The article is devoted to the developmental ideology of the leftist Christians in Latin America, the so-called ’COMUNITARISTAS’. The author argues that this development-ideology, often called... Show moreThe article is devoted to the developmental ideology of the leftist Christians in Latin America, the so-called ’COMUNITARISTAS’. The author argues that this development-ideology, often called socialismo comunitario, is not so leftist as one might suppose at first sight. Some of their basic ideas have been adopted from the traditional concept of European Christian democracy, with certain local adaptions. According to the comunitaristas, underdevelopment must be defined as a lack of social integration. That is to say: underdevelopment should not be viewed as a relative backwardness in comparison to the more ’advanced’ industrial countries. One should rather speak of ’misdevelopment’ in the sense that some structures and population groups are politically, economically and culturally overdeveloped, while others — the so-called ’marginados’ — are underdeveloped and excluded from effective participation in the system. Political development, then, should be conceived as a process of increasing participation, which has to be channelled through the introduction of a complex of new structures and new institutions. The functions of these substructures are twofold: promotion of material progress and institutionalization of political pressures from below toward the decision-levels of the political system as a whole. A clear link is discernible between this conception and, on the one hand, the emphasis on the necessity of voluntary associations in the more traditional definitions of democracy, common to certain american political scientists (Huntington, Shils, Coser), and on the other, the principle of subsidiarity in European Christian democracy. The author agrees with the necessity of increasing participation as a prerequisite for social and political development. However, putting political development on a par with institution-building — as some political scientists do — may mean no more than the insertion of typically modern — particularly western — structures in a traditional system which is not receptive to them, at least as far as the present stage of political development in Latin America is concerned. A more realistic and operational appraisal of political development might be one which postulates more modest aims in the sense of giving due consideration to the possibility of using certain traditional-autochtonous elements for modernizing ends, producing some form of psychological participation without modern institution building. This is what is currently being achieved by different kinds of populist movements, a modernizing force which through the use of elements such as paternalism and charisma, provides a closer link with the existing system and which therefore might be more conducive to political modernization. Show less
It is commonly assumed that the Dutch electorate views its political parties in terms of a progressive-conservative and a denominational-nondenominational division. This assumption was tested by... Show moreIt is commonly assumed that the Dutch electorate views its political parties in terms of a progressive-conservative and a denominational-nondenominational division. This assumption was tested by interviewing a sample of 126 voters in a Dutch municipality. Respondents were asked to rank 12 political parties according to preference. Additional data were collected, a.o. progressiveness, frequency of church attendance, authoritarianism. Because of non-response and incomplete ranking the rank orders of 9 parties (N _ 46) were used. These data were analysed by means of a principal components analysis of the matrix of product-moment correlations between the parties. After varimax rotation of the two first components individual component scores were calculated. By means of additional data the two components, contributing 28% and 23% to the total variance, could be safely interpreted as representing a progressiveness dimension and a denominational dimension respectively. Show less
The development of a strict methodology of observation and analysis in social science has always met with resistance. In the current debate on this topic in the United States two positions can be... Show moreThe development of a strict methodology of observation and analysis in social science has always met with resistance. In the current debate on this topic in the United States two positions can be distinguished. There are the ’theorists’, who find their inspiration in the work of recent philosophers such as Marcuse and Sartre; they rate the formation of a political theory as a first priority. And there are the ’behaviorists’, whose first care is for scientific method. This contrast is reviewed on the basis of the document Political science at Berkeley, which was published anonimously by a group of students. The criticism of these students can be summarized under the headings ’commitment and ’relevance’. As far as commitment is concerned the critics reproach the behaviorists for not taking stands in important contemporary moral issues, and for identifying with the status quo. The author argues that what leads to acceptance of and identification with the existing political order, is not behaviorist methodology as such, but rather the mood of die behaviorists. As far as ’relevance’ is concerned, the critics are impatient with the futile detail analysis and data collecting of the behaviorists. The behaviorists’ use of a strict methodology of explanation by generalisation, leads to a reduction of the scope of analysis. And then only the ’easy’ aspects (’easy’ to quantify, ’easy’ to collect, etc.) are analyzed, and discontinuous developments are neglected. The author argues that the lack of a dynamic theory of the political process is an impediment indeed for political science, but that, again, behaviorism as such cannot he accused of being ’conservative’ or ’conformistic’: the refutation of race theories for example was rather a radical undertaking. It is concluded that for the time being it is not necessary to lay other hounds on political science than those that follow from the claims of rational debate and intellectual honesty. Show less
Any organization can be described in terms of internal and external functioning. There are clear connections between the two, and these connections become the more apparent in cases of rapid... Show moreAny organization can be described in terms of internal and external functioning. There are clear connections between the two, and these connections become the more apparent in cases of rapid structural change. Hence structural changes within organizations can be tackled, sociologically, By analyzing these dynamic interrelationships. In this article an effort is made to study the foreign service from this point of view. Diplomatic organizations exercise some political functions; part of these political functions are policy-functions. As far as these are concerned, a distinction can be made between information, persuasion and advising (functions). Due to a number of external factors (such as improvement of communications, rise in the number of states, growth of the importance of multilateral negotiating activities, etc.) some shifts occur in the importance of these functions as a whole — as compared with those of competing organizations — as well as in the relative strength of each of them. At the same time some important changes in the internal functioning of diplomatic organizations manifest themselves. Allmost all foreign services are subject in several ways to a process of internal differentiation. These processes have to be examined carefully in order to be able to understand some problems the foreign service is faced with nowadays. Part of these problems have a temporary nature and can he understood as ’resistances to change’; another part however, can be expected to have a more permanent character. All in all, these problems can be described in terms of ’basic dilemmas’ facing the organization as well as the profession. As such, three ’dilemmas’ are mentioned here, and they are indicated as conflicts between ’elite orientation’ versus ’structure orientation’ (Galtung), ’generalism’ versus ’specialist orientation’, and ’bureaucratism’ ' versus ’intermediarism’. Each of these three dichotomies is described in detail; these descriptions served as the main purpose of this study. At the end of the study a number of relations between organizational differentiation (types of speciahsts, types of career expectations, educational backgrounds etc.) and divergences of professional orientations are indicated, hypothetically. It is suggested that almost all diplomatic organisations may be described in terms of these three basic dilemmas. Show less
