Political Science and the Modern State: An In-Depth Analysis

Posted on Dec 16, 2024 in Social sciences

Historical Emergence of Political Science and Geographic Extent

Political science is a discipline that developed after the Second World War. There are previous studies on the subject, but what is called political science in the strict sense was not born until the mid-20th century. We emphasize two different deployment scenarios of political science:

• Western Europe: European political science is characterized by a greater interest in institutions than in political behavior, and it gives special attention to historical data at the expense of contemporary events; it imposes an analysis of what happened in the past.
• USA: The U.S. political science puts more emphasis on the study of political conduct and focuses on contemporary events. Furthermore, it has a higher propensity to use empirical or experimental techniques in its studies.

In conclusion, we can infer that political science in the strict sense has been developed more in America than in Western Europe.

Objectives of Political Science

• Discover irregularities and subject them to verification
• Develop rigorous observation techniques
• Quantify the data
• Separate values and facts
• Systematize knowledge
• Facilitate the integration of social sciences

Major Issues in Political Science

• Political science requires the deployment of tasks to describe, explain, and predict. Often, political scientists are content with doing only one of these tasks, usually description, and not all three at once.
• The second problem is the need to use other forms of knowledge that complement it:
  1. Sociology: The political system is a subsystem of the overall system. Sociology is the science that studies the overall system and provides valuable data for the study of the political subsystem.
  2. Economy: We live in societies where resources are scarce, and knowledge of how these are managed is vital.
  3. History: The knowledge of the origin of our institutions helps us to calibrate them.
  4. Law: Our social fabric is set in law.
  5. Psychology: Individuals are the union between the different systems. Political science has to translate into its own language the skills that these disciplines provide, and that is not always easy.
• The object of political science is constantly changing. This causes difficulties in establishing universal laws to explain its behavior.
• Within the object of political science is the human being, a complex being with typical features of an animal—ideological, symbolic, and theological:
  1. The human animal is a theological one. It behaves according to purposes which are not always obvious. The identification of objectives is not always straightforward.
  2. The human being is a symbolic animal. It uses symbols, among which the most important is language. The determination of what these symbols mean is not easy.
  3. The human being is an ideological animal. It is influenced by ideas that operate in complex ways, and it is not easy to identify the results of that operation.
• The need for maximum cornering of subjective values. A science, as a science, is so much more when it gets rid of subjective values. However, if those elements are removed, the result may be the irrelevance of the study. Subjective values can be introduced if necessary to maintain the interest of the study.
• We need to distinguish between futures and utopias. A future is a forecast of the future grounded in a rigorous, scientific examination of present reality, while a utopia is a forecast of the future that does not start from this scientific review. Futures are framed in political science, while utopias belong to political philosophy.

Defects of Political Science

• Provincialism: This involves an overemphasis on the study of what is closest to us. It is not bad to study what is closest to us, but if you only review that, you miss an opportunity to enunciate more general laws.
• Descriptivism: Political science is only complete when there is description, explanation, and forecasting. Many times we tend only to describe the facts without explaining or predicting, and therefore many studies have only the descriptive aspect.
• Formalism: It is an excessive focus on studying ways through strictly formal variables.

Challenges of Political Science According to Dahl

1. Progress in quantifying the data. The more a discipline is able to quantify, the easier it seems for us to be able to apply the methods of empirical science. This is a challenge because there are many branches of political science that cannot quantify their data (e.g., the study of political elites).
2. Develop new theories that will allow the analysis of more general problems. This means overcoming the aforementioned provincialism.
3. Make full use of history. One of the problems of political science in the United States was that, being generically superior, it forgot to study what happened in the past.
4. Must be attentive to the needs arising from everyday political life. The political scientist must see the problems and conditions of their society to focus their studies well.
5. The need to resort to speculation. As political science runs into problems when it comes to showing that it is a science, it must acknowledge its limitations, and give speculation importance to oxygenate the reflections of political scientists.

The Political Assumptions and Characteristics of the Modern State

The Characteristics of the Modern or Absolute State

1. Certain territorial unit: The modern state is based on something more solid than what had served to support medieval feudalism.
2. Establishment of a strong central power.
3. Maximum reduction and abolition of feudal powers: The strengthening of monarchies resulted in a reduction of feudal powers, which experienced a conversion.
4. Reduction of the power of the Church.
5. Development of infrastructure in the form of armies, bureaucracies, financial services, or diplomats.

The Political Assumptions of the Modern State

1. Idea of the state as a rational enterprise: The state has not been given in nature or has been the subject of divine creation, but is an artificial product of human beings that responds to rational goals and means.
2. Perceptions of justice: In medieval times, justice was based on a Christ-centered society in which justice emanated from God. In the Renaissance, with this Christ-centered society that survives, another concept of justice established in the law and secular knowledge of the jurists emerges.
3. The idea of a public service: The initial basis is that the king is the only foundation of justice, but as he cannot be everywhere, he has to delegate some of his tasks to others; he delegates to the public. The existence of a public administration is a main connecting element of the modern state that is characterized by:
   • Existence of a staff of employees.
   • The birth of diplomacy, with ambassadors representing the state abroad in exchange for a salary.
   • The emergence of standing armies.
   • Development of an articulated tax system. To keep up the army, officials had to be paid with the money collected in taxes. Many people linked to the art world, like Velazquez and Cervantes, made a living belonging to this group of staff.
4. The State as holder of the monopoly of legitimate violence in a given territory: In the territory controlled by the state, there may be other types of violence, but the only legitimate one is that exercised by the state.
5. Subjects: In modern states, all subjects are equal so that they have the same rights and duties, and privileges are missing, which were characteristic of those intermediate powers proper to the feudal stage. However, many privileges remained standing based on who was the sovereign who generously acknowledged them. In fact, the situation had not changed; there was only one difference in that now the power of feudal lords should be recognized by the sovereign.
6. Class status: Engels argued that modern states were the product of a class balance between the interests of the old feudal nobility and the new urban bourgeoisie. The feudal nobility came from the past, and the bourgeoisie was an emerging group. Marx, in many texts, argued that the modern state was an instrument in the hands of the bourgeoisie. However, most historians say the feudal nobility did not lose their property, remained the ruling class, and used generically to their advantage the Modern States, making a sort of machinery to serve the feudal nobility.

The Theorists of the Modern State: Machiavelli, Bodin, and Hobbes

Machiavelli

Machiavelli is the political thinker who, along with Marx, has generated the most interpretations. He is an Italian from the 16th century and the author of the book *”The Prince”*. Machiavelli was disgraced because of his dispute with the King of Florence and wanted to fix it with the writing of this book that flatters the monarchy. Machiavelli established maxims or rules that should guide political behavior, and these are extracted deductively from history and personal experience. In his book, he relates a story from classical antiquity and from it, he pulls a rule of behavior. Therefore, he can be considered a pioneer of the deductive method. He defined the state as a structure governed by its own rules of development and that is self-righteous in terms of success. He argues that the end justifies the means, but notes that the success of a ruler is judged by the opinion of its people, even if certain means are excused if they lead to that success. Machiavelli says that it is preferable for a prince to keep his word and live with integrity and without deception.

Hobbes

Hobbes was an English philosopher who lived between the 16th and 17th centuries. His life is intertwined around three major competitions: the dispute between monarchy and republic, the conflict between secular power and ecclesiastical power, and the clash between England and continental Europe. Hobbes argues that left in its natural state, humans are poor, dirty, short, brutish, and solitary, and that their conduct complies with the slogan “Man is a wolf to man”. Given the situation as unfortunate as the previous one, human beings can give up their defense and leave justice in the hands of a sovereign or leviathan, who may be replaced if he does not meet expectations. As the state of nature does not offer a rosy scenario, men give the power of justice to the sovereign. Hobbes contributed ideas for the benefit of the monarchy because he defends the task of the sovereign, but he also examines the idea of a republic because if the sovereign exercised his task poorly, he could be replaced. A hereditary monarchy does not appear to meet the criterion of reversibility raised by Hobbes.

Bodin

Bodin’s Castilianized name is Jean Bodin. He lived in France during the 16th century and is the author of a book called *”The Six Books of the Republic”*. Bodin reflects a synthesis of medieval scholasticism and Renaissance humanism. We must link Bodin’s thinking with the concept of sovereignty. In the Middle Ages, sovereignty referred to a relative superiority (it was understood that the king was a *primus inter pares*, that is, he was the first among equals). The King was above the feudal lords, but after all, they were equal, they were in the same hierarchy. A second idea is that sovereignty is an essential feature of state power; there is no state without sovereignty. For Bodin, sovereignty is that power over subjects that meets the characters of supreme and absolute superlative, which cannot be described with the pattern of *primus inter pares*. Now there is a supreme and sovereign power that is above the subjects, who are equal. The Bodinian concept of sovereignty has come intact (unchanged) until today, even though the subject incumbent has changed significantly, who is no longer the king but the people or the nation.

Capitalist Development and Liberal-Bourgeois Revolutions

In the field of economics, the Enlightenment could theorize under capitalism that existed formally. However, the Illustrated worked in the field of materials relating to policy that were lacking and had to be limited necessarily to formulate ideas of a theoretical complexion. That is, the Enlightenment thinkers who formulated policy proposals were doomed to theorize, as in modern states there was no place for enlightened political practices. Now we will study how the story burst into new ideas, noting several milestones:

1. English Revolution of 1688: This was a liberal proto-revolution. In practice, what was recorded was a pact between the nobility and the bourgeoisie that did away with many liberal ideas originally expressed, thus leaving the liberal process truncated.
2. Birth of the United States in 1776: The first proclamation of the General Rights of Man.
3. French Revolution of 1789: In the same year in France, the General Rights of Man and Citizen were enacted, which in 1791 were followed by a representative constitution.
4. Nineteenth Century in Europe: In Europe, there were two different developments. The first one was the one that occurred in France, a checkered pattern. There were stages at which liberal ideas amounted and others in which monarchical ideas amounted. This had its best reflection in the Belgian Constitution of 1831, illustrating the agreement between the monarchy and the parliamentary system. The second model is the German one, which was characterized by extreme weakness in the emergence of liberal ideas and the preservation of many traditional privileges. In Spain, there was a combination of the two models, with sections of liberal ideas (Constitution of 1812, Revolution of 1868, the First Republic, etc.) and stages of liberalism not more stable and longer. Thus, one can also say that the Spanish model tends toward the German one.

The Division of Powers and Declarations of Rights

The Liberal Model of Governance

1. Organization of the state: The bourgeoisie felt compelled to fight for a progressive reduction of the absolute power of sovereigns. Their first objective was to gain control of the legislature to move later to control the executive. The parliament was the main institution of action of liberalism. In the beginning, it was understood that the Parliament represented the whole people, so that each of the deputies represented the whole people. Later it became clear that determining the common good was subject to very different ideological views, which is more reasonable to conclude that each member represented certain segments of the population. This was reflected in the existence of a census suffrage or restricted suffrage, and not universal suffrage. Throughout the nineteenth century, it became increasingly clear the status of reduced representation which corresponded to the parliaments. During the nineteenth century, there were three changes in the parliamentary conception:
   • Opening to the people of the sessions of Parliament, which since then had a public character.
   • The public opening of court sessions.
   • The low costs of the press allowed to feed public opinion, making it increasingly important.
2. Regulating Justice: The starting point would be a phrase of Max Weber stating that capitalism needed a right whose operation could be predicted, similarly to a machine. This clashes with the concept of medieval law, in which the legal consequences of an act were not known with certainty: there was no legal certainty. This new idea brought three consequences:
   • Any privilege inherited from the past should be removed.
   • The public power itself must comply with the law.
   • The legal justification of the new legislation was provided by the doctrine of the natural rights of man, though in the specific field of the bourgeoisie, it sought primarily to defend rights that were relevant to their specific interests, including the right to private property or freedom of contract and trade.
3. Information on Education and Ideology: The starting point reminds us that the bourgeoisie demanded freedom in all areas imaginable: that of faith, thought, conscience, education, etc. This made the bourgeoisie face the Church. In this confrontation, there are three important circumstances:
   • The bourgeoisie opposed the Church being financed with taxes collected by the state. The Church should be funded according to its own resources.
   • The focus of the bourgeoisie for the benefit of an education system not controlled by the Church. Until then, education was in the hands of the Church.
   • The creation of a civil marriage that should be beyond the control of the Church. Until the nineteenth century, only religious marriage was conceivable.
4. The liberal ideas on economic regulation: The main idea defended by liberalism in economic matters says that the latter will develop the more so it is left free to its own natural course, canceling any external intervention, particularly from the state. Liberalism bets for the disappearance of all obstacles in international trade so that goods and capital can move without hindrance (taxes or tariffs). The second idea is advocating that all individuals should enjoy the same opportunities to access the status of owners. There are several indications that this theory in the nineteenth century was not the subject of careful application, that is, there were still some contradictions in liberal theory:
   • A part of the feudal privileges survived.
   • Slavery continued, primarily in the colonized countries, a living phenomenon. The principle of equal opportunities had been enunciated, but in these countries, it did not apply.
   • The right to vote was often linked with the provision of personal wealth, which again annihilated the principle of equality.
   • Women could not vote. Half of the population, by gender, did not have voting rights.
   • Equality of opportunity was not respected in an economic scenario marked by inequality and injustice.
   There are two responses to the contradiction between reality and practice set out by liberalism:
   • The first indicates that the state should actively intervene in the economy to develop social policies that mitigate the injustices outlined above.
   • The second reaction indicates that injustices exist but are the natural order of inequality that characterizes human societies, which makes no sense to fight them.
5. The liberal conception of society: Confronting absolutist states, Liberalism came to defend an extreme individualism, so that it means that society is a byproduct, a mere sum of individual interests, and that the state should only have the task of protecting individual liberty.

The Division of Powers and Declarations of Rights

Both political and legal instruments which support liberalism are the division of powers and declarations of rights. The division of powers originally intended to reduce the power of old institutions. The division of powers limits the power of him who holds it. Montesquieu was the first to develop this concept and pointed out two main ideas:

1. Each capital function of the state (the executive, legislative, and judicial) should lie with a different title.
2. These powers should relate to each other through a system of correctives and vetoes.

The dangers that haunt the initial ground rules are that the legislative and executive branches fall on the same hands, but the judiciary remains independent; that the executive and judicial power fall on the same hands, although the legislature remains independent; that the legislature and the judiciary fall on the same hands, although the executive remains independent; and that the three branches are held by the same holder. The first appearance in history of the principle of separation of powers was picked up by the institutions of American States that became independent of the English crown, and then it appears in the Declaration of the Rights of Man derived from the French Revolution. This concept was also incorporated into the Spanish Constitution of 1812 and the Belgian Constitution of 1831. As to the declarations of rights, a distinction should be made between declarations of liberal rights and medieval charters of liberties and franchises. Between them, there are three differences:

1. Medieval charters and franchises lacked a planner character of legal and political life according to rational criteria, which inspires the general declarations of rights. That dimension is clearly embedded in the declarations of liberal rights.
2. While medieval liberties and franchises recognized rights to the individual as a member of a guild, declarations of rights are recognized to the individual in isolation.
3. The liberties and franchises were translated into medieval agreements of very low reach, while the Bills of Rights could be translated into universal claims. The range of freedoms and exemptions was less in the medieval period.

Declarations of rights: The Constitutions of the U.S. states that became independent of England welcomed for the first time bills of rights that are not settled in tradition but in the doctrine of the rights inherent in human nature. In 1789, the French Declaration of Rights showed the same profile. You have to make a precision: the concrete deployment of the declarations of rights commonly responded to the precise needs of the bourgeoisie, who, facing state intervention, defended economic freedom; against religious intolerance, they defended freedom of conscience; and against censorship, they defended freedom of thought. Among the rights embodied in these statements, there are three modes:

1. Guarantees of the individualistic liberal sphere: Within this mode, there are two types:
   • Rights of the isolated individual: freedom of conscience, right to private property.
   • The rights of freedom of the individual in relation to others: freedom of the press, freedom of expression.
2. Democratic political rights of nature: Emphasize the articulation of a democratic society. Example: equality before the law, right to vote.
3. The rights or benefits: These are not part of the declarations of rights that we now occupy; they are a later addition. Example: right to work, right to education. The reason for this non-inclusion is due to the fact that it was necessary to have the idea of the welfare or benefit state, which clashed with the non-interventionism postulated in the liberal economic theory.

Utopian Socialism

The first manifestations of socialism fall into what is called “utopian socialism”. This term was introduced by Marx in the negative sense, because what the early socialists stood for did not match what he stood for, which he called “scientific socialism”. The characteristics of utopian socialism are:

• It was given to speculation by thinkers and was impractical. They were devoted more to theoretical developments that were certainly not put into practice. There are exceptions to this trait, which are Owen and Fourier. The latter implemented a system of communes.
• This speaks of theorizing socialism out of historical context. These thinkers were not too interested in gauging what actually happened at the place and time in which they lived. There is one exception, Saint-Simon, who studied carefully how the industry of his time was.
• Develop interesting reflections on the unique human condition. Marx criticized this because he was more interested in human groups, in societies as a whole. These studies of the early nineteenth century foreshadowed certain social movements that take place today. Saint-Simon noted the importance of empowering women in society.

Marxism

Marx was born in 1818 and died in 1883. He was born in Trier, a German town near Luxembourg. Marx studied in Germany but lived in England and France. He had a long experience at the British Museum. He lived in the “Soho” neighborhood in London. The following ideas of Marx should be highlighted:

1. For Marx, a science of politics makes no sense, because politics is a mere emanation of what really matters, which are economic relations. He is a thinker who is just interested in social facts as such.
2. To explain Marx’s disinterest in politics, it must be emphasized that he lived in a century, the century in which the bourgeoisie, through its agreements with the old nobility, betrayed the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity which it had embraced in 1789.
3. The concept of the state according to Marx. He has two different perceptions:
   • The parasitic state: Marx was a disciple of Hegel, who was one of the three great German idealist philosophers. Hegel coined the term “universal class,” which was the class that reflected the best of society, the highest values of society. For Hegel, in his time, the universal class was bureaucracy, which concentrated the best virtues of society. Hegel lived in Germany, which was not unified, and he missed the bureaucracy as a class that would be the backbone and inclusive of the state apparatus common to a nation. Marx understood that the bureaucracy is a human group installed in the State and occupied exclusively with itself, thus acting as a parasite sucking the energies of the State. Marx accepted the concept of universal class, but he says it falls to the proletariat.
   • The state apparatus serving the ruling class: Marx argues that the State is always a structure at the service of the group that directs human society. At various times it served the feudal nobility, then the bourgeoisie, and later, in Marx’s perception, the proletariat.
   Between the two conceptions of the State of Marx, there is a common feature: for Marx, the State is always a structure outside and facing society, sometimes by attending exclusively to the interests of the bureaucracy (their own interest) and sometimes by exclusively serving the interests of the ruling class. That is, the service is always to a unique group.
4. What are the ways of transformation of society that Marx claimed? Marx is ambiguous and possibly indifferent with respect to the process of transformation of society. He recognizes two ways of transforming society:
   • In some cases, Marx believed that universal suffrage is a field that reflects the loss of power of the bourgeoisie, and in this sense, he does not rule out the possibility of a gradual and peaceful transformation. He considers that society can be changed through the ballot box.
   • In other cases, Marx was in favor of a revolutionary path, to be advocated at the seizure of power by the proletariat, which then must be responsible for demolishing its proletarian state, that is, reducing the power of the state because it is an institution outside the company.
5. Marx distinguishes between formal democracy and real democracy. Formal democracy is a democracy in which economic differences, exploitation, and inequality survive. Real democracy is one in which economic inequalities have been left behind. Marx sharply rejects formal democracy and is strongly in favor of real democracy.
6. Marx suggests the consideration of four phases that characterize this process of social transformation. These phases are as follows:
   • The bourgeois class state: It is characterized by a merely formal democracy, with severe restrictions on freedoms and rights and voting based on census (linked to the wealth of individuals). The parliament is not representative, and there is active political tension.
   • The bourgeois state of transition: Suffrage is universal, parliaments are reasonably representative, and the rights and freedoms, for better or worse, are respected.
   • The proletarian domination: It is a transition phase characterized by the proletariat assuming provisionally the management of the State and ending with the elements of injustice or inequality in the bourgeois state of transition. This stage has often been called the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” a term little used by Marx.
   • Merger between state and society: so that finally the first is eliminated completely, and real democracy is introduced. The state must disappear because it is an institution outside the company, even when directed by the group in which Marx observed the highest virtues, by the proletariat. All forms of political domination must disappear, disappearing the state-society distinction and class.

Social Democracy

The first draft of social democracy was formulated in 1875, with the creation of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). The origin of this party was the attempted combination of certain ideas of Marx on the one hand and certain more moderate reformist currents on the other hand, as represented by Lassalle. The SPD held a congress in the city of Gotha, and Marx criticized this measure for three reasons:

1. He thought the program adopted at this Congress was unaware that the state is an apparatus serving the ruling class, so that in no way is it neutral at the service of those who so desire.
2. Marx rejected the program because the Social Democrats naively thought that the state could change through a gradual transformation, peaceful and democratic.

On the other hand, Marx also received criticism from the leading theoretician of the SPD, who was Bernstein:

1. Bernstein criticized Marx because he announced that capitalism led to a crisis that would cause its own collapse when in fact capitalism ended up generating wealth even for the poorest.
2. Bernstein also said that Marx was wrong to announce that capitalism led to a clear polarization of the classes, which in reality was not verified.
3. Moreover, Bernstein argues that socialism is one of the possible developments of capitalism, but not one of the inevitable developments of capitalism.
4. Finally, Bernstein advocates a gradualist path, reformist and peaceful transformation of society.

Historical unfolding of the social ideas: Social democracy is, in theory, a combination of political democracy, a socially interventionist state, equality of educational opportunity, and social justice. Following this definition of social democracy, two interpretations are discussed:

1. Social democracy remains committed to a socialist and radical transformation but has resigned itself to overcoming the capitalist mode even when embracing peaceful methods.
2. Social democracy is in fact a form of civilized capitalism management that does not intend to end it and is content to cancel its negative elements.

In 1959, the SPD renounced Marxism as a source of inspiration at the congress in Bad Godesberg. Social democracy is a movement developed primarily in Western Europe, as witnessed by the names of the SPD, the PSF (French), the LP (the British Labour Party), and the PSOE. These parties were complemented by unions, such as the British Trade Unions and the UGT.

Anarchism

Anarchism is a doctrine that holds that societies can and should be organized without a coercive authority. Anarchism does not defend the mess, but an organization of society regardless of coercive elements. We must distinguish between the adjectives anarchic (which does not comply with rules) and anarchist (linked to someone who advocates anarchism). We highlight two key milestones in the early chronology of anarchism: the first occurs in 1793 with the publication of William Godwin’s first book, reflecting the anarchist ideas. The second stage occurs when Proudhon speaks of “anarchist” for the first time. The main ideas of anarchism are:

1. It identifies an enemy of the state, whose disappearance is claimed radically in favor of what sometimes is a communist-type society and sometimes a society a little outside the regulated market.
2. Anarchists reject the coercive forms of authority, but they accept non-coercive forms, such as the authority of a doctor or an engineer.
3. For anarchists, the state is an institution committed to preserving its own interests.
4. Anarchists reject the elections to the extent that they understand that they constitute a farce that lets you choose between members of the ruling classes, which have extremely similar proposals.
5. Anarchists advocate a society where personal freedom is maximized, material goods are fairly distributed, and common tasks are developed by mutual agreement.

There are three different schools of thought within anarchism:

1. Individualist anarchism: Each person has an inviolable sphere of action which must be protected from any intrusion. The leading theorist of this current is Max Stirner, whose best-known work is *”The Ego and Its Own”*. The main trace of individualism is composed of the “libertarians” Americans (extreme liberals) who want the disappearance of the state and all kinds of regulations for the benefit of private initiative.
2. Mutualist anarchism: It defends the general idea that each person must possess the means of production individually or collectively, being rewarded in terms of strict justice for their work, so that any procedure is canceled gain or unjustified enrichment. It is called mutualist because one of its fundamental bets was to create mutual aid banks that should lend money at a very low-interest rate. The leading theorist of mutualist anarchism is Proudhon.
3. Collectivist or communist anarchism: It criticizes mutualism on the ground that it is too soft and responsive to the interests of specific groups, such as artisans or small farmers, but does not address the needs of the majority of the population. Given this fact, collectivist or communist anarchists defend the expropriation of private capital and the management of enterprises by workers in a self-management regime. Collectivist anarchist theorists argue that the revolutionary process will only bear fruit if it is supported by a majority of the population. The principal theorists of collectivist or communist anarchism are Bakunin and Kropotkin.

The Critique of the Liberal State from Fascism

. The ideas that highlight of fascism are: “The fascism imply a criticism of liberalism, as articulated by the following:” Given the abstract individualism of liberalism, fascism opposed the essential superiority of the state, nation or race over individual interests. The individual must be subordinated in favor of these three elements. “Faced with the liberal idea that the interis common only be ascertained through discussion and dialogue, fascism emphasize that the common good must be established according to the intuition than a boss or leader. “Given the principle of free economic competition claimed by liberalism, fascism advocate the subordination of the economy to national economic interests as interpreted by the chief or leader, though in practice politicians defend the privileges of specific monopolies. “In liberalism, nationalism plays a certain but smaller, while the Fascists assumed as an undoubted case of unification of the population around a common project that often exhibited some imperial dimension. “As the liberal power is perceived as unhealthy to be limiting in the fascism is understood that configures an inescapable element of human life and as such should be revitalized as possible.” As the privacy liberalism to dispose of the encroachments of state power andIn fascism privacy does not exist, so that nothing should escape the state action. Discipline, hierarchy and leadership. “Fascisms aspired to shape social and political orders that harmonics in the class conflicts of interest or opinion does not exist and where the unity and uniformity replace the plurality and differences. “The fascism meant the disappearance of contradictions and differences without prnover changes in social structure, without encouraging greater equality and greater freedom without defending, which eventually vindicate the goodness of inequality while rejecting the latter’s consequences . Fascisms railroad claimed a hierarchy, in which it demanded the sacrifice of individual interests for the sake of higher goals. “In fascism, the dome of the hierarchy was occupied by a chief or leader endowed with charisma, or what is the same, recognized by the people as the bearer of extraordinary abilities who hacIan worthy of obedience. The image we have of Hitler is linked to the portrait that he made Chaplin in The Great Dictator. ” But Hitler was anything but dumb, with great rhetorical skill, and with a great command and intelligence to handle the silence. Mussolini was also a charismatic leader, while Franco was not accompanied by the characteristic of charisma. “You have to explain under what reasons so little challenging systems managed to get ahead. We must take into account the theory of social atomization, made by H. Arendt, who said that fascism succeeded in annihilating intermediate structures such as families, groups friends, professional associations or trade unions, so that the disappearance of these structures was that the state directly and aggressively with specific individuals .. “The Fascists are a clear example of ideology that promises a better world but is content with the simple acceptance of present realities and claim sumisión the chief or leader, understanding that human groups commonly identified below were ordinary citizens, who occupied a reasonably comfortable position. This extends the idea that lower and groups such as Jews in Nazi Germany. “Violence, propaganda and ritual.” Violence occupied a central role in fascism, who valued it as a vital element of human life. Fascists gain weight in the interwar period, where violence was common in fascism, but not exclusive, as was also applied to other authoritarian regimes like the Soviet one. “Violence played basically three functions: to punish those who disagreed with the fascist regimes, to provide a psychological escape to members of fascist parties, and to symbolize the idea that you can reach everywhere, so so that nothing escaped his control (relationship with totalitarianism). “fascist propaganda has features of extreme violence, And is expressly linked with the recruitment of persons. Hitler said the first task of propaganda is the recruitment of persons for the organization, while the first function of the organization is recruiting people for propaganda. “The propaganda of fascism is not configured as a communication or dialogue, but as a means to convey ideas previously formulated in such a way that propaganda does not seek understanding, but obedience.” As for the rite, ritual masses were a fundamental element of manipulation strategies developed by fascism, which made extensive use of large concentrations of people, and with them, the use of uniforms, military marches, flags and other symbols that strengthened the idea of community. 3.2.2 .- The concept of totalitarianism and its problems. Totalitarianism Totalitarianism is a system harsher and antidemocratic authoritarianism, which is a kind of totalitarianism mitigated. Totalitarianism is characterized by certain features1. Forgetting the authority of law and creating a police state that tended to interfere in people’s daily life. 2. The radical concentration of power in the hands of one party or elite, in a clear process of centralization, 3. State penetration into society through various handling techniques as charismatic leadership, the hierarchy, the weakening of intermediate social units and intensive use of propaganda. 4. Strong belief in the tenor and violence, Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy or Franco’s Spain, at the very beginning, were totalitarian regimes. These are characterized as totalitarian regimes have two problems: 1. They present an extreme degree of demand satisfaction of these four elements, and if we go to Hitler’s Germany, this idea is problematic, because no system has these four elements to a maximum compliance. If they did, there would be an ideal type of totalitarianism. 2. Many analysts interpret ademore, was also a totalitarian regime under Stalin (USSR). Totalitarianism and fascism do not overlap, because totalitarianism is more general, as not all totalitarian regimes were and are fascists. Authoritarianism is a more moderate or diluted totalitarianism, mitigated by the lack of the most restrictive or hard of totalitarianism. The most prominent theorist of authoritarianism was Juan Linz, who studied the political regime of Franco, and concluded that the Franco does not have the same features in the 40s and 70s. In the early decades of the regime there was a clear totalitarianism (postwar), which mutated into authoritarianism in the final decades of life, especially in the 60s and 70s. The traits attributed to authoritarianism Linz were: 1. Limited pluralism. Ideally in a democracy, pluralism is unlimited, while in a totalitarian regime, pluralism is absent. In an authoritarian regime and there is some limited pluralism trendsWithout reaching in any way that opens possibilities of democracy. 2. Absence of a strong and consistent ideology, an ideology in favor of vague and loosely formulated. 3. Renounce the degree of mobilization and discipline characteristic of totalitarianism, and are content to complain of the population apathetic and passive acceptance of rules. Totalitarianism, however, committed to mobilizing the population. This trait is not necessarily universal in Peronism (authoritarian fascist regime), Peron made formulas to get the intense concentration of population. 4. The authoritarian party is not a well-organized entity to monopolize access to power, but a significant part of the ruling elite is beyond that party’s authoritarian tendencies are different from each other. In that game, there are different schools of thought, or not all the elite that held power within the party was an authoritarian. 5. The forms of social control and polITIC authoritarian regimes are simply less profound than in the totalitarians, while authoritarianism reveals an incipient right to generate some kind of basic guarantees. This develops a less harsh and arbitrary law. Juan Linz defines authoritarianism as the political system of limited pluralism in which there is no clear and guiding ideology, where political mobilization is not intense and in which the leader and the elite in power in a few ill-defined but fairly predictable. This vision has suffered two criticisms: 1. The first argues that this view implies certain justificatory dimension of authoritarian regimes. 2. The second states that this view seems to suggest the idea of linear progress without setbacks to democracy. It would be an inevitable process in the succession of totalitarianism, authoritarianism, to lead a democracy however, historically this increase has no basis. Purpose 4.2.2 .- core welfare state 1. The development and control systems that allow the deployment of human life, Such as transport, communications and statistical services. 2. Ensuring security in aspects such as economic needs, the environment or natural resources. 3. The realization of social benefits, such as the guarantee of a minimum wage of a job for all citizens, care for the disabled or the health and education systems. 4.2.3 .- Functions of the welfare state 1. Distribution function. The welfare state does not dispute the property order of capitalism, but uses a procedure, taxation, through which then obtains resources intended to improve the situation of the economically worse-off, which exerts a function of distribution of resources. 2. Leading role. The social state is obliged to address complex economic processes and to allocate resources obtained by way of taxes, something which has seen a transformation under which no longer primarily a state legislature to become an administrative state or benefits. 4.2.5 .- The rights and freedoms in the liberal welfare state 1. The rights to benefits. The welfare state involve the explicit recognition of the right of citizens to receive certain benefits. 2. The principle of divisiion of powers. Welfare state theorists believe that the principle of separation of powers has become a dogma that has come to ignore at least three important realities: a) The appearance of the decree-laws and ordinances, the two formulas which make executive power to legislate. b) The recent influence of public administration in implementing the adoption of many decisions. c) The growing attention that corresponds to parties and interest organizations. To overcome this problem, welfare state theorists believe that we must leave this principle by explaining flexibly and strengthen the powers for the judiciary. 3. The principle of legality. In liberalism, the principle states that any action by a government and all decisions of judges should be the product of the implementation of a law. While in the traditional liberal state the principle of legality remitted to abstract and general laws in welfare state refers to laws often very spec contentIFIC in respect of which no matter their legal status and therefore its ability to meet specific targets, thus the principle of legality has experienced some relaxation. 4. The control of legality. Welfare state in three different instances of guaranteed control of legality, which are: a) The ordinary courts. b) The Constitutional Court. c) The figure of the ombudsman. Action 4.2.6 .- The State’s economic social welfare state is an attempt to adapt to the logic of neo-capitalism, whose objectives are: 1. Growth in consumption and welfare. 2. Full employment. 3. Steady growth. 4. Ensure that the State is in charge of much technological innovation. The principal actors of the welfare state are: 1. The State. Sets the main operator, both the volume of economic activity as the basic character of that activity. 2. Companies. We must distinguish between two groups. The first is the monopoly sectoristico, central system or planning system. These companies usually operate as a monopoly which acts as a central economic planner. In them there is separation between ownership and management and are characterized by a remarkable capacity for self-determination. They enjoy the privileges of monopolies or oligopolies. They are also called large corporations. An example is RENFE. The second is the competitive sector, peripheral system or market system, which is often characterized by the fact that ownership and management often coincide. These companies do not enjoy any privileges of a monopoly status or olive polio. The ability to self-determination of these companies is much lower, so you must develop partnerships that reflect their interests together, as CEPYME or CEOE. 3. Political parties. They run governments and must take such decisions as economic and social. The globalization processes is by substantially reducing the powers of the powers poltraditional or affiliation, and thus the party. They are also neo-corporatist pacts were signed by major business organizations, the most representative trade unions and governments. 5.1.1. Definition of democracy. The concept of democracy commonly employed by us has a Western root appeared in classical Greece, which does not mean that outside the Western world have not been deployed democratic projects. The idea of democracy has spread around the planet and while it has experienced a progressive distortion. The number of political systems that are formally democratic has grown significantly over the past twenty years due to political changes in Mediterranean Europe, in Eastern Europe, Latin America and in other settings. This has occurred due to deposition of military rule (South America), the dismemberment of the USSR or the abandonment of neo-colonialism by the metropolis. Democracy is a rHE SYSTEM politician who advocates a necessary correspondence between acts of government and the wishes of those affected by them, or a continuous responsiveness of government to the preferences of its citizens, considered as political equals. 5.1.2 .- Reflections Dahl. Dahl wants to identify the conditions under which these two definitions of democracy are put into practice. Contains two major assumptions: 1. For a political system capable of responding to the demands of citizens, they should have similar opportunities to formulate their preferences, to express them individually or collectively, and to ensure they are seen by citizens alike. 2. For the preceding postulate a reality are needed eight institutional guarantees “Freedom of association.” Freedom of thought. “The right to vote.” Right of political leaders to compete in elections. “Existence of alternative sources of information.” Possibility of being elected to public office. “Free elections.”Existence of institutions to take government policies depend on the preferences of the citizenry (the popular vote). 5.1.3. Features of the democratic system we now state the necessary elements for the existence of a democracy (as the Western concept): 1. Competition policy, which implies the necessary existence of opposition. 2. The existence of minorities and need to have rights. 3. Importance of the popular vote. 5.1.4. democratic system problems. The democratic system has to tolerate a certain uncertainty. This phenomenon stems from what happened in Nazi Germany when Hitler won the 1930 elections and also because of the elections in Algeria won the Islamist forces, but before forming a government was a military coup prevented that political force was done with the government. Democracy is the political system that tolerates more uncertainty margin being understood that the latter is faced with a cap is necessary as a result of the requirement that any proposed polNotice is deployed in a peaceful and does not change the rules of democracy. Democracy enthroned supremacy of the majority, but in parallel requires respect for minority rights. Often studies have been conducted to measure the effectiveness of democracy. These studies were performed in two different areas, the political rights and civil rights. In the area of political rights, taking into account the following factors: 1. Election by universal suffrage and meaningful competition. 2. If the opposition has recently won the elections. 3. If there are different political parties. 4. If independent candidates. 5. If the elections are free and fair. 6. If the chosen has a powerful effect. 7. If the leaders in power have been recently elected. 8. If there are local elections. 9. If the government is free from military control. 10. If the government is free from foreign control. In the area of civil rights, are considered the following factors1. If there is a widespread degree of literacy. 2. The existence of independent press. 3. If there is a tradition of press freedom. 4. If the media are free of censorship and pressures. 5. If there are independent radio and television. 6. If there are open public discussions. 7. If the judiciary is independent 8. If there are independent private civic organizations. 5.2.1. According to the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. This approach provides three different models of democracy: 1. Presidentialism. The most important political figure is provided by the President. There are presidential elections (the people directly elect the president of the country). Parliament or the legislature has reduced functionality within the political organization. There are no motions of censure or vote of confidence against the president. It is extremely difficult for the parliament impeach the president. The classic model of presidentialism is the American political system. 2. Parliamentarism. The institutionón main policy is the parliament. He who chooses the prime minister or president of government is the parliament. The parliament has mechanisms to dismiss the prime minister, the main motion of censure. What is common in these models is that there be a state leader, representative of complexion, which has no executive power. An example of this model is Spain. 3. Semi-presidentialism. There is a president elected directly by the people (presidential elections). The president is endowed with certain executive. The parliament elects both a prime minister who has also has some executive power. When the president and prime minister belong to different po1íticas forces, there may be problems of cohabitation. Example of semi-presidential model are France and Portugal. 5.2.3. Differences between the majority principle and the principle of consensus. 1. Westminster or majoritarian democracy. The majority principle concept was coined in Westminster. It is structured to take these ideas”The executive branch includes a single party, sometimes with most precarious coalition governments do not exist.” There is a fusion between the executive and legislative branches arising from the axis it forms the majority party in parliament. “Bipartisanship. This does not mean that there are only two parties, we must interpret it as there are only two games of real significance. There is no limit games. An example of this is England.” The party system can be explained by a single dimension (left to right). “Existence of a majoritarian electoral system. This clearly benefits the political force with the most votes, because it takes all the seats. There is no proportionality.” The government has a centralized and unitary character. “The institution of the referendum or not exist or is rarely used. 2. Democracy founded on consensus system. It has the following features:” It establishes the possibility of coalition governments formed by various political parties. “Separacióion between the executive and legislative power. “Multiparty system. It is a system in which three or more big games.” The party system exhibits more than one dimension, to describe it takes at least two axes (left-right, nationalism is not nationalism). This applies, for example the Basque Country. “The electoral system is proportional, according to the number of votes of each force.” Governments are not unitary and decentralized in the exercise of power. “There is the figure of the referendum. In view of the foregoing, the Spanish democratic system appears to be based on a principle of consensus, but fit certain qualifications. 5.3. Elements promoters of democracy. There is a question about the existence of these elements. To this question, there is an answer to the effect that we can not find certain items that promote democracy. But there is also a second response which states that these elements exist and can be identified, provided the tests for dealing with spaces geogrAfican precise and specific historical moments. According to this second response, these elements can take three forms: 1. Presence of certain securities. The first consideration would be to Max Weber, who argues that democratic values are the principles of Judeo-Christian civilization. The second reflection is that of Montesquieu, who emphasized the belief in freedom, willingness to participate and the existence of attitudes open to negotiation, tolerance and respect for the law. The third consideration would be to Dahl, who linked these values democratic legitimacy of the institutions and their ability to cooperate and effective. Argues that there must be mutual trust between all political actors. The final point we wish to emphasize is that of Almond and Verba, who are responsible for the coining of the “civic culture” which is one characterized by a lively political activity, a moderate civil commitment, the lack of confidence in the own social environment, Respect for authority, for the sense of independence and attitudes to political institutions. 2. Economic and social factors. The general theory states that where there is a high degree of literacy, where the media are developed and where there is extreme economic inequalities, it is easier to have a democratic political system, it being understood that the relationship between some phenomena and other non-linear. This means that there are places where these factors are present in the absence of democracy (Saudi Arabia), while there are countries in which these factors are absent and there is democracy (India). But more often is that both events coincide. 3. Historical factors in a geographical context concreto.Un first analysis is based on the historical factors that occurred in Western Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which led to the emergence of democracy. There was a balance that preventedor the presence of a monarchy too strong and too independent of an aristocracy. The aristocracy largely took the game market, abandoning its traditional stagnation. There was a coalition between the aristocracy and bourgeoisie, who actively competed with each other. Finally, given the presence of a revolutionary break, as registered in the United States and England. 5.4. Political transitions to democracy. The political transition is a process of political change that leads to systems other than Intel. It is common to talk about transitions to democracy as a political transition, forgetting that political transitions can result in undemocratic ways. The development of recent history can highlight certain areas where there were transitions to democracy: 1. Early studies of the political transition were designed to Germany, Italy and Austria at the end of World War II. 2. Later, in 1970, transitions from Greece, Portugal and Spain. 3. In 1980-1990, the studies focus on Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile). 4. In 1990 in Central and Eastern Europe. Transitions decays derived from two countries (USSR and Yugoslavia) and countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania. 5. In third-world scenarios, there was a transition to democracy. An example is South Africa, with the dismantling of apartheid. 5.4.2. Democratizing processes There are two major views on what facilitates the transition to democracy. The first states that for there to be a transition to democracy requires that conditions be objective, as, for example, economic development, literacy and democratic tradition in the country. The second states that what matters is the behavior of political actors, so if they are up to no matter the circumstances that the conditions are not objective. The convention states that democratic transitions are facilitated by the existence of objective, It being understood that the behavior of political actors is important for the verification of the transition. Comparative political studies have attempted to draw lessons from certain transition processes to apply them in others and not think about the procedure has yielded the desired fruits. Studies of transitions to democracy are today inked a critical attitude that is suspicious of fully democratic status of many of the resulting systems. This affects many countries in Latin America and Eastern Europe. 6.1 .- unitary state, federal and state Confederacy. “Unitary state. This is a state that at least does not exhibit any spatial decentralization in the exercise of power. An example would be Franco’s Spain.” Federal state. The federal state idea first appeared in 1787 in the United States Constitution, which sought to find a way to make compatible the existence of individual states with a central authority endowed with certain powers(in the framework of a common policy). The formula was extended federal state in the twenty to several Latin American countries (Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela, all countries with a large surface area) to meet after in the second half of the twentieth century European states such as Switzerland and Germany. In the twentieth century were many countries in many different scenarios where it expanded the federal state, ie, this type of territorial organization spread across five continents. The federal states can arise in two ways: 1. Several formerly independent states join together and give rise to a common federal state. An example is the United States. 2. A unitary and independent state decided to reform its constitution and give himself the form of a federal state. A joint federal state is the product of the sum of all states that comprise it. An example is the United States. Moreover, the Länder are among the countries that are part of the federal state. One example is California, Texas … The objectives of the federal state can be summarized as follows: 1. To enable rational political organization of large space based on equal relationships between the parts. 2. Integrated into a common all parties linked to cultural nations whose existence is to safeguard them while preserving as much autonomy as possible. 3. Develop formulas territorial organization of power that accompany the traditional forms of functional organization of power. As to the legal existence of the federal state, one must say that if there is a federal state is a prerequisite that there is a federal constitution. This is the main difference between federal state and confederation. When several independent states that form a federal state, its first objective is to adopt a constitution. When one state which gives itself a federal polity, it must reform its constitution. Federal States welcomes all the features of a state vertebradotesOr what is the same, is based on a people or nation has its own territory and enjoy a sovereign power. Internal relations in the federal state: 1. Coordination relationships: this is a shared responsibility between the Federal and Länder common. At common federal state will usually match the following responsibilities: foreign policy (exception: the USSR, the United Nations had three different seats, one for the USSR, one for Belarus and the other for Ukraine), the Defense and the organization of the Armed Forces (except for Yugoslavia), the currency and the system of weights and measures, post and communications, lalegislación on the implementation of the Federal Constitution, the government of the colonies, the government called Manila (small territory which is the federal capital, like Washington DC or Mexico City), and decisions about possible conflicts between the Länder. 2. Relations of supremacy and subordination. These relationships affirm federal power coman envelope federated entities or countries. Although the Länder can not unilaterally amend their constitutions, they must do so under the conditions set by the Joint Federal Constitution. Secondly it is noteworthy that federal law overrides common law issued by federal agencies, so if it contradicts the first, is the federal law imposing common. Third, all federal states have a Federal Court to review disputes between the federal and Länder common. 3. Inordinación Relations. They note how the Länder influence the determination of common decisions of federal power. This will have to give two conditions that exist in federal legislative chamber of territorial representation in the agreements taking representantesde the Länder and the Länder participate in a possible reform of the common federal Constitution, either throughIt is of said housing, either through reform ratification by the parliaments of the Länder or by the populations of the latter in a referendum. “Confederation A confederation is a link between states that retain their independence and establishing under an international pact intended to give rise to perpetual power exerted on Member States and not directly on its citizens. The common goal of confederations is usually the internal and external security of its members. A confederation is an example of Yugoslavia, which was a federal state until 1991, but each country Land had almost exclusive allocation of its armed forces. When she began to fragment, Some analysts suggested its conversion into a confederation of independent states, they should sign an international treaty. ejemp1o confederation Another is the European Union, which meets the definition of confederation but not strictlyAnd it seems that evolves into a future federal state. Ambiguity of the term Federal State provision is not be a confederal state, as the Confederation of Independent States comprises a state can only be unitary or federal. Legal nature of the Confederacy. The Confederation is an instance midway between a mere alliance between states and the federal state, so that there is a convergence of international law and constitutional law, but above all is the subject of international law. The central organ of a Confederation or a Diet Congress, which took places agents appointed by each Member State, and forced to defend the positions of their respective states. This requirement is given in the European Union (European parliament’s mandate is free, and MEPs acting on their behalf and on behalf of itself). Differences between the Federal and Confederate 1. The Confederation is based on an international treaty, while the Federal State is based on a Constitucióion. 2. In a confederation, sovereignty rests in each of the Member States, while in a Federal State is vested in the federal state itself. 3. The laws in a federal state directly binding on citizens, while in a confederation oblige Member States which should be in their own domestic legislation. 4. Constitutional law is concerned with the Federal States, while international law is concerned with the Confederations Cup. Decentralized Unitary State that is a unitary state in which all or parts of its territory enjoy powers that may be purely administrative or more ambitious and achieve a genuine legislative and executive power. A clear example is the Spain of the autonomies. The Spanish Decentralized Unitary State law imposes on its territory and enjoys a very ambitious decentralization, as there are quite decentralized executive and legislative branches. Currently, all the Spanish territory is under the rule of autonomies. We find two dilemmas: 1. The first is administrative. It is very ambitious and is materialized in the emergence of key powers (legislative, executive and judicial). 2. Decentralization may affect certain segments of the territory or the whole territory. For example, in the case of Spain the Republican Constitution of 1931 Statute of Autonomy only looked for Galicia, the Basque Country and Catalonia. The 1978 Constitution provides statutes for all the Autonomous Communities. Differences between the decentralized unitary state and the Federal State 1. In a federal state, federated entities can reform their constitutions for themselves (if reforms are not contradicted the Federal Constitution), which does not happen with the Autonomous Communities in Spain, since they can not reform its statutes self autonomy. 2. In a federal state, there is a federal chamber of territorial representation that exists in the decentralized unitary state. This is debatable in the Spanish caseish, since in theory this corresponds to the Senate, which does not occur in practice. 6.2. Nation, nationalism and territorial claims of state nationalism nationalisms always raise any territorial demands. Therefore, the relations between state and nation can be fairly complicated, three different scenarios arise for: 1. Nation and state coincide. There are a nation living in a state, the state is embedded in a nation. This nation does not exist without the state. An example is Portugal. 2. A nation dispersed over several states. Are cases like the Hungarian population, Kurdish, Catalan (Roussillon) or Basque (French Basque country). 3. State that receives within it a number of nations. This is the case of Spain today, and so is recognized in the 1978 Constitution, although it speaks of nationalities, not nations. Features articulator of a nation 1. Geographical uniqueness. 2. Specific history, and singled out (may have led to the formaciion of its own State or not). 3. Existence of its own language. This feature justifies the existence of the three historic nationalities in Spain. 4. The presence or absence of foreign population have an equal effect. 5. Existence of own cultural forms (cultural dynamism singled). 6. Presence of political and economic forces that defend a national discourse. 7. Existence of some form of external oppression. Certain nationalist discourses may be related to factors or natural complexion items (items 1, 3 and 4, as in Galician) or more artificial or political nature (points 5 and 6, as in Catalan). Difference between nationalism and regionalism behind nationalist discourses generally having a bet in favor of the creation of a state. This feature does not arise within the regionalist discourse, who are content with more modest claims and commonly result from a less strong presence of the seven elements outlined above. The convención regionalism often said that often occur in places that lack their own language, and that lead to the defense of simple measures of decentralization. 7.1. Concept The concept of political party political party has its origin in the Western world, but has come to cover the entire planet, to the extent that seems to spread the idea that political parties are a key instrument of modernization. All political systems, even dictatorships, have political parties (although in this case are unique and exclusive in nature). Usually we understand the term “political party” in two senses: 1. In very general and vague sense, there is a political party when there is a group of people more or less homogeneous than shared principles and common worldviews. There were political parties in the senate, in the medieval city-states and in France in 1789, it being understood that a corresponding meaning lacks rigor in terms of political science. 2. In a sense more precise, political science party understand that the term should be used exclusively to identify the political forces involved in competitive elections with the purpose of placing candidates in public office. This election date as early as from mid-nineteenth century, and in most cases from the twentieth century. We are also within the Western world, being where they hold competitive elections. 7.2. Types of political parties to the first classification to be addressed is that of Weber, who distinguished between three types of political parties: 1. Parties of patronage. They are parties that aim at achieving a position of power to his boss, and administrative positions for the followers of it. An example are the parties of the nineteenth century Spain of the Restoration (caciques). 2. Class parties or social group. Intended to represent the interests of a social need or social class. An example is the party in whose designationsn includes the word “worker” as the PSOE. 3. Games inspired by an intuition of the world. Parties are linked to a particular ideology, as the PC. They are very difficult to distinguish from class parties or social group in most cases. Another classification is that of Duverger, which distinguishes between the following types of political parties: 1. Games of internal origin. Are those that arise within the parliament and that from the very attempt to extend to society. One example is green. 2. Parties from outside. Are those that arise within society and from there try to reach the parliament. This is more common than the previous process. Duverger we can highlight another classification, developed taking into account the approach of the forms of internal party organization. Following this criterion, there are the following types of political parties: 1. In cells. The cells are formulas organization established in a working criterion, favoring hierarchical strategies, Which impedes the horizontal and which have been characteristic of the communist parties. 2. In sections. The section is a form of organization founded on a territorial basis. It was the proper organization of the socialist parties, even though today is the formula for proper organization of almost all parties, including Communists. 3. Committees. The committee is a form of section, the areas are provided by territorial constituencies. One example is the great American parties. 4. Militias. Private organizations are military or paramilitary complexion extremely hierarchical and make use of many external symbols. These are characteristics of fascist movements in the interwar period. Finally, there is another type of party, the called party “atrapalotodo” (catch-all). It’s a game that has experienced a progressive ideological decaffeinated an eye to maximizing the number of voters through vague message. 7.3. Functions pol partiesor affiliation 1. Structuring the vote, which is the main political body that contributes to the election and the main instrument of political participation (there are also independent candidates, but its relevance is almost nil). 2. Integration, mobilization and public participation in the political system. Although not the only instances of these functions, and that also have social movements. 3. Recruitment of part of the political staff. The other remaining part of the political staff are recruited through the bureaucracy (like the civil service). 4. Aggregation of interests and demands of the population (reflected in their programs the interests of the population). 7.4. The political party systems: Approaches and typologies The following is the morphological model, looking at the number of parties active in the party systems. Based on this criterion we distinguish: 1. Bipartisanship. They operate two major parties or principals. Besides these there are some minority parties. A particular visiion of facts finds that bipartisanship is a political reality healthy by two reasons: it ensures stability and provides a clear and easy to understand what happens in a party system. Indeed, bipartisanship is extremely rare, and when there is first the product of distortions arising from the electoral system that the actual result of adherence of the population. An example is England, where as there is a majority democratic system only takes into account the most voted. In addition, bipartisanship in parliament does not reflect the real situation of society. 2. Multiparty system. In the system operate more than two political parties. The concept of multi is too widely welcomed as different as the realities of a system that operates three major political parties and where a system operates eight major parties. For the first realities, closely resembled their own reality of bipartisanship, while the second concept of visibly departs bipartisanship. The nDuverger alysis distinguishes among four potential roles for political parties: 1. Party majority vocation. Is one that can hope to obtain an absolute majority of seats in play. Do not depend on other political forces. 2. Big party. To achieve the absolute majority needed the support of other parties of less weight. 3. Middle. Is one that provides their seats for a major party wins a majority. 4. Minor party. It is he who does not play a significant role in determining the majority. Sartori distinguishes between two types of multiparty multiparty and multi-polarized moderate. The multiparty system has a moderately low number of relevant parties (five or less), with little ideological difference between them. The polarized multiparty system is one that has a high number of significant parties (more than five), with significant ideological distance between them. The multiparty system closely resembles the moderate bipartisanship, and is probably the Explanationón why multiparty models are or were remarkably stable. Sartori has coined the term “predominant party system, which is one in which one party holds a majority of seats for a prolonged period that extends at least four or five legislatures. The third criterion is the criterion of competence, which considers that the party systems are like markets in which companies compete over who are the political parties themselves, with the objective of maximizing sales in the form of votes cast by voters who act as consumers. This model usually responds atrapalotodo parties. With atrapalotodo parties runs the risk of occurrence of an ideological shift in the voting population, so that the traditional voters of one party leaving the party for its electoral shift. Situations between parties: 1. Alternation. Two major parties (always the same) take turns in the exercise of power. An example is the Restoration. Since 1982, when he loses the election UCDOnly two major parties (PP and PSOE) have taken turns in power. 2. Semialternancia. It is a model in which a party is always less importance in the government, which turns two political forces of much greater significance. An example is West Germany, where the Liberal party is always in the government, sometimes with the Christian Democrats and other times with the Social Democrats as a party acting hinge. 3. Replacement peripheral. It’s a situation where a party or a bloc of parties is always important in government and is surrounded by other less important games, entering or not the government, according to situations. For example, in Italy was always in the Christian Democratic government, but kept changing each term ally. 4. Coalition indistinct or egalitarian. It is a party system in which interchangeably all major political forces without exception can participate in shaping coalitions. An example is Belgium. 5. Grand coalition. It is a coalitionion of parties far exceeds the absolute majority of seats and is usually formalized in serious crisis. An example is given in postwar Italy, when they joined all parties. 6. Majority party. There is one party that has a very high number of seats, so can only be overcome by the coalition of all other parties. 8.2. Functions that are attributed to the election 1. Provide the opportunity for a succession and a peaceful transfer of charges. Elections are not the only method to meet this objective can be achieved through, for example, the direct appointment of hereditary forms. 2. Reflect changes in public opinion. 3. Build a sense of political community and integrate into the political system more disparate choices. 4. Allows actions of rulers are influenced by the criterion of the governed, in three different ways: “To provide the governed their own candidates.”The possibility of submitting complaints to those who aspire to pursue the government.” Let the rulers themselves, in the proximity of elections, decided to adapt to the demands of the governed. 8.4. Restrictions on voting rights 1. The derivative of the criterion of voting age. It is the age from which it enjoys the right to vote. Usually, it is determined at 18 or 21 years old. The historical trend has been lowering of voting age. 2. Women voters. In many places, well into the twentieth century, women had no voting rights. Currently, only this restriction exists in democratic countries, even those with a clear Islamist extraction, such as Iran. In Spain the first time women voted was in 1932 with the Second Republic. 3. Intellectual level. In the past there were political systems that denied voting rights to illiterates. 4. Concept of moral unworthiness. It is a somewhat vague legal concept that states that the right to vote should be withdrawn for those who have committed crimene or crime. 5. Political criteria of exclusion. We put four examples: “In the past certain electoral systems were denied voting rights to the military, to be servants of the state should maintain a position of neutrality. This occurred, for example, in Western Europe in the early twentieth century. “Exclusion based on religious criteria. For example, in Northern Ireland’s electoral system has historically benefited the Protestant community to the detriment of the Catholic community. “Marginalization of ethnic character. An example is the Jews in Hitler’s Germany, or blacks in apartheid South Africa. Entire human groups were deprived of their right to vote on ethnic grounds.” There are political systems that while not formally deny the right to vote of certain communities, marginalized to the extent they do very little to participate in elections. 8.6. Elements of electoral systems 1. Direct and indirect suffrage suffrage. The direct voting occurs when poblaciion directly elect their representatives. One example is the election of Members of Congress. The indirect suffrage takes place when people elect their representatives who in turn appoint other representatives. An example is the election of the Spanish government. 2. Circumscription. The constituency is the geographical area in which verifies the vote count to designate one or more candidates. In the case of Spain, there are different modes: in the European elections, the constituency sets the entire territory of the Spanish State, in the general election or legislative action, the district is implementing the province in regional elections, the district is also implementing the province finally, municipal or local elections, the constituency that applies is the municipality. In Spain there is no presidential election. In fairness, the number of representatives elected in each constituency should be strictly proportional to nUMBER inhabitants thereof, so that each representative is entitled to the same number of voters. This rule is full of exceptions, such as the following four: “In Galicia there are four provinces: La Coruña, Pontevedra, Lugo and Orense. The first two are more populated than the latter two, and yet, when democratic elections were introduced, the dominant force then Union of Democratic Center (UCD), who knew that the majority of the votes came from Orense and Lugo, proposed a formula for excess premium the votes of these two provinces. “Another example is the Basque Autonomous Community, in the there are three provinces: Vizcaya, Guipuzcoa and Alava. Vizcaya has twice the population of Alava, but nevertheless, the necessary number of votes to get a deputy is the same. “Fuerteventura is one of the islands in the Canary Islands. Fuerteventura choose a representative office in the Congress of Deputies, although the percentage of population not attributableía that power. “Finally, in Northern Ireland, half the inhabitants are Protestant and half Catholic. It divides the territory into four districts, but with a catch: three in Protestant territory and only one in Catholic territory, which of Members hundred seventy-five shall be elected by the Protestant community and twenty by the Catholic community. 3. Referendum and plebiscite. A referendum is a consultation under which the people demand a say in relation to any important issue. The referendum is common in certain political systems and is very rare in others. Switzerland has Europe’s most used, while in Spain, for example, is not used to abuse him, but neither is discarded. There are only two: one on the Constitution in 1978, and another about the permanence of Spain into NATO in 1986. The referendum can take a turn advisory body only, or conversely, create obligations for the government, ie, can be binding. For exampleIn Spain, the referendum on the Constitution created obligations, while the NATO referendum was only advisory. l referendum is a figure which is strongly susceptible to manipulation by governments (for example, usually only summon them in situations where there is a clear ratification of the referendum) is a paradox, because if the initiative is healthy, the procedure really. A plebiscite is a unique form of referendum in which no one asks people their opinion on a relevant issue, but his mind about the personal political leader. In Spain tantamount to the question of confidence. Not a very democratic political formula as how to assess this is elections. It bears much in democracies with authoritarian features. In Spain there has been no proper plebiscite, but they tried to do in 1986, with the NATO referendum, when then Prime Minister (Felipe GonzÁlex) said that if they voted against him, was leaving. 4. Development of the right to vote. The vote is usually voluntary, but there are political systems in which is mandatory, so that failure to attend rate economic sanctions or moral causes. The vote is secret and procedures have been developed for booths, the use of envelopes in which he puts in the ballot, or the fact that the elector is himself that target the ballot in the box. The pressure on voters must be zero or minimal. There are several steps to reduce “electioneering ban in schools’ ban on publishing polls in the days before the election,” the limits on the amount of money that political forces can spend on elections, “the establishment of a” journey of reflection “, the day before the elections, in which he can not develop electoral campaign events there a jurisdiction (the judiciary) independently responsible for ensuring clean elections. In SpainNa have been problems with postal voting and the vote of immigrants. 8.7.1. An electoral system electoral system is one that gives all the seats at stake next most popular political force, so that leaves no representation to all other political forces. The electoral system can be applied in single member districts or through single-member constituency lists: one representative is chosen (and it is logical to take the political force representing the most votes). The electoral system can be adjusted to two different modules: 5. Majoritarian system to a return. It is the one that best fits the definition given above. It would be simple majority for victory. 6. Two-round majority system. It is characterized by concluding the first round so that if any political force it wins an absolute majority of votes is done with the seats at stake, not given this circumstance, is held a runoff in which attend the two forces polMost voted or affiliation in the first round, so that the most voted for them in the second round is done with the seats at stake. Two examples of countries that use the electoral system are the United States and Britain. The advantages of the electoral system are: 1. Simplicity. Can offer a political landscape very clear and easy to understand. 2. Ensures greater stability, since they usually bring clear majorities. 3. When single-member constituency is (who only choose one representative), fosters a better understanding of candidates by voters. By contrast, also has disadvantages: 1. It is an unfair system, because by giving the political force voted on the seats at stake radically marginalized minorities. One example was the election of Volgograd (formerly Stalingrad), where the next most popular political force was the Communist Party, which won only 16% of votesBut nevertheless took all the seats. The explanation is that the city is divided into 25 constituencies very small, and the Communist Party was the political force in 23 of them, and being a single-member majoritarian system, managed, despite the low percentage of votes, the majority of seats. 2. Single-member constituencies facilitate the settlement of real estates under which an elected deputy in traditionally made its successor, the population is practically “forced” to support. This phenomenon is called co-optation. 8.7.2. Proportional electoral system is one that intends to distribute the seats at stake in strictly commensurate with the percentage of votes received by each political force, and that as a result means that e] parliament is a microcosm that plays literally accessions of population policies . An example would be in an election the PP obtained 60% of the votes, PSOE 33% And IU 7%. If we were to allocate ten seats, the PP would accrue 6, the PSOE 3 and TU 1 seat. But the seats are not generally shared on a strictly mathematical, but that usually make two corrections: 1. The application of the D’Hondt. This law distorts the results somewhat, while benefiting the big games and adversely affect small. The determination of a ribbon or minimum percentage of votes to be achieved to obtain representation. This also hurts small political forces. Proportional electoral system benefits: 1. It’s more just the electoral system. 2. Proportional representation facilitates the permeation of ideas before the people. This refers to that when we apply a proportional representation constituency will never be before a single candidate, but each political force must submit a list with as many members as the number of deputies are at stake. 3. The absence of second round avoids negotiations are not always muyedificantes. When an electoral system will go to a runoffPolitical forces other than the two most voted merchant with his alleged votes to seek alliances with either of the two most voted political forces. The proportional electoral system also has disadvantages: 1. Gestation can provide highly fragmented parliaments. Risk of a composition too plural and the consequent difficulty in reaching agreements. 2. Most of the time proportional formulas are applied in closed lists, so that very large extent are the domes of the parties and not the people who determine the candidates elected. So the amount of choice of citizens is very low. An alternative would be open lists, so that every citizen vote for representatives that he thought most appropriate, and not previously chosen by the party. 3.7.3. Mixed electoral system mixed electoral system is one that combines elements of majoritarian and proportional elements. An example of a mixed electoral system is the French systemés 1951, which granted all the seats up for grabs to the next most popular political force if it had obtained an absolute majority of votes. Otherwise, the seats distributed according to a proportional basis. 3.8. Interrelationships between the size of the constituency and the electoral system used. 9.1. Lobbyists or influence differences between political parties and pressure groups 1. Political parties intend to govern, while pressure groups are content to influence their rulers. 2. The parties intend to place their members in public office, while lobbyists do not intend to obtain public office for its members, at least in the first instance. Sometimes it is not so easy to distinguish the parties from lobbyists, as evidenced by these four factors: 1. There are pressure groups that eventually have become political parties. An example are some unions in England, which eventually founded the Labor Party BritAnice. 2. It is is what they are in fact residual small parties standing for elections even knowing that they will not get any seat. Although formally they are parties, operate more as if lobbyists are treated. 3. There are many pressure groups closely linked with specific political parties. One example is the unions in Britain today, which are located in the orbit of the Labor Party. 4. In one-party systems (not democratic), the party usually attracts only among its members many pressure groups to which they have no choice but to link up with the only existing legal political force. Definition of interest group pressure group is an association of individuals, which is not a political party and intends to influence the government so favorable to certain interests. A pressure group, to be one, must be formalized as such. For example, women are a group of presiion, while a women is itself a pressure group. Pressure groups tend to show much more modest goals than those exhibited by the parties in their programs. Major pressure groups operating in Western systems 1. Major business organizations. In Spain is called Spanish Confederation of Business Organizations (CEOE). Often they are the large transnational corporations that dictate the rules of the game. 2. Trade Unions. The state funding they depend on their ability to reduce pressure, independence and influence. 3. Consumer organizations. In Spain there have become so important as in France, Germany or the UK. 4. NGOs (nongovernmental). They have experienced great development in recent years. The term NGO relations with what we usually development aid organizations, but need not be. They come from long ago, particularly since the founding of the Red Cross in 1873. TambiNo problems arise in regard to their independence, due to state funding. 9.2. Neocorporatism Corporatism is characteristic of authoritarian regimes, while the neo-corporatism is characteristic of democratic regimes. Corporatism is a political and social doctrine is born in the second half of the nineteenth century through Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical “Rerum Novarum”, which emphasized that against the liberal and the Marxist, who claim extinct corporations and permanently faced by the class struggle, it is defending an integrated and harmonious society in which the imposition of the harmonization of the conflicting interests of different social classes. Historically, the deployment of corporate ideas settled in the freezing of social inequalities, which obviously benefited the wealthy. Corporatism powerfully influenced social practices of Italian Fascism and Franco’s Primovere in SpainNa, the Salazarism in Portugal and several Latin American dictatorships, such as Peron in Argentina. Importantly, draws attention to the apparent conclusion harmonious social interests, when in reality it conceals the realization of the interests of the upper classes. Explaining changes over corporatism by neocorporatism 1. Emergence of many new organizations and public and private interests draw a picture far more complex. 2. In the traditional conception of liberal democracy was understood that citizens were reasonably represented by some small parties and lobbyists. Today the picture is much more complicated, since it competes much higher numbers of partners and should establish rules that clarify the picture. 3. Governance. He suggested that a central objective of the Western political systems is to guarantee the governability of the countries-responsible to workers and employers in making decisions. 4. The influence of social, To leave it the principle of class struggle, or alternatively, to subordinate the class struggle in the national interest. 5. National interests pervade much of public policies through, for example, a constant demand for improvements in productivity and competitiveness, with the aim of placing the country in question in a healthy position in the international economy. 6. The state has reserved for itself important mediating function between operators, which are reflected in the realization of so-called neo-corporatism. These six changes outlined are embodied in a concept called neo-corporatism. Neocorporatist neocorporatist Covenant A covenant is an agreement on relevant economic and social matters, signed under democratic procedures and signed by the government of a country, major employers’ organizations and trade unions more representative. It is therefore a tripartite pact. It is worth noting three discussions that arise around the concept just explained1. In the eyes of many scholars and despite what we have said, neo-corporatist pacts pose serious problems in the area of democracy, since in these cases Parliament has no role and only present the party or parties who exercise the government. 2. The fact that systematically marginalized in decision making for small and medium enterprises, non-majority unions and the unemployed. Under these gaps there marginalization of democratic representation in the neo-corporatist pacts. The neo-corporatist agreements have raised two major interpretations: 1. The first points that make up a very healthy process of balanced resolution of tension, so that the government takes a neutral position and balancing between the interests of unions and the interests of business organizations. 2. The second interpretation notes that covenants critically neocorporatist have formed a general process of domestication of the labor unions backed measures from governments and primarily beneficial to employers. This crNotice from the left. The Moncloa Pacts, signed in late 1970, were an example of neo-corporatist pact, which was joined, it is true, most of the parliamentary political forces of the moment. It is the most important neo-corporatist pact that has taken place in Spain. 10.1. Definition of Bureaucracy The word bureaucracy is a learned word that has several different meanings, some of them educated and vulgar. We emphasize the following: 1. Bureaucracy and Public Administration. The main problem is that this concept seems to understand that the concept of the word bureaucracy can only apply to public bodies, and ignores the result that there are bureaucracies in the context of private entities. 2. Bureaucracy and inefficient administration. This is the popular or vulgar concept of bureaucracy, it is commonly identified in an absurd rigidity and fragmentation of the decision, autonomous power centers. It relates to the text of Larra “Come back tomorrow.” 3. Bureaucracy as an organizational system that makes mAxima efficiency. It is literally opposite the second concept, under the gap in Germany’s Hegel such a group. The bureaucracy exhibits the characteristic features of the rational division of labor, hierarchy and continuity of benefits. 4. Bureaucracy and government officials. It is the etymological meaning of the word bureaucracy (government officials). Commonly understood that in certain countries, like Russia or China, the government bureaucracy has had at some point in history. 5. Bureaucracy and the administration by salaried officials. This administration may be embodied in organizations both public and private bodies. An example of public bureaucracy are the employees of a ministry officials or employees of one party officials, who are distinguished members and cadres of the party. An example of private bureaucracy is dedicated to the administrative sector accounting tasks and personnel of a company, other than the tasks of production and sales. 10.2. Analysis of bureaucracy in Weber’s ideal type of bureaucracy as Weber’s analysis is called rational-legal bureaucracy. Weber regards the bureaucracy of the first and third points of the previous section. At certain times in his work, Weber’s bureaucracy used the word to refer to government officials, but usually displays the aforementioned concept of rational-legal bureaucracy, which has the following features: 1. Existence of a system of general rules that require equally to those in power, citizens and members of the bureaucracy. 2. Existence of a hierarchy in which the various positions in the chain of command are occupied by people and not precise abstract structures. 3. Presence of a formalized division of labor, with standardized procedures, recruitment of staff under free quizzes and development of administrative functions on a continuous basis. 4. The bureaucracy must act impersonal and neutral, operating “sine ira et studio”Ie, without wrath and study. 10.3. Historical conditions that have allowed the emergence of public bureaucracies (rational-legal bureaucracy) as Weber 1. Consolidation of the money economy. The introduction of capitalism allowed nationalize administrative systems Under the replacement of in-kind payments by cash payments. 2. qualitative and quantitative growth of the administrative duties of States. In the absolutist states multiplication was observed in number and size of the administrative structures of the hand of the standing armies or the development of transport systems and communications. 3. Extending the capabilities of decision power holders, who claim the support of relevant administrative sectors. 4. The process of democratization. The three previous processes occurred in the Modern States, while this process occurred later in time. Political democracy allowed the spread of bureaucratic modelattic, by formalizing the legal equality of all citizens before the law and open access to whatever administration responsible. 5. The technical superiority of bureaucracy over other forms of administration, the bureaucracy is the most-effective management. 10.4. Relationship between bureaucracy and democracy (political power) as First Weber relation: Any bureaucracy is always subject to a non-bureaucratic authority, revealed the political leadership (public bureaucracy) and the owners and managers of businesses (private bureaucracies). Second relationship: The fact that the bureaucracy has become indispensable to modern life is not sufficient condition for claiming that the bureaucracy enjoys an autonomous power. Third Relation: The existence of an ambiguous and contradictory relationship between democracy and bureaucracy in plasma on one side the fact that democratization is closely related to the settlement of the bureaucracyAnd secondly, the fact that it is contrary to the power of this and build up of hostile reactions. In conclusion, Weber said that bureaucracy is usually in a position of advantage over the traditional political powers, derived from their expertise and opacity which used to act, so that often the bearers power behave like amateurs in front of a specialist. 10.6. Classification of bureaucratic systems Let’s raise two classification criteria: 1. The first criterion concerns the bureaucratic system as a whole. “Centralization decentralization. The bureaucratic systems are organized, at least in principle, differently in federal states (like Germany or the U.S.) and unitary states (such as France, UK and Italy). Within the federal bureaucracy is not is organized similarly to those States that are purely administrative decentralization and the decentralization showing more ambitious. The allocation of staff at central, intermediate and also relevant federal or unitary status of the States, being usually in the unitary states that the largest accumulation of officials at the central register. -* -* Central Ministries Officials in State Intermediate Unit – -* Communities State Officials in federal Peripheral – Municipalities – ÷ Officials at federal state “type of division of labor. It can be formalized according to different criteria: 1. Functional (deployment of different tasks ) 2. Territorial (existence of a territorial division of power), or by type of customer. 3. The second criterion deals with the exclusive bureaucratic elites. A different types of elites are different types of bureaucratic systems. We examine below four different criteria for the classification of elites: social background and status of the elite. In most bureaucracies of Western countries comes from the elite upper classesEven though the social prestige for work is high, in cases such as German or French, or low, in cases such as Italian, Spanish or American. Latest Bureaucracies tend to have less prestige. “Mode of recruitment and career. There are two main possibilities: a zero mobility under which the staff develop their career within a single bureaucratic body, or a very large mobility with frequent changes from one body to another. “closed or open character of the elites. There are three different horizons. The first is that of a bureaucratic closed without meaningful exchanges with other political elites, economic and social. The second is an elite entry closed but open at its output. She can not access members of political elites, economic or social, but it does provide tables elite political class or private companies. This second model is German or French. The third is the open elite in both its input and output. It is accessible from other elites, and since she will alsoén is accessible to other elites. This is the American model. In Spain there is a mixture of all, because there are various bureaucratic elites. “Generality and specialization. There are composed only of general elites while there are elites composed only by specialists. It also gives an elite composed of a combination of both. 11.1. Crisis of democracy, a crisis in democracy and political crisis stemming from the difficulties of spreading democracy is a crisis of democracy when substantial elements of it are seriously affected, so it is reasonable to ask whether the resulting system is truly democratic. An example would be the cancellation of rights and freedoms . There is a crisis in democracy as important elements of the democratic system have problems that do not affect the essence of the system. For example, a poor relationship between the executive and legislative branches, or the distance between institutions and citizens. There is a crisis difficulty resulting from the expansionion of democracy when there is the fact that democracy is a political system limited to parts of the Earth, so logically should cause concern. 11.2. Polarization and radicalization A political system is polarized when political choices tend to accumulate in two major poles. Radicalization is the tendency to increase of the ideological distance between the two poles. Polarization can register without radicalization, in the same way that the crisis of democracy demands the polarization and radicalization. From 1982 until today, in Spain there is the phenomenon of polarization (PP-PSOE), but not marked by radicalization. What if progressing radicalization and polarization and are given at once?. If the political class gets rebuild a consensus on key elements of discussion, the crisis is overcome, otherwise, usually appear three indicators of crisis of democracy:’s disappearanceion of the political center, the proliferation of paramilitary groups and political violence that reflect political views they consider illegitimate government, and finally, the polarization of neutral powers, as the Head of State, the armed forces or the judiciary. 11.3. Elements that can slow a process of crisis of democracy 1. The relationship between the state corresponding to supranational organizations in order to consolidate democracy within it. 2. Economic prosperity. High rates of literacy, per capita income and social services seem to be closely related with the establishment of a stable democracy. 3. The development of state functions. The expansion of the State in its relations with society has also been a stabilizing element of democracy. 4. The existence of political parties with tradition and weight, in addition to having to aim for. 5. The existence of trade unions also developed and recorded makes it ms easy continuity of democracy. 6. The memory of democratic failures observed in the past. This memory has become the explanation of why in the West there has been more democratic crisis along the lines of what happened in the booms of the German and Italian fascism in the years l920 and 1930. 7. Active social movements. 11.4. Recent changes in democratic systems 1. Identity of the actors. The first actor is the individual (because democratic systems have their roots in liberal thought), the second is the political parties, the third pressure groups, the fourth social movements (environmentalism, pacifism, anti-globalization) and the fifth the nationalist movements, which have undergone considerable development. 2. Diversification in the mechanisms of democratic representation. We find the following mechanisms: elections, territorial complexion; lobbies of functional complexion, and the plebiscite, the plebiscite complexion. The first two mechanisms augment, At least in principle, democracy, while the third reduces it. The main problem of modern democracies is the distances between the parties and institutions and between institutions and citizens. 11.5. Diagnosis of the crisis in democracy 1. Diagnosis neo-Marxist. The starting point is that studies the conditions characteristic of late capitalism, characterized by the alliance between oligopolistic capitalism and an interventionist state. Late capitalism does always prevail in the end logic of capital, in a scenario in which the State is caught in a dilemma. On one hand, serve the general interests to secure the support of the majority of the population, while on the other side should abide by the logic of market economy, which responds to special interests, which ultimately are imposed . The State must solve problems without direct control of economic resources which enables us to face. The concept of fiscal crisis raises the spending trend plic to grow faster than revenue coming by way of taxes, a trend that becomes more severe during times of economic recession, which logically less taxes are collected, while there are larger social benefits that meet . 2. Diagnosis neoconservative. On one hand we talk about unlimited confidence in the market, and other efforts to retain the values and institutions related to family, religion and ethics at work. Notes that augment welfare state dependency of individuals to institutions, which attack the rights of individuals. Has encouraged the consolidation of a new civil service class only interested in preserving their privileges. The welfare state has eroded the means of traditional conflict resolution including those related to family, churches and ethnic groups. The end result has been the emergence of a hedonistic morality that has cornered the work ethic and responsibility. This diagnóstico welfare state ignores that have played a significant role in easing tension, which has allowed the logic of capitalism survives, so that it is reasonable to ask what would happen if certain social gains vanish. A less radical version holds that the welfare state are likely to increase without limit its performance largely as a result of the promises made by parties in elections. We must establish rules that expressly limit the increase in public spending, so that remain many social services and to ensure that the institution of the State retains its full legitimacy.