One of the Most Notable Differences between England and China - Essay Example

Dictatorship and Democracy One of the most notable differences between England and China is that in the former, a system of parliamentary democracy emerged, while in the case of China, the system that emerged was a communist dictaorship. In Moore’s view, “an independent class of town dwellers has been an indispensable element in the growth of parliamentary documentary.” (Moore, 1966: 422) As a result, Moore contends that it is the business related middle class, which is the pivotal element in ensuring the success of a democracy; “No bourgeoise, no democracy” (Moore, 1966:418). Moore argues that in every instance where a bourgeoise exists, these people will agitate for the establishment of a democracy. Therefore, it is a capitalists in a given society that are a necessary condition for democracy to emerge, but there may be additional factors that will be most conducive for the business class to establish the democracy. This may also be dependent upon the kind of interaction that exists between the business people and the regime that is in control in the country. Moore argues further that a strong bourgeoise will result in a weakening of the feudal kind of economic systems, thereby paving the way for the emergence of the political form of the democracy. When the bourgeoise does exist but is not strong enough to take on the feudal economic structures, then this produces a revolution from the higher levels that ultimately result in a feudal dictatorship emerging. But in those instances where the bourgeoise is so weak that it cannot come up against the feudal system at all, then the revolution takes place from the lower levels so that peasants revolt and this ultimately results in communist dictatorship. England emerged as a parliamentary democracy, while China emerged as a communist dictatorship. To a great extent, Moore attributes this to the different social groups that enjoyed prominence in the respective countries. In Britain it was the middle class bourgeoise that enjoyed prominence, while in China, the peasant group was stronger and more influential. The differences in the relative strength of the bourgeoise have influenced the development of the modern political systems. The bourgeoise affects the development of the political system through the nature of their views and objectives. In a country such as England, where it is the bourgeoise class, which is strong, this has a concomitant effect on the economy because it is then the market that regulates commercial agriculture. The aristocracy and prior royal feudal rule in Britain has therefore adapted itself to the emergence of the market economy and the competitive nature of politics. In a democracy, it is the market, which dictates the price of agricultural labor and thereby enables a control of the rural populations through the medium of the market. In the case of England, the feudal agrarian economy was weakened and dealt its deathblow in a bloody conflict that emerged in the late seventeenth century, although the objective of commercialized agriculture may have emerged even earlier during the sixteenth century, with the rise of the Yeoman farmers and peasant enclosures. (Moore, 1966:12-12). The interests of the peasants were subordinated to those of the middle class bourgeoise and the object of economic growth was to allow the market to fashion its development and growth. As a result, what emerged from the English revolution was an aristocracy, which promoted capitalism and democracy but not bureaucracy, thereby allowing it to remain in control where economic conditions in the country were concerned. In the case of China, the bourgeoise group was weak; it was the peasant class that was strong. As a result, the interest of the agrarian population could not be subordinated. While the move towards modernity was also the objective of regimes in countries such as China, this was not achieved through the market because the bourgeoise in these countries was too weak to ensure that attempts by the State to modernize were successful. The conventional means of modernization through the market thus failed in this country. In the case of China, the bourgeoise was not strong enough to pull down the structure of feudal society. Attempts to exert a fascist form of control also failed, because a coalition comprised of the feudal aristocracy and the bourgeoise attempting to exert a repressive influence upon the rural population, i.e, the peasant class, was unable to pull together enough clout to achieve modernization. Such repressive groups attempting to exert control from above only undermined the traditional means by which the strong peasant groups exerted their power and attempted to replace these peasant-controlled means through state controls, which were ultimately ineffective. As a result, the power of the ruling classes was reduced and its objective of modernization through exerting repressive control over the peasantry failed. On the contrary, the grievances of the peasants were strengthened, which in turn fuelled the revolutionary path leading to a communist dictatorship, where the interest of the peasants were held to be the desirable political objective to be attained. 2. According to McMichael, the process of globalization is one of global integration taking place on the basis of “market rule on a global scale”(McMichael, 2004:149). As a result, globalization is characterized by free trade, the move towards integrated financial markets and the development of capitalism. It is in effect, a political response to the relentless growth in the power of the free market. Globalization may also be characterized by the amalgamation of cultures and a move towards global convergence, where the emergence of the free market and the capitalistic economy is viewed as the equalizing factor that will ultimately bring about equitable economic growth in all countries. There is a strong capitalistic belief in the “moral necessity of market forces in the economy”; it is the entrepreneurs who play a primary role in the development and spurring of the economic market and the entrepreneurial spirit is the philosophy that integrates countries, markets and cultures, creating “networks of commodity exchanges that bind producers and consumers across the world.” (McMichael, 2004:6). Global development on the other hand does not take into account only economic development as the primary factor that can be equated to growth, although the achievement of economic benefits for all the nations of the world is a primary objective. Global development is thus characterized by the existence of a social contract, which the development States have with their citizens. (McMichael, 2004). Global development may not necessarily be inextricably associated with global convergence and economic equalization, as it is with globalization. The theory behind the notion of global convergence is that the free market is the ultimate equalizer that can produce equitable growth and equalization of economic output and incomes in all the countries of the world. But global development on the other hand, may not necessarily require global convergence. The objective of global development is to improve the lot of the developing and undeveloped countries and this may be achieved through State support of citizens or through loans provided by the developed countries and world bodies such as the IMF. The achievement of global economic equality is not necessarily an objective; rather the focus is upon improving the lot of the poorer countries. The objective of global development may be to ensure that developing and undeveloped countries are also able to achieve high levels of sustainable growth, in order to achieve economic parity among nations and improved purchasing power. As a result, the developed countries that have more wealth try to facilitate and promote economic growth and productivity in the poorer countries by providing loans to the poorer countries. The objective of globalization is the achievement of economic growth and the promotion of the capitalistic philosophy, which mandates a reduced level of intervention for the State in the regulation of the economy, which is to be left to the forces of the market. But with the move towards privatization and reduced levels of State intervention, debt restructuring now became more profitable in terms of private investment (McMichael, 2004:3). Therefore, the objective of globalization may be debt restructuring, while global development as stated above, would be oriented more towards ensuring that all countries, especially developing and undeveloped countries, are able to achieve sustainable growth. From the above, it may be noted that the major resource that is utilized in globalization is the free market; all means and measures utilized in globalization is to achieve the ultimate objective of global economic equality. Capitalism is therefore viewed as the founding policy that propels globalization, although it may produce spatial inequality and uneven development, with wealth aggregating to some countries while in others, the poverty is exacerbated. Where global development is concerned on the other hand, one of the main resources is a development fund distributed on the basis of promoting social and economic growth and upliftment in developing countries. Globalization is the outcome of global development, when capitalism becomes the dominant political philosophy. Global development at first is characterized by investment by Governments of rich countries by way of a social contract between the rich and poor nations, where the wealthier nations distribute loans and development funds to the poorer nations to help them to progress. But as McMichael (2004) points out the earlier policy of distributing development loans by rich countries to the poorer countries which was prevailing in the 1960s was replaced by the move towards globalization, where there was a resurgence of capitalism as the dominant political philosophy. The high levels of debt, which were being accrued by the developing nations that were unable to pay back the loans, resulted in a policy whereby the wealthier nations became more interested in debt restructuring and investment. Since there was also a change in world philosophy in favor of capitalism, propelled by neo liberal practices, this laid greater stress on the free market as being the vehicle through which global income inequalities could be addressed. The primary reliance on the free market and the promotion of the entrepreneurial spirit resulted in the integration of the world markets and the dissolving of trade barriers. Since there was also a simultaneous dissolution of geographical boundaries with technological development, i.e, the emergence of the Internet, the development of a global marketplace was facilitated. This in turn produced the phenomenon of globalization or the integration of the world’s financial markets. 3. The case of India is somewhat different from the other countries, because it emerged as neither a full fledged, capitalistic parliamentary democracy, not did it emerge as a fascist country or a communist dictatorship. During the 1960s the country was both democratic and non-modern. The arguments Moore has offered in his book to explain the peculiar political situation in India is that unlike other countries, India chose not to make the move towards modernization by allowing the violent revolutions and upheavals that were occurring in other countries. Moore(1966) argues that in the postcolonial period, the elites who were ruling India chose to leave the rural misery of the peasants intact. As a result, the move of society towards modernization never occurred at all in India, because not only were the bourgeoise too weak to push for a full democracy, there were in effect, no other players prepared to use violence in order to ensure that traditional power equations in traditional society were challenged so that modernity could develop. In effect, the case of India demonstrates the lack of development of the modern economy and “one may see the incapacity of this stratum to meet the challenge of the modern world merely with own intellectual and political resources.” (Moore, 1966: 440). On this basis, Moore has concluded that India emerged as a democracy that was not modern; this is also the reason why India failed to emerge as an influential nation, despite its enormous resource base. Firstly, the bourgeoise was not strong enough to pull down the structures of feudal society. Secondly, modernization was also not achieved from above through the emergence of a labor repressive regime comprised of a coalition of the feudal aristocracy and the bourgeoise. Thirdly, a peasant revolution did not emerge either, which could have produced a consolidation of power by a modern elite. As a result, the net result was that traditionalism persisted and the move towards modernization did not take place. In the absence of revolutionary processes that could lead to full fledged changes and the move towards modernity, the state which emerged falls into the category of a non modern democracy, which is different from the three major models that Moore has spelt out in his book – namely, a full fledged democracy, fascism, or communist dictatorship. One of the strengths of Moore’s arguments about India is that it heightens the importance of the bourgeoise in the development of a modern democracy. His arguments serve to explain why India, despite being a democracy and a state with tremendous influence and resources, has still failed to achieve progress and economic growth as rapidly as other countries have. But one of the limitations in his argument may be a failure to take into consideration other factors that could shape changes in an economy and the move towards modernization, apart from revolution and the role-played by the bourgeois class. Moore has claimed that in the case of India, it was the postcolonial elite that were largely responsible for India’s failure to mobilize a peasant revolution that could lead the country forward into modernity. He provides this justification to explain why India is a distinct case and does not fit into the frameworks of a capitalistic democracy, a fascist state or a communist model, which are the three primary models into which other influential countries of the world fit into. But McMichael(2004) challenges Moore’s claim on colonization, which offers the explanation for India’s slow progress despite the influence the country enjoys. McMichael has shown how colonization has in fact propelled the underlying forces of revolution that challenge a colonized nation to throw of the shackles of captivity and move towards progress by completely moving away from the policies of the colonizing ruler. In the case of India however, Moore appears to be arguing that India is clinging to the traditional, i.e, colonial practices, which is debatable considering that the country fought to liberate itself from the shackled of colonialism. While initially the colonizing nation maybe be able to bring about some progress in the colonized country, the ultimate purpose of such colonization is exploitation. Therefore, when the bourgeois is weak as in the case of India, the development that should accrue in accordance with Moore’s argument is a development towards the communist model. References: * McMichael, Philip, 2004. “Development and Social Change – a global perspective”, (3rd edn), Pine Forge Press * Moore, Barrington, 1966. “Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy”, Boston: Beacon Press Read More