Search results

The ideological factor plays a decisive role in the formation & operation of pol'al systems. To study it, we must adopt modern US &, to a large degree French, theories which reject the purely 'Institutional' approach now favored in Germany. In fact, the pol'al ideology inherent in each pol'al system creates of itself compatible institutions, & the functioning of these institutions is determined by the dominating ideology. Before one can speak of ideology, a certain number of conditions must be present (its formulation should be comprehensible to the large mass of people, it should seek to influence this mass rather than an elite, it should be oriented toward the satisfaction of the desires or human needs which the average man experiences as soc values). Just as pol'al theory may involuntarily become ideology, so may a simple defense of a specific material interest also take on ideological characteristics. It is now possible to draw up a catalog of the principal types of pol'al ideologies: absolutism, constitutionalism, individualism (including liberal capitalism, anarchism, & humanism), soc collectivism (including State capitalism as well as 'Welfare State'), nationalism & finally, aristocracy. Under institutions should be classed not only constitutional organs, but `pressure groups' as well. With this as a base, a true ontology of the forms of gov can be undertaken. (Translated by Z. Dana from IPSA).

Formerly the diffusion & circulation of ideologies had a kind of spontaneity, not systematic, but sporadic. But today this diffusion takes place by a very conscious process controlled by professional news organs, parties, & special interest groups. At the same time, pol'al ideology cannot be separated from ideologies of a diff type (econ, religious, moral). We are approaching a total ideology which is taking hold on a large scale of all aspects of the life of the individual. Now in spite of their rational foundations, modern ideologies have an emotional determination & are charged with affectivity. They are tending more & more to draw nearer to religions. It is a tragic paradox to see liberalism & democracy, which were founded on the idea of tolerance, assume as absolute & inflexible a character as other monolithic ideologies. Finally, today all ideologies are oriented toward concrete institutions with the result that a pol'al theory which does not have an active pol'al program has lost its raison d'etre. Perhaps this explains the sterility of contemporary pol'al philosophy. Tr from IPSA. Adapted from the source document.

The personalization of power-or leadership-is a recent phenomenon in present-day democratic societies. While it has been traditional in the US & in GB, leadership has now become influential in the continental democracies (Italy, West Germany, France). The substitution of this personalization for the institutionalization of power has upset the classical interpretation of democratic systems. This evolution has come about because of the natural tendency of individuals to see power incarnate in an individual, & also by a crisis in these democratic structures & by the establishment of new regimes following the end of WWII. However, all democratic leaderships do not look the same: Institutional leadership functions on a permanent basis in the US (presidential leadership) & in GB (party leadership); leadership personnel are of many kinds, without having yet succeeded in becoming integrated with existing institutions, even under the form of a national leadership which has been tried in France of the 5th Republic. A theory of democratic leadership is still lacking. Such a leadership is legitimatized by democratic prestige & a responsibility which is more moral than constitutional. The exercise of leadership cannot be derived from constitutional rules; its effectiveness depends essentially on the democratic conscience of the leader & the civic conscience of the citizens. Tr by J. A. Broussard from IPSA.

The US & the USSR, so opposite in appearance, are yet in reality alike on many points. Their phsycial & natural set's are presently at the same level & the notion of a bourgeois sci finds little support. The 2 systems of educ are becoming more alike. The sociol'ts, while they look at problems differently, are nonetheless using a common language. The ethical structures as well as the basis of law are the same. As for the arts, they are more & more divorcing themselves from socialist reality in the USSR while US citizens are reading Soviet authors & seeing Soviet films. As for philosophy, the USSR has not established a monopoly on materialism & still reflects many traces of idealism. Soc & econ institutions in the 2 countries are becoming more & more alike, & their diff's reside in their various forms of soc relations. Finally, on the pol'al level, the USSR is becoming more liberal, while during the last few decades militarism & the ideology of intolerance have appeared in the US. Tr by J. A.Broussard from IPSA.