Political spectrum
is called political spectrum to the visual system of groups or political organizations according to certain conceptual axes. This type of planning is conditioned by the historical, social situations and the parties of a society. There are several types of political spectra, according to the conceptual axis adopted. One of the best known is the left-right axis. Another variant is to follow the national dependence-soberetia, especially in economic terms, according to the highest or lower degrees of autonomy proposed for national states. Other variants follow axes such as conservation-change, the degree of monitoring of popular expectations (related to the concepts of populism and governance) or the location with respect to certain religious principles. Originally European political science considered a unidimensional political spectrum, from the exclusive left-right axis. Modernly many countries, regions and organizations have shown more complex political spectra, which take into account several axes and dimensions, which cannot be typecast in a single point of any of the political spectra.
Different political spectra
<p In order for a political spectrum, there must be a range of values and beliefs. The political systems in which most of the population is clearly within one group or another, with no one in between, as in most nationalist conflicts, they cannot be described well through a political spectrum. Originally the political spectrum was considered one-dimensional (left-right), and in fact in many countries the main axis of variation is aligned with the typical differences between political left and political right. However, in many countries and regions the political spectrum can be two-dimensional or three-dimensional, since there may be other issues highly independent of the right-left alignment that are configured by political preferences:- In a modern Islamic country, for example, the political spectrum can be established along the line of thought regarding the role of clergy in the government. Those who believe that religious should have the capacity to apply Islamic law on one side and those who defend a secular society on the contrary, with moderates of various levels between them.
- In Taiwan, the political spectrum is defined by the possible reunification of China and the attainment of full Taiwanese independence.
- In nations under colonial or neocolonial domination there may also be left/right alignments, positionings related to the posture to that domination, identified according to an axis frequently called "national-antinational". The forces that adopt a stance of rejection or struggle against colonialism often use denominations as "national", "anti-imperialist" or "national liberation". This spectrum is very common in Latin America, Asia and Africa. In the case of the Argentine Republic, the Canadian polytologist expert in Argentina, Pierre Ostiguy, proposes the existence of a two-dimensional scheme, where, in addition to left and right, there is a vertical axis differentiated between the "high" and the "low", of a socio-cultural character.
- In autonomous territories where people of different nationalities or ethnic groups live, there may also be left/right positions, nationalist/non-nationalist positions giving rise to clearly bidimensional political spectra (such as Andalusia, Catalonia or the Basque Country where there are four basic options parties: left-wing nationalist, left-wing, non-nationalist and right-wing non-nationalist, or Latin American countries).
left and right
In the western world the political spectrum is usually described along a line that goes from right to left. This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with conservatism and theocracy ("right") at one end and socialism and communism ("the left") to the other (fascism depends on the interpretations of the axis right-left, see later). In North America and Europe, the liberal term refers to a wide range of political positions, often considered divergent between the United States and the rest of the world. This is because the term " liberal " In the United States he does not refer to liberalism but to the left. The term used to refer to what is related to liberalism in the United States is " libertarian ". This is partly also in Canada, with the liberal and conservative parties, the left-right axis.
The sociologist Robert M. Maciver scored in the website of government (1947), translation of English:
The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector of the lower classes economically or socially, and the middle class center. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right defended prerogatives, privileges and buried powers: the left attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, and to the hierarchy of birth or wealth; the left has fought for equal advantage or opportunity, and for the demands of the least favored. Defense and attack have been found, under democratic conditions, not in the name of the class but in the name of principle; but the opposite principles have generally corresponded to the interests of different classes.
Multiple interpretations of the right-left axis
There are various opinions about what is really measured throughout this axis. Below are a series of dichotomies, each of the dichotomic terms is preferred more on the right or left (although there may be people or left or right groups that do not adhere to each and every one of the preferred dichotomic terms in its part of the spectrum):
- Government participation in the economy must be interventionist/socialist (left) or laissez faire/capitalist (right). This has been the fundamental distinction in most countries during most of the centuryXX..
- Government participation in ethical matters must be minimal (right) or regulatory (left). While there is a conservative right (regulator) and a libertarian left (minimum intervention).
- The government must deal with matters such as health and pensions (left) or individuals must take care of them (right).
- In economic and financial matters, the trend towards economic security (left) or towards economic freedom (right).
- The supporters of change (left) and those who prefer to maintain the established order (right). Proposal by Eric Hoffer.
- A belief that human society is malleable (left) or fixed (right). Proposal by Thomas Sowell.
- Production goods must be owned by public (left) or private (right).
- In case of seeking equity, equal results (left) or equal opportunities (right) are preferred.
- Every human society uses mechanisms to achieve the goals, including cooperation (preferred by the left) and competition (preferred by the right).
Historical origin of the terms
Notions of "right-wing" and "left" These policies have their origin in European parliamentarism, specifically, after the French Revolution in the National Constituent Assembly, where the different factions or political tendencies were distributed in the compound according to their ideology. As seen from the President's seat at the front of the Assembly, the aristocracy sat on the right (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the left, hence the terms political right and political left.
Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the Ancien Régime ("old order"). Thus, the "right" implied support for aristocratic or royal interests and the church, while the "left" it implied support for republicanism, secularism, and civil liberties.
Alternative spectrums
There are those who believe that it is not obvious that so many and such varied aspects are related. They say that it is very confusing to talk about right and left without indicating exactly what one is referring to. They believe that the problem lies in establishing a context, defining the axes on which the different positions will be graduated.
However, the use of the right-left spectrum is so common that it is assumed as something natural. Scholars find it difficult to create concepts that serve as an alternative to it. Despite this difficulty, there are numerous alternatives, developed by thinkers who believe that their ideas are not correctly represented in the traditional right-left spectrum. Perhaps the simplest alternative to the right-left spectrum was designed in the United States as a rhetorical weapon during the Cold War. It was a circle in which the extremes of the political spectrum came together, making “extreme state socialism” (the Communist Party) and “extreme conservatism” (Fascism) equal. This link was particularly useful for those who rejected any kind of rapprochement with the Soviet Union.
Another alternative spectrum is offered by the conservative American Federalist Journal, which emphasizes the degree of political control and, consequently, places totalitarianism (linked to populism) at one extreme and anarchism (linked to populism) at one extreme. linked to individual autonomy) on the contrary. This publication uses this system to show the Democrats (of the Democratic Party) and the Libertarians (in the American sense) as close to the two opposite extremes. This system does not seem very credible to the majority, since the political positions alluded to are essentially moderate. Another alternative has recently gained popularity among environmentalists. It uses a single axis to measure what is good for the Earth as opposed to what is good for the 'market'. In other words, the ecological ideology proposes to classify human activities if they seek Productivism, growth until the depletion of natural resources and the destruction of the systemic balance of ecosystems or, on the contrary, they consider a balance in Decrease.
In 1998, the political author Virginia Postrel, in her book The Future and Its Enemies, offered a spectrum on a single axis, which graduated one's vision of the future. At one extreme are those who fear the future and want to control it, whom Postrel calls stasists. On the other hand, we have those who want the future to unfold naturally, without attempts at planning or control and remaining static, whom she calls, due to their dynamic will, dynamists ( dynamists ).
Other axes that deserve consideration
- Statism (socialism, communism, totalitarianism, fascism) Individualism or privatism (freedom, objectivism, liberalism).
- Role of religion: clericalism against anti-clericalism. The role of religion is subsumed in the general vision of the right-left axis, although in Europe the clericalism-anticlericalism axis shows a much lower correlation with the right-left axis.
- Urban versus rural: The conflict between urban development and rural development, or between centralization and decentralization of the state.
- International policy: isolationism (the nation must be limited to its own affairs) against interventionism (the nation must exercise power abroad to achieve its political objectives) and to expansionism (increase of national territory).
- Market policies: state socialism (the government must control economic productivity) laissez faire (the government should not intervene in the market, leaving individuals free to develop freely consented economic activities) and against corporativism (the government must subsidize or defend the businesses that work).
- Political violence: pacifism (political opinions should not be imposed through the use of force) against militancy or militarism (militancy(Violence is a legitimate or necessary form of political expression). Informally, we refer to these groups as "palomas" and "halcones", respectively.
- Foreign trade: Globalization (global economic markets must become integrated and interdependent) against autarchy (the nation or political unity must seek economic independence) or regional integration (various nations must be integrated into regional blocs in order to reduce global asymmetries and to compensate the power of large multinational powers and enterprises).
- Diversity: multiculturalism (the nation must represent a diversity of cultural ideas) against assimilationism or nationalism (the nation must represent the dominant ethnic group).
- Participation: Democracy (participation of the majority in government) against oligarchy (government of a limited number of people) and republic (a commitment between the two – this is a specialized use of the term based on an interpretation of classical history).
- Freedom: Positive freedom (have rights that oblige others) against negative freedom (freedom against the interference of others).
- Progress: radicals (who believe in profound and rapid change) against moderates (who believe in minimal and cautious changes).
Multi-axis models
The models with a single axis are excessively simplified and end up uniting clearly differentiated political proposals. In particular, and as seen before, there are many ways to define the right-left spectrum, which would not give rise to the same classifications.
Much of the political philosophy that has emerged in the last two centuries does not fit the one-dimensional right-left line, particularly anarchism and libertarianism. Anarchism is assumed to be “left-wing”, while libertarian liberalism is “right-wing”. However, on the one-dimensional spectrum, anarchism occupies pretty much the same position as Marxism. Anarchism implies rejection of government and social control, while communist theories seek social control of many activities. At the other end of the political extreme, libertarian liberalism stands in the same place as fascism, or at least rigidly authoritarian conservative capitalism.
To solve problems of inconsistency in some spectrums, several proposals have been put forward to create a two-axis system, which combines two one-dimensional political spectrum models as its axes.
The first person to devise a two-axis system was Hans Eysenck in his 1964 book "Sense and Nonsense in Psychology". From the traditional “right-left” spectrum, Eysenck added a vertical axis that went from authoritarian tendencies (tough-mindedness ) to democratic tendencies (tender-mindedness ). The effect of this new axis is that those who have very different ideas about authority, but have the same ideas on the “right-left” axis, can be distinguished (people like Stalin and Noam Chomsky on the left, or Augusto Pinochet on the left). and Friedrich Hayek on the right).
Similarly, one can consider issues of collective/private ownership on the horizontal axis and the spectrum from individual control of society to state control on the vertical axis.
Notably, this two-axis model lacks certain nuances as to what control is. For example, you might want to divide the issue into issues of personal liberties and others. For example, until the 20th century the US gave its citizens a lot of leeway when it came to their security (right to bear arms), while regulating sexual activities even between adults in private (Comstock law, sodomy laws). Furthermore, there is no clear place in which to locate ideologies such as feminism and environmentalism. A third or even a fourth dimension would be needed to accommodate them, making the model too complex to use.
The model used by the Political Compass is very similar to the Eysenck graph, only that it measures social freedom on the vertical axis instead of the democratic or authoritarian tendency.
Nolan Chart
Similar to the graph used by the Political Compass is the Nolan graph, created by libertarian David Nolan in 1971, with two axes (economic and political) perpendicular to each other. The graph is often displayed rotated 45 degrees. This chart shows what he considers to be “economic freedom” (tax, business, and free enterprise matters) on his x-axis and what he considers to be "personal freedom" (drug legalization, abortion, military service) on the y-axis. This puts leftists and socialists in the left quadrant, libertarians and anarchists on the top, right-wingers and conservatives on the right, and authoritarians and populists on the bottom.
Pournelle plot
A fourth, very different, two-axis model has been created by Jerry Pournelle. Pournelle's graph shows freedom (a similar dimension to the diagonal of Nolan's graph, with those on the left aspiring to freedom and those on the right seeking control) perpendicular to the belief in the power of Pournelle's own political philosophy. choice (placed at the top of those who believe that all the evils that their ideology aims to combat would disappear if they were instituted and below those who are reduced to a blind and celebratory link to their ideology, for the mere fact of being so - the communist who no longer believes that emancipation will come, the anarchist who plants bombs for fun...).
Three-axis models (cubes)
Friesian model
There are even three-axis models. The Friesian Institute has suggested a modified Nolan chart that combines economic freedom and personal freedom with positive freedom, creating a cube. Vosem's graph divides the axes of Nolan's into two, corporate economics) and individual economics, which combine with civil liberty to form a cube.
Ecological model
In order for environmentalism to be considered as a political ideology, the activist and environmental researcher Florent Marcellesi proposes the third axis «productivism-anti-productivism» in addition to the two typical axes «left-right» and «authoritarian-libertarian» of the classification thus forming a new three-dimensional system for the classification of political ideologies.
Contenido relacionado
Chilean political parties
Oligopsony
Constitutional monarchy