Jump to content


Theory question, extremum of political spectrum


12 replies to this topic

#1 Dauth

    <Custom title available>

  • Gold Member
  • 11193 posts

Posted 10 November 2008 - 14:20

Right, first things first this is a theory topic and discussion the policies/actions of any given party is only appropriate to the introduction and will only be mentioned in passing.

To the topic at hand,

Parties regarded for being at the extreme of any political spectrum have had a fairly poor track record when it comes to running states. Take a brief look at history for this, I am not saying central Governments are infallible, just the lesser of the available evils.

So how can a political central Government prevent the ascension of a extremist party? Given that even if they lose an election to a centralised opponent there will be a reasonable chance of them gaining control of the state in a similar condition as to when they rescinded control.

Within the UK, if Labour lose to the Tories the country will still be recognisable 5 years down the line at the next election, however if an extremist party come in there is a higher chance of some form of revolution (be it social, political or economic). The premise of this topic is that a party wants to be in power and wants to have an easier time while there.

#2 NanSolo

    Amateur

  • Member
  • 100 posts

Posted 10 November 2008 - 17:58

Focusing purely on theoretical political science, notions of left/centre/right are relative to every country and culture. These notions of left and right evolve around some invisble 'centre' ground, ie what is acceptable to a large majority of the population. Here's an example
We ask 5 people how much they think should be spent on state healthcare, and they each give 5 different answers waging from low amounts to high amounts which are plotted on the scale below:

	&#39;Right&#39;	 &#39;Left&#39;
|_____|_____|_____|_____|

Low					High


I've inserted the words Right and Left in marks because ironically in this example the 'right' is on the left of the scale (low spending) and the 'left' is on the right (high spending).
Now, in the perfect democracy the middle value will be the one chosen as this 'centre' spending is the value most acceptable to the three 'centre' values, which would team up and ensure the two extremist values were ignored, ie we have the rule of the majority

Let us say that a few years down the line we repeat the same process (which we call an election), and the following values are returned:

	&#39;Right&#39;	 &#39;Left&#39;
|___________|______|_|_|

Low					High


As you can see the values have shifted violently to the 'left' high spending end of the scale, and we have a new centre where the extremist values were in the previous election. An outside observer might say that the election has resulted in an increase in extremist values, but it hasn't: the central values (what we'd call the mean in statistics as we're dealing with a numerical scale), have simply shifted to one side. But they are not extremist: they can't be extreme when the majoirty is with them.

Bassically this is a very long winded way of saying that extremists can't get voted in in a democracy, because the moment they do they become majority values, where previous 'centrist' values are now on the extreme.

This is also why democracies are slow to change and very rarely do you see radical policy changes enacted: the massive swing I had in the example never happens in a matter of years: it happens in a matter of decades, at best, it is a gradual change. The only examples were radical changes do happen (for example in Weimar Germany which led to the electoral success of the Nazi party) are more a result of the 'centrist' values of my first example failing to work together to ensure the extremeties never enter into government, and not a sudden shift in public opinion. Even in it's most successful election the Nazi party never gained much more than 30% of the vote: it gained power because the other 70% couldn't agree to get together and stamp them out.

And this also highlights the importance of 'centrist' parties to work together: what Americans call the spirit of bipartisanship. Bipartisan initiatives will always be those most acceptable to a majority of the population, but involve a lot of compromise that extremist parties, often wanting to enter into government in whatever way they can, don't ask for. But ultimately this compromising (ie a move towards the centre) yields a result that better reflects the opinions of the electorate than a move to the closest extreme.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#3 Shirou

    Humble darkspawn

  • Member
  • 3328 posts

Posted 10 November 2008 - 17:59

Centralised parties mostly win because they attract most of the people. That is because of their spectrum being more broad than that of the extremist parties.

The extremist party has a set of ideas that is usually revolved around a certain ideology, and this is way more black and white than the centralised party. It's either you like it or not. Where there is white, there is also black, meaning among every fanatic of an extremist party there should be a total opposer of the party who will do anything but vote for them. The extremists have no way of binding these people. However, centralised parties, because they do not have these 'adversaries' (or they be very slim) do have a chance to bind them and get their vote, and thus they can get a larger quantity of the people.

However, in certain situations, call it crisis, the general public may be so fed op with the centralised parties because of their failure, and may be so vying for better times, that the total 'change' offering of an extremist party may at once become attractive. It is very different and it may not be up to par with the electorate's political preferences, but the fact that it promises better times instead of the crisis may just all be better than voting for a desperate centralised party panicing about what to do.

Problem is that people in those times don't vote for the party and it's ideas, but for it's premise of defeating the crisis. Anything else that this party will do, is not cared about by the electorate. They just care about the crisis, about their life, their money of course. We can look at Adolf Hitler's NSDAP as the best example here. The horrors of the National-Socialism ostensibly weren't apparent to the multitude of german supporters when Hitler took the reign.

I think the main way for a centralised party to stop extremists from raising to the throne is to not screw up themselves.
Posted Image

#4 Dr. Strangelove

    Grand Poobah and Lord High Everything Else

  • Member Test
  • 2197 posts
  • Projects: Where parallels meet.

Posted 11 November 2008 - 18:55

View PostDauth, on 10 Nov 2008, 15:20, said:

Parties regarded for being at the extreme of any political spectrum have had a fairly poor track record when it comes to running states. Take a brief look at history for this, I am not saying central Governments are infallible, just the lesser of the available evils.


That's because the only extremist parties that get voted into office most of the time are either economically liberal or socially conservative, if we had more extremist economically conservative parties getting into office, I think you wouldn't have made that statement.
Posted Image
Posted Image19681107

#5 Rich19

    I challenge thee!

  • Member
  • 1478 posts
  • Projects: Duelling

Posted 12 November 2008 - 16:25

View PostDr. Strangelove, on 11 Nov 2008, 18:55, said:

View PostDauth, on 10 Nov 2008, 15:20, said:

Parties regarded for being at the extreme of any political spectrum have had a fairly poor track record when it comes to running states. Take a brief look at history for this, I am not saying central Governments are infallible, just the lesser of the available evils.


That's because the only extremist parties that get voted into office most of the time are either economically liberal or socially conservative, if we had more extremist economically conservative parties getting into office, I think you wouldn't have made that statement.


What about Pinochet's Chile? Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ch...t.27s_1973_coup

Extremely far right economic policies, and the government had to destroy democracy and torture, imprison and execute thousands of people in order to implement them. And a fat lot of good these policies did - I realise this quote is from the wiki article above, but it conveys the general outcome for the average citizen:

Quote

While the upper 5% of the population received 25% of the total national income in 1972, it received 50% in 1975. Wage and salary earners got 64% of the national income in 1972 but only 38% at the beginning of 1977. Malnutrition affected half of the nation's children, and 60% of the population could not afford the minimum protein and food energy per day. Infant mortality increased sharply. Beggars flooded the streets.


#6 NanSolo

    Amateur

  • Member
  • 100 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 19:49

Pinochet wasn't voted in: it was a military coup d'etat that led to a dictatorship. That disqualifies Chile as an example of an extreme party being 'voted in'.
As to how extreme parties can never be voted in with a majority I refer back to my first post in this topic, and the following election results for probably the most succesful electoral extremist party: the Nazi's:

Election Date: % Vote won
May 1924 6.5%
December 1924 3.0%
May 1928 2.6%
September 1930 18.3%
July 1932 37.4%
November 1932 33.1%
March 1933 43.9 %

As you can see the Nazi's never enjoyed an electoral majority, under free-ish elections they never polled much more than 30% and the last vote (43.9%) took place after the German Parliament was burnt down, supposodly by a Comunist, and allowed Hitler to outlaw the German Communist Party which at the time had polled slightly over 17% of the vote. Until the time when Hitler disbanded Parliament entirely he was dependant on the help of other 'central' parties to get over 50% of votes: had none of these parties ever helped him the world might have been a very different place.

Edited by NanSolo, 12 November 2008 - 19:51.


Posted Image
Posted Image

#7 Shirou

    Humble darkspawn

  • Member
  • 3328 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 20:13

We all know Red Alert 2 for that scenario :P
Posted Image

#8 Dr. Strangelove

    Grand Poobah and Lord High Everything Else

  • Member Test
  • 2197 posts
  • Projects: Where parallels meet.

Posted 15 November 2008 - 00:23

View PostRich19, on 12 Nov 2008, 16:25, said:

View PostDr. Strangelove, on 11 Nov 2008, 18:55, said:

View PostDauth, on 10 Nov 2008, 15:20, said:

Parties regarded for being at the extreme of any political spectrum have had a fairly poor track record when it comes to running states. Take a brief look at history for this, I am not saying central Governments are infallible, just the lesser of the available evils.


That's because the only extremist parties that get voted into office most of the time are either economically liberal or socially conservative, if we had more extremist economically conservative parties getting into office, I think you wouldn't have made that statement.


What about Pinochet's Chile? Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ch...t.27s_1973_coup

Extremely far right economic policies, and the government had to destroy democracy and torture, imprison and execute thousands of people in order to implement them. And a fat lot of good these policies did - I realise this quote is from the wiki article above, but it conveys the general outcome for the average citizen:

Quote

While the upper 5% of the population received 25% of the total national income in 1972, it received 50% in 1975. Wage and salary earners got 64% of the national income in 1972 but only 38% at the beginning of 1977. Malnutrition affected half of the nation's children, and 60% of the population could not afford the minimum protein and food energy per day. Infant mortality increased sharply. Beggars flooded the streets.



That is not a valid example of a libertarian regime. In a truly economically right wing society, the government could not steal or destroy someone's financial/material assets. A person's life counts as a material asset.
Posted Image
Posted Image19681107

#9 The Wandering Jew

    Veteran

  • Member
  • 464 posts
  • Projects: No current project, just to ask inane questions :p

Posted 15 November 2008 - 06:39

View PostNanSolo, on 13 Nov 2008, 3:49, said:

...
As you can see the Nazi's never enjoyed an electoral majority, under free-ish elections they never polled much more than 30% and the last vote (43.9%) took place after the German Parliament was burnt down, supposodly by a Comunist, and allowed Hitler to outlaw the German Communist Party which at the time had polled slightly over 17% of the vote. Until the time when Hitler disbanded Parliament entirely he was dependant on the help of other 'central' parties to get over 50% of votes:


No single extremist party ever won the majority of the elections. It is the "popular/coalition/pro-admin" party that get the nods. In our case, we do not have two-party system like the UK does. We have the multiple parties, thus following the plurality voting system.


View PostNanSolo, on 13 Nov 2008, 3:49, said:

had none of these parties ever helped him the world might have been a very different place.


I highly disagree. Would World War 2 ever exist if Hitler became a successful painter in Vienna?
Posted Image
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."

#10 nip

    Grunze-Catz

  • Member
  • 608 posts

Posted 15 November 2008 - 12:12

View PostThe Wandering Jew, on 15 Nov 2008, 7:39, said:

Would World War 2 ever exist if Hitler became a successful painter in Vienna?

Yes.

WWII was a result of a German inferiority complex. If not this f***** Austrian asylum seeker another one would have taken the role as the greatest leader of all times. In the Weimar Republik from 1918-33 democracy was doomed to fail because it was despised and hated.

#11 CommanderJB

    Grand Admiral, Deimos Fleet, Red Banner

  • Fallen Brother
  • 3736 posts
  • Projects: Rise of the Reds beta testing & publicity officer; military technology consultancy; New World Order

Posted 15 November 2008 - 12:46

As much as I respect the fact that as a German you probably aren't being racist with the above comment, I don't think that was put as well as it could have been. Then again this forum is overseen by Dauth and Wizard so it's probably not really my place to pick you up on it.
On topic, given that in a democratic regime the people will choose whoever they find most attractive, it's effectively up to the incumbent (assumingly Central) government to ensure that they remain the more attractive option. This usually manages itself as the extremist groups typically have only extremist appeal, and thus they rarely gain power through democratic means, instead staging coups and the like, which a government can prevent by way of national security measures and maintaining the loyalty of the army (both of which of course one needs to maintain a healthy scepticism for as a detached observer, but nonetheless they are in moderation typically enough). Popular support for extremist groups will usually come from extreme circumstances. It's then up to the government to either prevent such circumstances from occurring or to fix them if they have been elected/emplaced with such circumstances already there. This is of course easier said than done as we are witnessing in Iraq and Afghanistan on a daily basis.
So, given that a government needs popular support to have any measure of longevity outside of a military dictatorship, the only way to deny extremists that support is to either remove the conditions that lend it to them or draw it to yourself by providing a better answer to the people's concerns, standard democratic practice. In the case of a military dictatorship unfortunately the only thing to do is usually either wait for them to die or stage a counter-coup. I think that's the gist of my answer to the opening question.

Quote

"Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law — not the rule of force — governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again." - Wesley Clark

Posted Image
Posted Image

#12 Rich19

    I challenge thee!

  • Member
  • 1478 posts
  • Projects: Duelling

Posted 16 November 2008 - 16:05

View PostDr. Strangelove, on 15 Nov 2008, 0:23, said:

View PostRich19, on 12 Nov 2008, 16:25, said:

View PostDr. Strangelove, on 11 Nov 2008, 18:55, said:

View PostDauth, on 10 Nov 2008, 15:20, said:

Parties regarded for being at the extreme of any political spectrum have had a fairly poor track record when it comes to running states. Take a brief look at history for this, I am not saying central Governments are infallible, just the lesser of the available evils.


That's because the only extremist parties that get voted into office most of the time are either economically liberal or socially conservative, if we had more extremist economically conservative parties getting into office, I think you wouldn't have made that statement.


What about Pinochet's Chile? Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ch...t.27s_1973_coup

Extremely far right economic policies, and the government had to destroy democracy and torture, imprison and execute thousands of people in order to implement them. And a fat lot of good these policies did - I realise this quote is from the wiki article above, but it conveys the general outcome for the average citizen:

Quote

While the upper 5% of the population received 25% of the total national income in 1972, it received 50% in 1975. Wage and salary earners got 64% of the national income in 1972 but only 38% at the beginning of 1977. Malnutrition affected half of the nation's children, and 60% of the population could not afford the minimum protein and food energy per day. Infant mortality increased sharply. Beggars flooded the streets.



That is not a valid example of a libertarian regime. In a truly economically right wing society, the government could not steal or destroy someone's financial/material assets. A person's life counts as a material asset.


But by that logic, a libertarian regieme is simply an anarchist one - it could be argued that putting someone in prison just as effectively "steals" their life. In which case, another example of a "truly economically right wing society" is the current situation in Somalia - effectively no government control over anything at all, including the justice system!

#13 Dr. Strangelove

    Grand Poobah and Lord High Everything Else

  • Member Test
  • 2197 posts
  • Projects: Where parallels meet.

Posted 17 November 2008 - 22:32

View PostRich19, on 16 Nov 2008, 16:05, said:

View PostDr. Strangelove, on 15 Nov 2008, 0:23, said:

That is not a valid example of a libertarian regime. In a truly economically right wing society, the government could not steal or destroy someone's financial/material assets. A person's life counts as a material asset.


But by that logic, a libertarian regieme is simply an anarchist one - it could be argued that putting someone in prison just as effectively "steals" their life. In which case, another example of a "truly economically right wing society" is the current situation in Somalia - effectively no government control over anything at all, including the justice system!


Well, you've found a fundamental division in the lassiez-faire school of thought, whether a minarchist society or a anarcho-capitalist society is the better one.
Posted Image
Posted Image19681107



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users