Suchergebnisse

A synthesis of a variety of recent writings on the opinionpolicy process in democracies. The process is understood to mean how what people think is related to what gov does. The basic assumption of modern pol'al societies is that of mutual interaction & the influence of individuals & groups. 5 types of groups into which individuals in our society are categorized are: econ, moralistic-ritualistic, artistic-recreational, & pol'al. This extremely complex & multidimensional network of individuals & groups constitutes the continuously changing mold out of which public policy is made. A model of the opinion-policy process in modern democracy is proposed in which democracy is defined as 'a system in which a large electorate is fairly frequently allowed to decide upon the general tendencies of gov'al action, mainly by choosing, from competing leadership groups, officials to make specific policy: in the intervals between elections the people, individually & collectively, are encouraged to discuss & debate policy & freely to communicate their own opinion to the leadership groups.' The relation of PO to public policy is discussed re the 2 major (but in operational sense separable) problems of democratic practice: the majority-minority problem & the direct-representative problem. In a representative democracy the legislature may make policy which is contrary to majority opinion. Whether it is a `good' or `bad' thing is in the end a matter of individual judgment. Majority PO may be `wrong' in that it may adopt a position that is incompatible with the future operation of the democratic process. The history of civil liberties in the US, eg, contains a number of instances of minority defense of basic democratic rights in the face of large, possibly majority, opinion which would deny these rights. Further, power makes policy in human affairs. For the democrat the real issue is not the existence of the power struggle itself but it is the pol'al, econ, & soc conditions within which the struggle takes place. These conditions & the way in which they are instit'ized determine whether or not the policy-making process can be termed democratic. S. Schwartz.

Almost all the recent work on the British Labor party has been concerned with analysis of the party's electoral performance or possibilities, interpretation and reinterpretation of party policy, or discussion of the ideological forces currently at work in the party. These studies have contributed greatly to our understanding of the policy of the party. But there have been only one or two recent works on the organization and composition of the Labor party, and hardly any on the organizational and policy-making importance of the affiliated trade unions which make up its electoral and financial strength. This is understandable in view of the fact that the trade union elements, unlike those in the party's political wing, have not generally provided the policy controversy upon which both publicists and academicians feed. But the strength and stability which the trade unions provide for the party are probably of more long-term importance than are the topical conflicts of the "political side."It is the purpose of this article to discuss the organization and functions of the British Labor party in terms of the formal and informal interrelations of the political and industrial elements, mainly during the years 1945–1953. Policy and policy conflicts are subordinated here to an institutional and statistical analysis of these interrelations.