Political Theory and Partisan Politics

1. Political Theorists on the Legitimacy of Partisan Politics

CHAPTER 1 Political Theorists on the Legitimacy of Partisan Politics Arlene W. Saxonhouse A recent book on local city government by a leading political scientist argues that for the sake of social, economic and political development, partisanship is beneficial (Eldersveld 1995). The party structure ensures the competition necessary for democratic regimes to function and the training necessary for effective political leadership. Partisanship in the city enables the city to meet the needs of its citizens in ways unlikely to occur were parties not part of its political structure. Political theorists, in contrast, are often uncomfortable with partisanship . It assumes conflict rather than harmony; it assumes that debates over policies are decided by power, rhetoric, influence rather than reason; and, by its very name, it assumes that citizens and leaders are motivated by the interests of a part rather than the welfare of the whole, irrespective of a rhetoric that may shade private interest in the language of a common good. The editors of this volume have challenged us to consider how the political theorist may address the partisanship that lies at the heart of so many of the studies by contemporary political scientists. Have political scientists, accepting partisanship as a core concept for the study of democratic politics, removed themselves from concerns with rationality and/or virtue?1 Have political theorists, by avoiding considerations of partisanship, in turn removed themselves from politics and the discipline of political science? As political theorists, must we learn to accept partisan politics as inherent in politics and therefore build our theories on it rather than try to transcend it, that is, must we accept differences of interests, understand their legitimacy and not work to destroy those differences? Or, one could ask whether we should 15 16 ARLENE W. SAXONHOUSE even try to address the political world rationally; whether to argue for or even accept partisan politics denies politics any rationality that might assume truth as a goal and the exercise of reason as the mechanism to achieve that goal? In this latter case, a theoretical grounding for partisan politics asked for by our editors would seem to become either a contradiction in terms or a danger. Underlying all of these adumbrations on the original questions posed by the editors of this volume is the problem of politics as conflict , disagreements among the different groups or individuals of a particular society about what the community as a whole does and what it values. Conflict is assumed and while, on the one hand, that conflict must be structured and tamed lest it lead to a war of all against all, leaving us with a life solitary, nasty, brutish, and short, or it may also, on the other hand find a theoretical justification that makes it the grounding of our political life. In this essay, I consider how a number of the classic theorists have addressed the theoretical foundations of what we can call “partisan politics.” I do this in order to explore what assumptions would be required to accept partisanship as a legitimate component of political life, even if this raises questions concerning the ultimate power of rationality and its place in the polity. To begin, though, let us look at a number of theorists who not only have done the opposite and built their political structures on the illegitimacy of partisan politics, but also who have structured their constitutions to ensure the absence of partisanship in the political communities they advocate. By understanding the assumptions and goals that underlie the hostility to partisanship, we can better comprehend the significance of accepting partisanship as a necessary part of the political community and not, by definition, hostile to its structure and goals. POLITICS BEYOND THE PARTISAN: HOBBES, PLATO, AND ROUSSEAU Here I will consider theorists not usually associated with one another, except often as opposites: Thomas Hobbes, Plato—or rather the Socrates of Plato’s Republic—and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These authors provide powerful and distinctive views on the need to eliminate partisan conflict on theoretical grounds: Hobbes argues on the grounds that partisan politics is too dangerous for any political regime to endure, the Socrates of Plato’s Republic argues on the epistemological grounds that there exists a uniform and universal Truth accessible to human intellect above partisan claims, and Rousseau argues on the grounds that partisan politics means the death of freedom in the polity. The Political Theorists on the Legitimacy of Partisan...