The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (278 page)

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

A willingness not to interfere with beliefs, attitudes, or actions despite a lack of sympathy for them or despite dislike of them. The value of toleration is said to lie in the absence of interference despite an initial reaction of dislike, even when the capacity (or power) so to interfere is available. Since ‘interference’ is a vague term, covering interventions ranging from the provision of persuasive arguments to legal coercion, the boundaries of toleration are inevitably unclear. For example, a person may claim to tolerate a practice of which he or she disapproves, on the ground that he or she does not support the legal prohibition (under penalty) of that practice. If, however, that ‘legal toleration’ is coupled to a willingness to make disapproval of the practice evident in social life, for example by ostracism or warning others against association with the person whose practices are disapproved, then the degree of toleration is disputable. In political contexts, the toleration of religious diversity has, historically, been the most significant issue: To what extent is the state entitled to require particular religious observance? In a multicultural society, there is always the possibility that one group will think a particular practice incumbent upon it, while other groups will find that practice anathema. An especially troublesome issue about the limits of toleration may be posed thus: To what extent should toleration be extended to the intolerant? This question parallels a problem in democratic theory: To what extent should a democratic polity permit the activities of anti-democratic political organizations?
AR 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

(1828–1910)
Russian writer, ascetic, pacifist, and anarchist. Moral critic of tsarism. Advocated the abolition of the state and property—the sources of exploitation— and the creation of a communal society based upon Christian principles. He stressed personal redemption rather than political resistance, and was an important influence upon
Gandhi
.
GS 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

More than just a colloquial synonym for
Conservatism
, the word Tory is older. Derived from the Irish for ‘pursuer’, it was applied first to Catholic outlaws in mid-seventeenth-century Ireland, as in a proclamation of 1647 about ‘roberies… comitted by the Tories and Rebells upon the Protestants’. It was then applied by their enemies to those who opposed the exclusion of the Catholic James, later James II, from the throne (‘the Word
Tory
was entertained, which signified the most despicable Savages among the Wild Irish’). From this it settled during the eighteenth century into meaning the party which was more pro-royalist, more in favour of the privileges of the established Church, and less in favour of parliamentary supremacy, than its
Whig
rival. In the American Revolution, those who remained loyal to the king and the colonial administration (many of whom fled to Canada) were called ‘Tories’ because they often were.
‘Conservative’ superseded ‘Tory’ as the official title of the party in the mid-nineteenth century. Apart from its colloquial uses, however, Toryism survives as a useful label for a particular strand of Conservatism. It was classically characterized by Samuel Beer in
Modern British Politics
(1965), who opens by recording that Sir John Anderson warned his fellow-Conservatives in 1947, in the words of Shakespeare's Ulysses, ‘Take but degree away, untune that string, | And hark, what discord follows’ (
Troilus
, I. iii. 109).’ (Michael Portillo, regarded as one of the leaders of the intellectual right of the Conservative Party, quoted the same passage of Shakespeare in early 1994). In Beer's characterization, Tory thought is concerned with preserving existing hierarchies and traditions, because they are thought to protect social order. This may be reflected in such diverse policy areas as defending the establishment of the Church of England, promoting Shakespeare and/or Christianity in schools, and reinstating Rutland County Council.

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

A dictatorial form of centralized government that regulates every aspect of state and private behaviour. Although the term was originally intended to designate fascist and communist regimes, totalitarianism is mainly associated with characterizations of the
Soviet Union
. Its proponents do not agree on when, if ever, the Soviet Union ceased to be totalitarian, but they tend to converge on the view that at some point the political leadership was both all powerful and totally illegitimate. For many commentators, the Soviet Union entered a new phase after the abandonment of mass terror on Stalin's death. However, others operating within the totalitarian paradigm point to institutional continuity, KGB harassment of dissidents, and the ever present possibilities of the reassertion of arbitrary state power until 1989. The total and sudden collapse of the Soviet Union since then casts doubt not only on this school, but perhaps on the whole concept of totalitarianism. In the 1970s, a new school of Sovietology emerged which pointed to evidence both for popular support for the regime and for widespread dispersion of power, at least in implementation of policy, among sectoral and regional authorities. For some of the ‘pluralists’, this was evidence of the ability of the regime to adapt to include new demands. However, totalitarian theorists claimed that the failure of the system to survive showed not only its inability to adapt but the formality of supposed popular participation. See also
Arendt
.
SWh 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search