The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (75 page)

Disjointed incrementalism occurs when the making of policy is divided into stages, in such a way that by separately considering
we arrive at a conclusion less justifiable than if we had considered the whole,
P
. A paradigm example at the level of public decision-making occurs in road planning: A motorway is constructed from A to B. It creates such a large traffic flow entering B that there is a very powerful argument for extending it to C and so on to E. However, had we to consider a road from A to E
per se
, we might have seen more properly the disadvantages of such a scheme and either left well alone or built a railway. Disjointed incrementalism has acquired the nickname ‘salami politics’ for no better reason than that salami is a sausage almost invariably eaten in slices.
LA 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

The act of bringing about the end of a parliament, followed by the issuing of writs for the election of a new one. In many countries parliaments have fixed terms leading to predictable dissolution. Other constitutions allow governments the right to determine the length of a parliament and the timing of a dissolution. The United Kingdom, by contrast, has few rules concerning dissolution, a situation which continues to fuel active debate. Under the 1911 Parliament Act it is laid down that no parliament should last longer than five years. Formally, dissolution is by royal proclamation. In practice few parliaments run the full term. Prime ministers frequently request a dissolution at a time when an election could be held to keep or increase the governing party's majority. The monarch complies, although the proper response to such a request in the context of a
hung parliament
is unclear. Alternatively, a prime minister may be forced to request a dissolution as a result of the government losing a vote of confidence in the House of Commons. Critics suggest that the power to dissolve is unfair to non-incumbents, and that fixed-term parliaments would be fairer. Alternatively it is contested that fixedterm parliaments could saddle the country with weak minority or coalition governments as well as governments which have lost the confidence of the House of Commons and hence the capacity to take decisions on controversial issues. The flexibility in current practice allows for dissolutions which meet the need for effective governing majorities and changes in government.
JBr 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

The principle or set of principles explaining what justice requires when some good (or bad) is distributed amongst persons. The general requirement of distributive justice is
suum cuique
, to each his or her due; but this does not yet explain how we should determine what is due to a person. Common bases for this calculation are needs, rights or entitlement, and desert. Hence what is due to a person would depend, respectively, on level of neediness, on rights or similar claims already possessed, or on desert. All three notions need further elaboration, and desert is especially open to interpretation. Disputes about distributive justice arise in three principal ways. The first dispute concerns the spheres in which we are willing to apply notions of distributive justice. Are the requirements of distributive justice to be applied to just any (dis)benefit persons may enjoy, or should its sphere be restricted—for example, is distributive justice relevant to developing friendship? A second source of difficulty arises if a measure of need, desert, or entitlement is required. For example, even those who might agree that distributive justice should respond to neediness or merit can disagree about how to assess it. Lastly, what is the proper response to the number of possible interpretations of
suum cuique
? For example, should we recognize only one distributive principle to be used across all spheres? Or should we take account of a plurality of principles, perhaps by using different principles within different spheres? What is to be done when the principles require conflicting distributions?
AR 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

The doctrine that the right to rule comes from God, and that kings are answerable to him alone. This theory has its origins in the medieval controversy between the Church and secular rulers as to the origin of political power. All were agreed that it came ultimately from God who alone held the right over life and death. What was at issue was the route. The papacy held that it came through God's representative, the Church and its ministers. Anti-papalists, such as
Dante
, maintained that power in secular matters came directly from God to the monarch, whether he be elected or hereditary. The argument took a somewhat different turn in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with the rise of absolute monarchs in France and England. In its more extreme form, as stated, for instance, in
Basilikon Doron
by King James I, it says that:

(1) political power comes directly from God to a hereditary monarch;
(2) that monarch has absolute power which cannot be in any way restrained; and
(3) anyone who opposes the monarch in any way is guilty of treason and liable to death, and, possibly, damnation.

Filmer
gave divine right a patriarchal base by attempting to ground it on the authority God gave to Adam, as the father of the human race.
The doctrine was opposed by the Jesuits—Bellarmine and
Suarez
in particular. It was brutally set aside in England by Cromwell and in France by the Republic in 1792–3. In England it was revived by Charles II but died with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 ( see also
Locke
).
CB 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

The systematic (but not necessarily planned or imposed) division of functions, tasks, or activities. Plato's Republic is built upon a functional division of labour: the Philosophers determine the law, the Auxiliaries act as a military force and executive branch, and the Producers undertake the economic activity necessary to provide everyone with sustenance and themselves with comfort. This particular division of labour, Plato argues, reflects the requirements of nature (since individuals have different natural capacities) while producing a harmonious whole. Other important forms of the division of labour are sexual, geographical, and social. Men and women have undertaken different activities, although contemporary understandings of what is conventional or the result of domination reject earlier views of what is natural in such arrangements. Geographical division of labour may emerge where different localities have different climatic and soil conditions; one form which has been thought important is the division of labour between town and country. Social division of labour refers to the separation of activities between individuals within society, and is often linked to the existence of classes. The division of labour has been regarded as an important explanation of increased productivity in
industrial society
, although it has also been identified with alienation, demoralization, and the imposition of labour discipline. These negative features of the division of labour have been particularly emphasized in relation to the removal of direct producers from the product market, and the intensification of the division of labour involved when one person repetitively performs the same detailed operation. Whether a ‘harmonious whole’ co-exists with extensive division of labour, or how one might be achieved, remain fundamental issues.
AR