Political regimes and advanced liberal oligarchies

• Published in: Constellations (Oxford, England) Vol. 26; no. 1; pp. 78 - 93
• Main Author: Domingues, José Maurício
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.03.2019
• Subjects: Capitalism; Class struggle; Classification; Coalitions; Democracy; Democratization; Economic problems; Fascism; Oligarchy; Oppression; Political systems; Radicalism; State role
• ISSN: 1351-0487; 1467-8675
• DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12379

Political regimes have often been a key issue in the study of politics. Lately they have not been center‐stage, except in the case of laggards and less than perfect or incomplete transitions to democracy. Yet, there has been a wave of change in liberal democratic regimes requiring us to seek a view from a distinct angle. The piecemeal, albeit steady emergence of what I call the advanced liberal oligarchic regime demands a renewed theorization of political regimes. My goal here is to characterize modern regimes in their different aspects and types. This includes advanced liberal oligarchies, a type of liberal regime in which existing democratic elements are blocked from developing. The discussion focuses on theoretical issues, although I mention a number of empirical instances. Liberal democracy was more distinctively established in the West and partly in Latin America than elsewhere and my discussion pertains more directly to the study of these areas (conflicts between political forces having, at least thus far, retained more significance in the latter). Its import, however, is globally oriented (India, South Africa, and a handful of other countries should not be overlooked in this regard). In order to tackle each case empirically, other elements, usually related to particular civilizational heritages, must be introduced, taking us beyond the limits of the present discussion. I dwell here especially on the political dimension proper in its autonomous development, although other social dimensions are incorporated to the portrait of political regimes. The internal and separate dynamic of the state political system, as well as of the societal political system to some extent, is as important as the relation and mediation between them. My approach differs subtly from ideal‐typical ones, which are fundamentally empirical insofar as they generalize or select from a few and even a single case, and then exaggerate such features to build a pure concept (hence ideal‐typical) that will later be confronted once again with reality. Whether regimes have been framed according to this methodological strategy or not, the classification of regimes I suggest in the last section is analytical rather than ideal‐typical: it is based on breaking‐down regimes into their constitutive elements rather than on deriving them directly from empirical observation. This enables their characterization according to analytically‐built types which provide models of regime to be used in the examination of singular empirical cases. Two currents have dominated the discussion of political regimes. The first is the preserve of Marxist‐influenced strands that emphasize the societal side of the divide, and, moreover, the requirements and dynamic of economic life; that is to say, capitalism. In a former theoretical incarnation, O'Donnell (1973, 1978, 1982), in his important assessment of the bureaucratic‐authoritarian regime (which he sometimes called system or state), fell prey to this error. This led him to spend most of his two books and several articles discussing not political systems or regimes at all, but instead problems of capital accumulation and class struggle, with direct reference to economic issues, impasses, and new starts, in a situation of dependency (see also Collier, 1979, pp. 23ff and Poulantzas, 1970/1974). On the other hand, we find authors in the liberal camp, such as Schmitter and Karl (1992), who reduce regimes—explicitly or implicitly—to government; that is, the rules that steer its functioning: short shrift is given to the societal side of the equation or to the whole state apparatus, which must be considered in any proper analysis of regimes. Although still skewed towards the state, the systematic view presented by the Colliers is more balanced. For them a regime consists of the formal and informal structure of state, and governmental roles and processes, including the method of selection of government and representative assemblies, formal and informal mechanisms of representation, and patterns of repression. A regime must also be distinguished from the incumbents who occupy state and governmental roles, the political coalitions backing them and the public policies they adopt (Collier & Collier, 2002, p. 789). The advanced liberal oligarchic regime is the greatest global threat to democratic development today. Often fascist revivals are cast in this role, but these regimes are much less likely to happen. Without doubt, such forces must not be taken lightly, but what looms menacingly in the horizon is rather a more thorough oligarchization of liberal democracy. This can be commanded by truly right‐wing forces, but also by liberal‐oligarchic ruling collectivities. However, societal dynamics point to a radicalization of individualization and to a demand for more democracy—and, sometimes, radical democracy. This article therefore discusses different modern political regimes, yet is also attentive to this second possibility, which does not exist in reality. I refrain from trying to sketch its potential contours, opting for a very general characterization of a few analytical elements, as my approach is critical‐immanent rather than abstractly normative.