discipline whose theoretical foundations are well anchored, but whose topics for analysis are constantly changing. “All the analytical tools remain the same; the literature simply enriches the main principles that were validated sometimes a very long time ago”, Jérôme Jamin continues. “However, in reality, we see significant changes after five, ten years. For instance, as regards the ever-increasing importance of surveys, the evolution of the parties, or the role of the media in politics”.

Love/Hate

This aspect isn’t the subject of a chapter in the book. Although it was selected in the beginning, it was abandoned owing to a lack of space. “It’ll be for next time!" But the theme of the media is henceforth closely linked to politics. Both are interdependent and maintain a love/hate relationship. Preferring to avoid each other, they always end up together because they need each another. For better or for worse. Beginning with the birth of populism, this “political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite”, which has become omnipresent over the past thirty years. A doctrine that relies especially on the media, particularly on television, with its direct, simple and even demagogic style which is appealing to political stakeholders.

“A phenomenon that has been spreading since the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s”, the co-author explains. “Populism isn’t an ideology, because it can lean both towards the left and the right. It has appeared in different countries, especially coupled with the development of television. Any party that wants to exist doesn’t really have any choice: it has to appear on television. And adapt its views so that people will understand.” In other words, complexity must be avoided as much as possible. And yet the political world is full of it... That's how electoral success now works: thanks to media coverage rather than a programme.

Political crisis of faith

It isn’t only the press that is responsible for the emergence of populism. The crisis of representation certainly plays a role as well. Citizens who vow blind confidence in their MPs are now few and far between. The elite are losing ground. Mistrust and pessimism are now an accepted part of democracy.  “The history of representation isn’t very old”, Jérôme Jamin tells us. “It dates from the end of the Middle Ages and the revolutions that took place, first in England, then in France and America. As soon as the people were given a voice, the question then arose how to master it. At the time, it was thought that allowing people to express themselves directly would become uncontrollable or would be hijacked by demagogues, dictators. It was therefore necessary to control this risk through a system where political professionals would be elected by the citizens. The very history of representative democracy begins with its limitation!”

A limit that was all the more delimited since only a few privileged beings had the right, in the beginning, to place a name on a ballot paper. Those who paid taxes, those with a diploma, etc. In other words, the dominant class. But minority. Hence, the outcome of suffrage was under control. And women? Out of the question! In many countries, they had to wait until the end of the  Second World War (1948 for Belgium) to obtain the right to vote. 'Compensation’ for their considerable contribution to the war effort.

From 1945 to 1970, political representation seemed to gain ground in a relatively stable social and economic context. "It was something of a reprieve”, the political analyst confirms. The end of the Glorious Thirty, the oil crisis and the economic slowdown which followed dealt the deathblow. “As of 1980, representation slowly but surely fell into disrepute. Citizens became accustomed to believing that the parties were virtually unable or simply incapable of reducing unemployment, solving population problems, etc.”    

In the 1990s, the project for European construction and the gradual loss of the sovereignty of nations amplified this distrust. From this moment on, power was no longer really situated at a national level, though not really at a supranational level either. The increased dependence of politics regarding the financial markets also weakened the parties as the traditional and intermediary stakeholders between the people and power.

Alternative actions

All elements that would lead to the search for alternative means of action, an important characteristic of the current political field. Petitions, neighbourhood committees, citizens’ juries, referendums, as was recently the case in Namur regarding the building of a shopping centre in Parc Léopold, or earlier on, in the effort to push Liège as the 2015 capital of culture... Attempts, which are generally organised at a local level, to make the voices at the ‘bottom’ heard. “Mobilising thirty people to prevent the construction of a motorway is easier than fighting against global warming or the war in Iraq, even if major public demonstrations have already been organised for these types of causes, especially in London”.  

Like the ‘indignados’ movement, which spread like wildfire in 2011, starting in Madrid and reaching Wall Street in New York, as well as Athens, Brussels and Paris. Furthermore, the internet can become a sounding board for these unconventional political practices. Not a day goes by without countless petitions appearing online. The new technologies seem to have “given them new sociological and institutional effectiveness”, the six lecturers point out in the last chapter of their book dedicated to citizens. They quote the example of a petition signed in 2009 by 93,000 people following Jean Sarkozy’s nomination as head of Epad, the development agency for La Défense. The son of the former French president, who was still in power at the time, backtracked, which was considered as one of the first victories of e-democracy.

Excess negotiations

Politicians aren't always pleased with this rise in alternative democracy, which they often consider as a waste of time. “A good deal of political work consists of elaborating decisions by negotiating with the majority, the opposition... When an agreement is reached after long discussions, it isn’t always well received when a citizens’ movement contests the decision”, Jérôme Jamin points out. “But, at the end of the day, it’s a question of habit. Take Switzerland: traditional politics based on the parties works in parallel with a system of direct democracy through voting.”   

To counter the crisis of legitimacy which has struck them, the parties have begun a race for the centre. The greater their disrepute, the more they must endeavour to limit the mass exodus of voters. “By pandering to the centre as much as possible”, the political analyst from Liège adds. “Initially, the parties appear to lean towards the left or the right to reassure the militants. Then, they temper their position to convince those who are undecided.” A strategy that is particularly visible in the case of Syriza, the coalition of the radical left now in power in Greece, which spoke very harshly about Europe during the first part of the electoral campaign.  It then softened its tone as it neared polling day, reasserting, for instance, that it didn't wish to leave the eurozone.

The example of Syriza also illustrates another recent political development: the resurgence of left-right divisions. “Undoubtedly since the 2008 financial crisis”, Jérôme Jamin says. “The level of inequality in society has become unbearable in many countries. So being for or against the fact of paying more taxes, redistributing wealth, having more social housing, limiting unemployment benefit, etc., means something once again.”

An even more fertile breeding ground for extreme parties. “Or, in any case, sufficiently alternative”. On the left and on the right. The FN in France, Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece, the Five Star Movement in Italy… Not forgetting the N-VA, which has become the leading party in Flanders in little more than 10 years, or the PTB in Wallonia. “The Socialist Party could well be completely torn apart tomorrow by the development of the MR and CDH on the one hand, and by the rise of the PTB on the other. In the Socialist Party, this risk of spending time in the wilderness isn’t just a hypothesis”.  

Any means seem good to reject the traditional parties, emphasise disarray, and demand change. Undoubtedly a sign that the link between citizens and politics is certainly stretched, but not broken. And it can be strengthened. After all, disenchantment is better than indifference.

(1) Fondements de science politique, Bruxelles, De Boeck, 2015.