Introduction
In answering this question, this essay has decided to consider two regime types: democracies and dictatorships. Dictatorships and democracies are two, almost polar opposite regime types. This has been displayed throughout history in the way both regimes manage to handle the change of political views in their society, and furthermore, the way they handle the social divisional cleavages alongside the political cleavages within their country.
Both regime types have positive and negative aspects, and in the enquiry of finding out which is best at handling political and social cleavages respectively throughout history. By looking at these two aspects, it aids us in understanding both regime types in the real world. Dictatorships tend to manage their cleavages in a harsher, more direct manner, either via the integration of the respective social/political cleavage or via the complete repression of said political/social cleavage. Whereas, democracies tend to embrace the differences in cleavages to form a system for the improvement of the masses.
Defining the question
To answer the question, the essay will first focus on breaking down each component of the question. Addressing the first half: “regime type”. The definition of democracy has varied from political scientist to political scientist, however there are a few definitions which seem to have held the test of time: Abraham Lincoln’s definition at the Gettysburg address 1864 and David Held’s definition. Lincoln’s definition is “the government of the people, by the people and for the people”. This definition is stating that the government must be comprised of citizens and the goals the government have in mind must be with the citizens intentions at heart. David Held’s definition is a bit more modernized: “Democracy entails a political community in which there is some form of political equality among the people”. Whichever definition you view, they all seem to have a set of similarities. These are that: the person in power should be elected, people’s participation is of prime importance, equal political opportunity, no discrimination in voting, and the ruler is to be held accountable for by the ruled.
On the other hand, a dictatorship is a form of government where one person has absolute power, enforced usually by the military. Autocracies can be broken down into 3 main typologies: monarchy, military dictatorships and civilian dictatorships. A monarchy is where the executive maintains power through kin networks. A military dictatorship is one where the executive relies on armed forces to come to and stay in power. Civilian dictatorships can be broken down further into two main subcategories: Dominant-party and personalistic dictatorships. Dominant-party dictatorships are where a single party dominates access to political office and is a party which is always in control, even though other parties may participate in the elections. Personalistic dictatorships are where one person, or a cult of personality rule, usually supported by a party or the military.
Now that the essay has classified and defined the different types of regimes, this essay must consider the definitions behind social and political cleavages. A cleavage (in political science) is broken down into 3 elements: structure (people forming together due to social routes for example race), attitudes (where people form together due to similar beliefs and ideologies) and institutions where the above two elements are politicised via the institutionalization of their ideologies and beliefs. Social cleavages, if they are strong and have a large following, tend to lead on to political cleavages. The difference between social and political cleavages is basically the lack institutionalization into the political system for social cleavages. Lipset and Rokkan believed that 4 main cleavages were originated from 2 revolutions: the industrial revolution which gave way to the rural-urban clash and the worker-owner cleavage, the national revolutions gave way to the centre-periphery cleavage and the state-church cleavage. This is so as these revolutions made societal divisive gaps due to socio-economic reasons, cultural divisions and a difference in values and interests.
Main text
Firstly, discussing social factors and how certain regimes operate regarding those factors. Ethnicity is something which society has historically, been quite divided on. Examples of this can be found throughout both regimes in the course of history. A key example of this is the civil rights movement which occurred in the United States of America between the years 1954 and 1968. This movement occurred due to racial segregation of African Americans in many different aspects, African American children were not allowed to attend white schools, they had specific seats on public transport, bars and restaurants could make their venues “white only”; these are a few examples. The first chapter of this movement which kick-started it would be the case of Brown v Board of Education where a group of African American students stood together in protest as their segregated schools were suffering due to a lower quality of education, overcrowding and failing facilities. The supreme court held on the 17th of May 1954 that it would be unconstitutional for public schools to be segregated and the segregation would have detrimental effects on the children latter life. On the 18th of May 1954 Greensboro became the first city to accept this precedent however many Americans were displeased, with a number of public schools closing and many Christian private schools were founded to aid the number of white children who were now, without a school due to closures. However, this was not a solution as the problem was much bigger, it was nonetheless a step in the right direction. Despite the 15th amendment (1870) granting blacks voting rights a lot of southern states required them to take literacy tests, which were often misleading and near on impossible to pass. This was changed on September 9th 1957 when president Eisenhower signed the civil rights act (1957) which enabled the federal prosecution of anyone who attempted to stop a particular person voting. Then in 1964, after the infamous Rosa Parks and the march on Washington president Lyndon B. Johnson signed the civil rights act of 1964, which enabled equal job opportunities and limited the use of literacy tests. Johnson then signed the voting rights act in 1965 which banned the use of literacy tests for voting. Lastly, the fair housing act was integrated into the legal system which was the last legislature passed in the civil rights movement. Undeterred by the violence caused at peaceful marches, the African American community had succeeded in achieving an America that did not have predisposed views on minority ethnicities. Although it may have taken a while, this cleavage had fulfilled their goals. Democracy, due to its very nature had to abide by what its citizens had wanted.
In stark contrast of the civil rights movement we have the third Reich rule in Germany throughout the years of 1933-1945. When Hitler became chancellor in 1933 he did not directly prosecute jews, instead focusing mainly on political opponents. After the events of the Reichstag fire Hitler made it his main objective to pass the enabling act. This act would allow him legislative power without the involvement of the Reichstag (parliament), in essence making him a dictator. Hitler would require an absolute majority in the Reichstag to pass this act, which he achieved by joining with the German National People’s party to bring his majority to 52%. Latterly, he then appointed the blame to the communist party (KPD) for the Reichstag fire so any involvement in this party would be treated as an act of treason, therefore allowing the legal prosecution of those in the party. After the mass arrests of the KPD and any involved members the Nazi party went from a plurality party to a majority, therefore allowing the consolidation of his power. In 1935, the Nuremberg laws were passed which excluded jews from German citizenship and limited their rights Jewish shops had been marked with a star of david, and not allowed german clientele, furthermore they were not allowed in many public areas that german people populated and soon they had removed jewish lawyers and decimated jewish businesses, not all too dissimilar from the civil rights movement where African Americans were not allowed certain jobs, had designated seats to not allow the mingling between ethnicities. However, the difference between the two regimes in this scenario is that the American democracy took steps amending the problems the cleavage had brought up (even though it took arguably longer than it needed to), whereas the dictatorial German regime took steps in a different direction offering a harsher turn for Jewish people and people of the non-Aryan race. Hitler used the manipulation of the media and his powerful SA to bully jewish people into either: leaving the country or getting sent to a concentration camp. Night of the broken knives is a prime example where the SA had taken to the German streets in an attempt to burn and ransack jewish synagogues, stores and homes. Alongside this 30,000 jewish people were incarcerated on that day (9-10 November 1938) and sent to concentration camps. It is estimated that between 160,000 and 180,000 German Jews were killed throughout the process of Hitlers dictatorship.
Next, looking at political cleavages in the UK. Since the 1920’s the two main political parties have been conservative and labour. Labour being centre-left whereas conservative is more centre-right. These parties have to appeal to the downs median voter as the uk has a majoritarian system of two parties competing for power. This system narrows down the potential parties and does not give rise to more extremist parties as they have to appeal to the median voter to achieve a majority in the house of commons. This creates cleavages within the parties that the parties have to appeal to. For example, taking a look at this table:
Here we can see that the conservative party appears to appeal towards managers and people who are wealthier, whereas unskilled and in general, labour workers prefer to vote for the labour party. This appeal towards wealthier people was shown in 2010 when one of their key policies was to reduce the number of people claiming state benefits, and opposed the creation of a national minimum wage, believing that this would cause less new business start-up. This is what we would call the owner vs worker cleavage, where conservatives appeal to those wanting to start a business, as opposed to those possibly on benefits or people just starting off employment.
Contrasting this with a dictatorial system this essay will consider communist Russia. Specifically looking at Joseph Stalin’s rule. Stalin would write a new constitution in 1936 which he had labelled as highly “democratic”, however this was far from the case. This new constitution would only allow members of the communist party to stand in elections as Stalin believed that the USSR only needed one political party, and any more would cause class conflict generated by capitalism. Stalin enforced his communist ways through the use of the NKVD, the secret police. Any opposition to Stalin’s policies would most likely be executed or imprisoned in harsh labour camps, the threat of terror was more than enough to stop any political parties trying to oppose him. This was a case of loyalty enforced by terror. The fact that there was only one party meant that no cleavages could arise, as people only had one option when voting.