DOCSLIB.ORG

ON the CONFLICT BETWEEN DEMOCRACY and POPULISM a Cross-Country Analysis of Belgium, Netherlands and the United Kingdom

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ON the CONFLICT BETWEEN DEMOCRACY and POPULISM a Cross-Country Analysis of Belgium, Netherlands and the United Kingdom ON THE CONFLICT BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND POPULISM A cross-country analysis of Belgium, Netherlands and the United Kingdom Niek Hinsenveld – s1009788 Prof. Dr. M.R.R. Ossewaarde (University Twente) Dr. L.A. Nguyen Long (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universitat Münster) Final Version 20-03-2017 ABSTRACT This research delves into the tensions come forth within a liberal democracy when populist parties arise. It is argued that populism is an aspect which automatically comes forth within a liberal democracy when it transitions towards a post-democracy. Something which might happen automatically due to inherent tendencies happening within a liberal democratic society. A liberal democracy is a society in which the majority decides but the civil liberties are protected. Populism in this research is defined as a thin-ideology with chameleonic a chameleonic nature. This research focusses on the evolution of populist discourse within the party manifestos of five distinguishable parties over the course of four elections across three countries, the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands. It does so in order to determine how the tensions between populism and the liberal democratic tradition comes forth within party manifestos and election programs. Key-words: Populism; liberal democracy; post-democracy; discourse analysis; Tocqueville; - 1 - INDEX Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... - 1 - List of Tables and figures ........................................................................................................................ - 4 - 1. introduction .................................................................................................................................... - 5 - 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... - 5 - 1.2 Research Question ....................................................................................................................... - 8 - 1.3 Approach .................................................................................................................................... - 10 - 2. (liberal) Democracy and its demons (Theoretical Framework) ......................................... - 11 - 2.1 What is a democratic society? ......................................................................................... - 11 - 2.2 ConceptualiZing Liberal democracy ............................................................................... - 12 - 2.2.1 What is Liberal democracy ........................................................................................ - 12 - 2.2.2 The tensions between Liberal democracy and Populism ................................... - 14 - 2.3 (Liberal) democratic tendencies and their affects on society ................................... - 16 - 2.3.1 Undesirable tendencies within democracy ........................................................... - 17 - 2.3.2 Dangers of a democratic society according to Tocqueville ............................. - 18 - 2.3.3 Mass democracy – How to rule them all ................................................................ - 20 - 2.3.4 Demagogurey – One to rule them all ..................................................................... - 21 - 2.4 Populism and its non-democratic partners..................................................................... - 22 - 2.4.1 Fascism & communism, stage 4 populism? ............................................................ - 23 - 2.4.2 Neo-Totalitarianism ...................................................................................................... - 24 - 2.5 What is a post-democratic society? ................................................................................ - 25 - 2.6 interpretations and preliminary conclusions ................................................................... - 26 - 3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................ - 29 - 3.1 What is a Discourse Analysis? ............................................................................................ - 29 - 3.2 Case selection – Countries & Parties ................................................................................ - 30 - 3.2.1 Country selection ......................................................................................................... - 30 - 3.2.2 Party Selection ............................................................................................................. - 31 - 3.2.2.1 Party Selection the Netherlands ........................................................................... - 31 - 3.2.2.2 Party selection Belgium .......................................................................................... - 32 - 3.2.2.3 Party selection United Kingdom ........................................................................... - 33 - - 2 - Data and the data collection method ...................................................................................... - 33 - 3.3 Coding Scheme & method of analysis ............................................................................ - 34 - 3.3.1 How is the researsch conducted? – A step by step guide ................................. - 34 - 3.3.2 The coding Scheme .................................................................................................... - 36 - 3.4 Preliminary conclusion of methods chapter ................................................................... - 38 - 4. Analysis of the populist discourse ............................................................................................. - 39 - 4.1 The visible tension between liberal democratic and populist discourse ........................ - 39 - 4.1.1 Analysing the party manifestos discourse on tensions................................................ - 39 - 4.1.1 Preliminary conclusion – tensions within Party Manifesto’s .................................. - 46 - 4.2 The evolution of the populist Discourse in Party Manifesto’s ....................................... - 48 - 4.2.1 analysing the populist discourse ............................................................................... - 48 - 4.2.1.1 Heartland .................................................................................................................. - 48 - 4.2.1.2 The ‘Good’ People vs. The ‘Corrupt’ Elite .......................................................... - 51 - 4.2.1.3 Primacy of Popular sovereignty ............................................................................ - 54 - 4.2.1.4 Hostility representative Government and its Institutions .................................. - 55 - 4.2.2 preliminary conclusion – Evolution of populist discourse ..................................... - 56 - 5. Conclusion and Discussion ........................................................................................................ - 58 - 5.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. - 58 - 5.2 Discussion and further research ........................................................................................ - 63 - 6. Reference List ............................................................................................................................... - 66 - 7. Appendixes ................................................................................................................................... - 71 - 7.1 Appendix I – Overview of Party manifestos .................................................................... - 71 - - 3 - LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1 Chosen Dutch parties including party ideology and position on political spectrum- 32 - Table 2 Chosen Belgian parties including party ideology and position on political spectrum .... - 32 - Table 3 Chosen United Kingdom parties including party ideology and position on political spectrum ................................................................................................................................................ - 33 - Table 4 Parties sorted by political spectrum and party ideology ............................................... - 35 - Table 5 Codebook for the discourse analysis into populist discourse ........................................ - 37 - Figure 1 - differences in anti-elite rhetoric Source: Author ........................................................... - 56 - Figure 2 - Different levels of elite Source: author ............................................................................ - 61 - - 4 - 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND During the course of history democracy has always been a much-debated concept. Its origin is often said to be in ancient Athens. In current day politics democracy is, again, at the heart of the debate. But what exactly is democracy? The word democracy is derived from the Greek word of Demokratia, which in essence means rule, Kratos, by the people, demos. Democracy is a form of governance. But democracy is also a form of society. At first glance the concept ‘Rule by the people’ seems unambiguous. But it is not. As David Held (2006) asks his readers: ‘Rule?’- ‘Rule by?’- ‘the People?’. Who are these people? What does being ruled by the people mean? The concept of democracy is used differently within rival theories
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Demos in Demokratia.Pdf
    The Classical Quarterly 1–20 © The Classical Association (2019) 1 doi:10.1017/S0009838819000636 THE DĒMOS IN DĒMOKRATIA* The meaning of dēmokratia is widely agreed: ‘rule by the people’ (less often ‘people- power’), where dēmos, ‘people’, implies ‘entire citizen body’, synonymous with polis, ‘city-state’,orπάντες πολίται, ‘all citizens’.1 Dēmos, on this understanding, comprised rich and poor, leaders and followers, mass and elite alike. As such, dēmokratia is interpreted as constituting a sharp rupture from previous political regimes.2 Rule by one man or by a few had meant the domination of one part of the community over the rest, but dēmokratia, it is said, implied self-rule, and with it the dissolution of the very distinction between ruler and ruled.3 Its governing principle was the formal political equality of all citizens. In the words of W.G. Forrest, between 750 and 450 B.C. there had developed ‘the idea of individual human autonomy … the idea that all members of a political society are free and equal, that everyone had the right to an equal say in determining the structure and the activities of his society’.4 * Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2013 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, the 2015 meeting of the Northeastern Political Science Association and the department of Classics at Yale in 2016. In addition to those audiences, I thank Cliff Ando, Victor Bers, Paul Cammack, Paul Cartledge, David Grewal, Kinch Hoekstra, David Lewis, John Mulhern, Hari Ramesh, Gunnar Seelentag, George Scialabba, Richard Tuck, John Tully, Jane Mansbridge, Josiah Ober, John Zumbrunnen, two anonymous referees and my colleagues in the department of Political Science at Yale, where this research was completed.
    [Show full text]
  • LORD BOLINGBROKE's THEORY of PARTY and OPPOSITION1 By
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by St Andrews Research Repository Max Skjönsberg, HJ, Oct 2015 LORD BOLINGBROKE’S THEORY OF PARTY AND OPPOSITION1 By MAX SKJÖNSBERG, London School of Economics and Political Science Abstract: Bolingbroke has been overlooked by intellectual historians in the last few decades, at least in comparison with ‘canonical’ thinkers. This article examines one of the most important but disputable aspects of his political thought: his views on political parties and his theory of opposition. It aims to demonstrate that Bolingbroke’s views on party have been misunderstood and that it is possible to think of him as an advocate of political parties rather than the ‘anti-party’ writer he is commonly known as. It has been suggested that Bolingbroke prescribed a state without political parties. By contrast, this article seeks to show that Bolingbroke was in fact the promoter of a very specific party, a systematic parliamentary opposition party in resistance to what he perceived as the Court Whig faction in power. It will 1 I have benefited from comments by Adrian Blau, Tim Hochstrasser, Paul Keenan, Robin Mills, and Paul Stock, as well as conversations with J. C. D. Clark, Richard Bourke, and Quentin Skinner at various stages of this project. As usual, however, the buck stops with the writer. I presented an earlier and shorter version of this article at the inaugural Early-Modern Intellectual History Postgraduate Conference at Newcastle University in June 2015. Eighteenth-century spelling has been kept in quotations throughout as have inconsistencies in spelling.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unsettled Debate: Monarchy and Republic in Spain and Greece in the Interwar Years*
    ■ Assaig] ENTREMONS. UPF JOURNAL OF WORLD HISTORY Barcelona ﺍ Universitat Pompeu Fabra Número 6 (juny 2014) www.entremons.org The Unsettled Debate: Monarchy and Republic in Spain and Greece in the Interwar Years* Enric UCELAY-DA CAL (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) abstract The following essay examines the political development in Spain and Greece between the World War I and World War II, comparing these two Mediterranean countries and placing them in a broader European and global context. The conflict between the supporters of monarchy and republic as forms of government was extremely important in the political debate in both countries, and shaped their history in a quite remarkable way. The discussion of these intricate dynamics will help to appreciate the problems that Spain and Greece faced at that time, and can also contribute to a deeper understanding of some key features of the historical change in these two countries. resumen El siguiente ensayo examina el desarrollo político en España y Grecia en el período entre la Primera y la Segunda Guerra Mundial, comparando estos dos países mediterráneos y situándolos en un contexto europeo y global más amplio. El conflicto entre los partidarios de la monarquía y la república como formas de gobierno fue muy importante en el debate político de ambos países, influyendo en su historia de una manera muy notable. La discusión de estas dinámicas complicadas ayudará a apreciar mejor los problemas a los que España y Grecia se enfrentaban en ese momento, contribuyendo asimismo a una comprensión más profunda de algunas de las características clave del cambio histórico en estos dos países.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracies and International Relations
    Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2019, 7, 249-271 http://www.scirp.org/journal/jss ISSN Online: 2327-5960 ISSN Print: 2327-5952 Democracies and International Relations Dingyu Chung Utica, Michigan, USA How to cite this paper: Chung, D. (2019) Abstract Democracies and International Relation. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7, 249-271. This paper proposes the five different democracies and their international re- https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2019.77023 lations. Democracy literally means that power (kratos) belongs to the com- mon people (demos) instead of dictators and inherited kings-aristocrats. Dif- Received: June 21, 2019 Accepted: July 23, 2019 ferent types of powers and different types of the common people constitute Published: July 26, 2019 different types of democracies. Within a democratic nation, the intergroup relation among different social groups can be competitive or cooperative. The Copyright © 2019 by author(s) and most conventional democracy is liberal democracy where power, intergroup Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative relation, and people are liberty, competition, and all people, respectively. The Commons Attribution International power of the liberty to compete belongs to all people. All people have liberty License (CC BY 4.0). to compete. Democracies in general are the combinations of different powers http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (elitism, tradition, liberty, equality, and wellbeing), different intergroup rela- Open Access tions (competition and cooperation), and different people (few, most, and all). Therefore, depending on powers, intergroup relations, and people, the five democracies are elite democracy (elitism, competition, few people), na- tionalist democracy (tradition, competition, most people), liberal democracy (liberty, competition, all people), socialist democracy (equality, competition, all people), and relationalist democracy (wellbeing, cooperation, all people).
    [Show full text]
  • How Our Democracy Works
    How our democracy works The Constitution South Africa is a constitutional democracy. The Constitution is the highest law. No person can go against it, not even the President. Parliament cannot pass any laws that go against it. The courts and the government must also make sure that what they do is constitutional. The Constitution guarantees democracy through giving every person over 18 the right to vote and ensuring one voters' roll for all adult citizens, regular elections, and a multi-party system of government. These important parts of the Constitution can only be changed if 75% of the members of the National Assembly and six of the nine provinces agree. All aspects of how our democracy works are explained in the Constitution. What is democracy? The word 'democracy' comes from the Greek word demokratia which means 'government by the people'. • Democracy is a balance between 'might' and 'right'. The state takes all the power (it has all the 'might'), but its power must be limited so that it does not abuse this power (to make sure it does 'right'). The Constitution guarantees the independence of the courts and establishes six independent institutions to protect citizens: the Public Protector, the Human Rights Commission, the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, the Commission for Gender Equality, the Auditor General and the Independent Electoral Commission. • Democracy is about balancing rights and responsibilities. Citizens can expect the government to do things for them like providing protection, health services, education and housing. Citizens also have responsibilities like obeying the law and paying tax to the state.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rule of Law As the Measure of Political Legitimacy in the Greek City States
    Hague J Rule Law DOI 10.1007/s40803-017-0054-1 ARTICLE The Rule of Law as the Measure of Political Legitimacy in the Greek City States Mirko Canevaro1 © The Author(s) 2017. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract This paper explores how a conception of the rule of law (embodied in a variety of legal and political institutions) came to affirm itself in the world of the ancient Greek city states. It argues that such a conception, formulated in opposition to the arbitrary rule of man, was to a large extent consistent with modern ideas of the rule of law as a constraint to political power, and to their Fullerian requirements of formal legality, as well as to requirements of due process. The article then analyses how this ideal was formulated in the Archaic period, and how it became a key feature of Greek identity. Finally, it argues that in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE it came to be used as the measure of the legitimacy of Greek political systems: democracy and oligarchy, as they engaged in an ideological battle, were judged as legitimate (and desirable) or illegitimate (and undesirable) on the basis of their conformity with a shared ideal of the rule of law. Then as now, to quote Tamanaha, ‘the rule of law’ was ‘an accepted measure worldwide of government legitimacy’. Keywords Ancient Greece · Athens · Democracy · Oligarchy · Tyranny 1 Introduction The starting point of Tamanaha’s (2004, p. 3) much cited book-length study on the rule of law is the recognition that ‘the rule of law is an accepted measure worldwide of government legitimacy’.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Gods and Kings: Natural Philosophy and Politics in the Leibniz-Clarke Disputes Steven Shapin Isis, Vol. 72, No. 2. (Jun., 1981), Pp
    Of Gods and Kings: Natural Philosophy and Politics in the Leibniz-Clarke Disputes Steven Shapin Isis, Vol. 72, No. 2. (Jun., 1981), pp. 187-215. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-1753%28198106%2972%3A2%3C187%3AOGAKNP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C Isis is currently published by The University of Chicago Press. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Mon Aug 20 10:29:37 2007 Of Gods and Kings: Natural Philosophy and Politics in the Leibniz-Clarke Disputes By Steven Shapin* FTER TWO AND A HALF CENTURIES the Newton-Leibniz disputes A continue to inflame the passions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of Kremlin-Friendly Populism in the Netherlands
    CICERO FOUNDATION GREAT DEBATE PAPER No. 18/04 June 2018 THE RISE OF KREMLIN-FRIENDLY POPULISM IN THE NETHERLANDS MARCEL H. VAN HERPEN Director The Cicero Foundation Cicero Foundation Great Debate Paper No. 18/04 © Marcel H. Van Herpen, 2018. ISBN/EAN 978-90-75759-17-4 All rights reserved The Cicero Foundation is an independent pro-Atlantic and pro-EU think tank, founded in Maastricht in 1992. www.cicerofoundation.org The views expressed in Cicero Foundation Great Debate Papers do not necessarily express the opinion of the Cicero Foundation, but they are considered interesting and thought-provoking enough to be published. Permission to make digital or hard copies of any information contained in these web publications is granted for personal use, without fee and without formal request. Full citation and copyright notice must appear on the first page. Copies may not be made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage. 2 The Rise of Kremlin-Friendly Populism in the Netherlands Marcel H. Van Herpen EARLY POPULISM AND THE MURDERS OF FORTUYN AND VAN GOGH The Netherlands is known as a tolerant and liberal country, where extremist ideas – rightwing or leftwing – don’t have much impact. After the Second World War extreme right or populist parties played only a marginal role in Dutch politics. There were some small fringe movements, such as the Farmers’ Party ( Boerenpartij ), led by the maverick “Boer Koekoek,” which, in 1967, won 7 seats in parliament. In 1981 this party lost its parliamentary representation and another party emerged, the extreme right Center Party ( Centrum Partij ), led by Hans Janmaat.
    [Show full text]
  • Herodotus and the Origins of Political Philosophy the Beginnings of Western Thought from the Viewpoint of Its Impending End
    Herodotus and the Origins of Political Philosophy The Beginnings of Western Thought from the Viewpoint of its Impending End A doctoral thesis by O. H. Linderborg Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in Engelska Parken, 7-0042, Thunbergsvägen 3H, Uppsala, Monday, 3 September 2018 at 14:00 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The examination will be conducted in English. Faculty examiner: Docent Elton Barker (Open University). Abstract Linderborg, O. H. 2018. Herodotus and the Origins of Political Philosophy. The Beginnings of Western Thought from the Viewpoint of its Impending End. 224 pp. Uppsala: Department of Linguistics and Philology, Uppsala University. ISBN 978-91-506-2703-9. This investigation proposes a historical theory of the origins of political philosophy. It is assumed that political philosophy was made possible by a new form of political thinking commencing with the inauguration of the first direct democracies in Ancient Greece. The pristine turn from elite rule to rule of the people – or to δημοκρατία, a term coined after the event – brought with it the first ever political theory, wherein fundamentally different societal orders, or different principles of societal rule, could be argumentatively compared. The inauguration of this alternative-envisioning “secular” political theory is equaled with the beginnings of classical political theory and explained as the outcome of the conjoining of a new form of constitutionalized political thought (cratistic thinking) and a new emphasis brought to the inner consistency of normative reasoning (‘internal critique’). The original form of political philosophy, Classical Political Philosophy, originated when a political thought launched, wherein non-divinely sanctioned visions of transcendence of the prevailing rule, as well as of the full range of alternatives disclosed by Classical Political Theory, first began to be envisioned.
    [Show full text]
  • The Parallel and Interdependent Political Evolutions in the West and the East: Eusocial Politics
    Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2021, 9, 279-338 https://www.scirp.org/journal/jss ISSN Online: 2327-5960 ISSN Print: 2327-5952 The Parallel and Interdependent Political Evolutions in the West and the East: Eusocial Politics Dingyu Chung Utica, Michigan, USA How to cite this paper: Chung, D. Y. Abstract (2021). The Parallel and Interdependent Political Evolutions in the West and the This paper proposes that the parallel and interdependent political evolutions East: Eusocial Politics. Open Journal of through the political transformations in the technological Ages are derived Social Sciences, 9, 279-338. from the individualistic West originated from Greece based on pastoral-trade https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2021.95016 culture and the collectivistic East originated from China based on agrarian Received: March 29, 2021 culture. The three types of politics are territorial politics with rigid boundary, Accepted: May 15, 2021 individualistic politics with flexible boundary, and collectivistic politics with Published: May 18, 2021 flexible boundary. In the New Stone, Bronze, Iron, Industrial, Information, Copyright © 2021 by author(s) and and Intelligence Ages, the politics in the West are territorial hereditary pas- Scientific Research Publishing Inc. toral-trade tribe, individualistic hereditary nation alliance, individualistic elec- This work is licensed under the Creative tive mega empire, individualistic individual liberal democracy, individualistic Commons Attribution International multilateral organization, and individualistic eusocial politics, respectively, License (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ while the politics in the East are territorial hereditary agrarian tribe, collecti- Open Access vistic hereditary feudal nation, collectivistic civil service mega empire, collec- tivistic common professional democracy, collectivistic multilateral organiza- tion, collectivistic eusocial politics, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Affairs in Europe
    State of affairs in Europe Workshop of Transform and Rosa Luxem- burg Foundation, July 7- 9 2016 Franz-Mehring-Platz 1, 10243 Berlin Documentation Cornelia Hildebrandt/Luci Wagner 30.07.2017 DOCUMENTATION: BERLIN SEMINAR 2016 2 Introduction This documentation is produced as a material outcome of the two days workshop that was organised by transform! Europe and the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation on 7 - July 2019 in Berlin under the title “State of affairs in Europe”. This European seminar aimed to bring together left-wing political actors and scholars to debate the possibilities of common perspectives and political action of the Left in Europe. When the preparation process of this seminar started the political landscape was of course different. Against the backdrop of blackmail of SYRIZA government in the nego- tiations with the institutions , further cuts to pensions and social benefits make the mass protests against these measures as against the implementation of the privatization, the continuation of neoliberal politics, the alarming soar of the far right in numerous coun- tries, but also the introduction of a progressive government in Portugal with the support of the left parties , the electoral success of Unidos Podemos in Spain etc., we believed that a new determination of the positioning of the Left is necessary. This is still our be- lief, despite the crucial and controversial developments that took place in Europe during 2017. In 2016 a respectable number of conferences, seminars and debates had been taken place (especially the foundation and conferences of DiEM-25, the conference ‘Building alliances to Fight Austerity and to Reclaim Democracy’ in Athens organized by trans- form!, the Party of the European Left and Nicos Poulantzas Institute, the “Plan B” - con- ferences and the strategy conference of the RLS).
    [Show full text]
  • The Language of Impartiality and Party-Political Discourse in England, 1680–1745
    THE LANGUAGE OF IMPARTIALITY AND PARTY-POLITICAL DISCOURSE IN ENGLAND, 1680–1745 Christine Gerrard The terms ‘impartiality’ and, more particularly, ‘impartial’, play an impor- tant, if curiously under-researched role in party-political discourse dur- ing the period 1680–1745. This is the period that witnessed the birth of political parties in England, following the bitter ideological divisions of the English Civil War and the restored monarchy of Charles II in 1660. Charles’ royalist supporters in Parliament became known as ‘Tories’ and their opponents, who attacked absolutist rule and the succession of Charles’s Catholic brother James, were dubbed ‘Whigs’. Both labels orig- inally derived from insults hurled at one party by the other. The term ‘party’ itself had negative connotations during this period, and both Whigs and Tories made strenuous efforts to demonstrate that they were not a ‘political party’ but represented the interests of the nation at large. Recent studies of the language which the Whigs and Tories used to try to prove their non-partisanship have focused on their rival efforts to appropriate key terms such as ‘patriot’, ‘patriotism’, ‘country party’, ‘national interest’ and ‘public spirit’.1 These contested terms, however, overlap in important ways with an evolving political discourse of impartiality. The emergence of impartiality, as other essays in this volume will attest, is more often associated with developments in science, historiography, moral philoso- phy, and ethics, than with the cut-and-thrust world of party-politics. Yet the two terms ‘impartial’ and ‘party’ are of course semantically linked. To be ‘impartial’ means to be of no party, to be ‘non-partisan’.
    [Show full text]